## Facts

- Ural King was serving a sentence of 25 years to life for a 2000 conviction of possessing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, a nonviolent felony under California law.
- California voters approved Proposition 57 (Cal. Const. art. I, § 32(a)(1)), requiring early parole consideration for persons “convicted of a nonviolent felony offense” after completion of the full term for the primary offense.
- CDCR adopted regulations implementing Proposition 57 that categorically excluded inmates who were required to register as sex offenders, even if their current commitment offense was nonviolent.
- King sought Proposition 57 early parole consideration; CDCR denied consideration solely because King was required to register as a sex offender based on prior sex offenses, not his current nonviolent drug offense.
- King filed an original petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the regulation as conflicting with the constitutional text.

## Issues

1. Whether CDCR may categorically deny Proposition 57 early parole consideration to inmates required to register as sex offenders based on prior convictions when the current commitment offense is a nonviolent felony.
2. Whether Cal. Const. art. I, § 32(a)(1) ties eligibility for early parole consideration to the present offense of conviction rather than to an inmate’s criminal history or registration status.
3. Whether the challenged regulation exceeds CDCR’s rulemaking authority by materially limiting a constitutional entitlement created by Proposition 57.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the habeas petition.
- The court held the “plain language” of article I, section 32(a)(1) requires early parole consideration to be based solely on the present offense of conviction.
- The court invalidated CDCR’s categorical exclusion of sex-offender registrants where registration is based on prior convictions and the current offense is nonviolent.
- The court ordered that King be afforded Proposition 57 early parole consideration consistent with article I, section 32(a)(1).

## Legal Principles

- When a constitutional provision conditions a benefit on being “convicted of a nonviolent felony offense,” eligibility is determined by the current conviction, not by prior convictions or collateral status arising from prior offenses.
- Agency regulations adopted to “implement” a voter-enacted constitutional command may not contradict, narrow, or materially limit the substantive entitlement granted by the constitutional text.
- Public-safety considerations and criminal history may be relevant to the ultimate parole decision, but they may not be used to impose an extra-textual threshold bar that eliminates a class of otherwise eligible inmates from consideration.

## Conclusion

The court held that Proposition 57 guarantees early parole consideration based on the present nonviolent conviction and that CDCR exceeded its implementing authority by categorically excluding inmates due to sex-offender registration triggered by prior offenses; King was entitled to consideration for early parole under the constitutional provision.


In re King on Habeas Corpus, 54 Cal. App. 5th 1131 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)