Oct 15, 2016

If Prop 57, passes, some one at Department of Corrections could decide the fate of Gary Lee Bullock and Jason Warren or Kailan Meserve

A concerned citizen contacted me saying, who is not an ideal inmate in prison?

I looked into the matter and took me a while to find the information below. I also spoke with Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Andrew Isaac, before I found the information below.

He explained to me that Gary Lee Bullock, who is sentenced to life without parole, in addition to a determinate sentence, has two terms of life without parole as his base sentence and would have to serve that, before he could be eligible for parole.

Could a defense attorney get creative? Mr. Isaac and others certainly think that is a possibility, so cannot rule anything out.

Prop 47 came nicely and misleadingly titled and we have seen the consequences. Prop 57 is just another disaster waiting to happen.

Listed below is an opinion by Michele Hanisee,President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys.

The Reality of Prop 57
By Michele Hanisee
As absentee ballots are beginning to be mailed out, it is necessary to again summarize what Proposition 57 does. It provides for earlier release of ALL inmates not serving a death sentence or life without parole sentence. It allows the Parole Board to release decades' early inmates who have committed violent crimes, including sex crimes, without the ability for review by a court or the Governor.

What Proposition 57 IS NOT is a narrowly crafted initiative limited to "non-violent" inmates.

First, Proposition 57 changes the Constitution to remove the Legislature as the sole branch of government which can enact sentence credits. Instead, it allows unelected, faceless and nameless bureaucrats at the Department of Corrections to invent any kind of sentence credits they want. As written in Section 32(a)(2), "The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall have authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements."There is no restriction on the inmates to whom it applies; thus, these Department of Corrections can invent and apply new sentence credits for all inmates.  

Next, it allows early release via parole of inmates who have served only a fraction of their imposed sentence, as long as they have completed "the full term for his or her primary offense." Consecutive sentences imposed because the inmate committed crimes against multiple victims can be ignored. In addition, "life sentence" enhancements imposed on habitual sex offenders, gang offenders, or three strikers.

The initiative has no criteria for what will guide consideration for parole. Instead, as soon as the full term for the primary offense is completed, an inmate is eligible for parole. If the Parole Board decides to parole an inmate, that decision is not reviewable by a court or the Governor. In short, the power to determine the length of sentences for convicted felons has been transferred from the courts to the Parole Board.

These three issues are serious and on their own are reason to oppose Proposition 57. However, as outlined in a fact sheet on our website, there are other numerous dangerous flaws with Proposition 57 which should lead to its defeat. We urge you to read our fact sheet, keep in mind the points above, and vote "NO" on Proposition 57.

To learn more about this dangerous initiative, please visit,www.stop57.com
Please share this or our other related blogs on social media.  To read or share the blogs, please click on the hyperlinks below: (1) Prop 57-A "Criminal's Bill of Rights." (2)  Governor Brown, Time to Debate Prop 57(3) Jerry Brown, Line 1 - It's Your Flawed Initiative Calling (4)Proposition 57 Unmasked: A Detailed Analysis of the Misleading Initiative (5)Those Who Care About Victims of Sex Crimes Should Oppose Gov. Brown's Initiative (6) Stanford Sexual Assault Case Typifies California's New Approach to Criminals (7) Governor's spokesperson confirms his initiative will allow early release of violent inmates (8)  Gov. Brown: Longing for the 70's (9) Governor Brown's Power Grab (10) The truth will defeat an oft-repeated lie (11) Low-income communities will be devastated by felon-freeing fiasco (12) L.A. Gangs Will Love Governor's Ballot Initiative (13) Felon-freeing initiative advances (14) A Radically Dangerous Experiment with Public Safety and (15) Wait in Line Governor and (16) False statements might be Prop 57's winning formula 


  1. The nonpartisan legislative analysts office is a good source for neutral info on state propositions:
    BTW, there is absolutely nothing in Prop. 57 that would allow Warren or Bullock to breath a free breath ever again. Nothing.

  2. There are many reasons to vote against Prop 57. Your one link is one opinion. I don't trust it because it not non partisan as you claim. It is a government site in California with the same idiot Governor who does not care about public safety.

  3. Well, the LAO doesn't seem like an organization with an axe to grind. From their website, "The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has provided fiscal and policy advice to the Legislature for 75 years. It is known for its fiscal and programmatic expertise and nonpartisan analyses of the state budget. The office serves as the "eyes and ears" for the Legislature to ensure that the executive branch is implementing legislative policy in a cost efficient and effective manner."

    But Prop 57 smelled rotten when it first made its appearance. I thought the same thing about it as you mentioned: that just like Prop 47 it will be a disaster for communities throughout the state. But hey! it will reduce the prison population, which will keep the Feds off the state's back. Huh.

    1. Bones, in an ideal world, every commenter would be like you. So glad for your feedback. Besides your moniker is one of my favorite TV shows.

  4. I hope all opposed to Prop 57 vote yes on Prop 55 to extend the Governor's tax increases. It does cost money (lots and lots of money) to build prisons. Current capacity is about 110,000. In 2006 we had about 170,000. I agree with most that 57 is probably bad policy. However, CA used to have an indeterminant sentencing system, that was swapped for the current construct. Current system did not reduce crime, it increased it.

  5. The increase in crime--both nonviolent property and physical violence is on the upswing in southern California again across the board. More auto theft, more residential burglaries, more 'gang' violence, drive by shootings, even more bank robberies. No real safety net for early releases, no jobs (not that they'd take them) and a lot of bad habits and skills developed while in prison. I guess I hoped it would work. It didn't, it isn't, and it won't.

    The problem is not the cost of new prisons but with the cost of staffing them:

    and it gets worse:
    there has to be a better system which won't bankrupt the state and the taxpayers. There's a lot of cheap land in the high desert in southern California...

  6. Gabriele: Great points and I don't disagree with you. Property crimes are on the increase all over CA. Less so from 47, which at least was voted on vis'-a-vis' realignment which is really what caused the problems and sent very few to prison. Union costs and California's unsustainable public pension system are literally preventing staff operations of any new prison. Priorities and choices. Gov. Brown at least took a chunk out of the pension system and made it two-tiered. A step in the right direction.