In re Gadlin (Cal. 2020)

In re Gadlin, No. S254599 (Cal. 2020)

Nature of Case: Respondent had been convicted of two prior felony offenses that required registration as a sex offender, and was serving time for a non-violent felony offense. Because of his prior convictions, he received a 35-to-life sentence under California’s “Three Strikes” law.

Subsequently, California voters approved a state constitutional amendment expanding parole eligibility to people who were convicted of non-violent offenses. The California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (CDCR) promulgated regulations implementing this amendment, but excluded people convicted of sex offenses or required to register — such as Respondent. Respondent brought a Habeas Corpus petition which the trial court denied, but the Court of Appeal granted. The State sought review from the California Supreme Court.

Holding: The California Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, finding that the CDCR had improperly excluded the Respondent from parole consideration in line with the text of the constitutional amendment and CDCR’s own internal regulations.