Sacramento DA Joins Fight to Block Early Releases of Violent Criminals

The Sacramento County District Attorney’s office has filed argument in support of a lawsuit brought by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation to block the Newsom administration’s illegal early release of violent criminals from prison.

In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown authorized the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to adopt new regulations increasing sentence reduction credits (called “good time” credits) for inmates that it determined had behaved well and participated in rehabilitation programs. The Governor believed that Proposition 57, adopted by voters a year earlier, empowered the CDCR to award these credits without limits in order to shorten the sentences of inmates. In 2021 Governor Gavin Newsom directed CDCR to increase the number of inmates eligible for credits and the number of credits awarded to further expedite early releases.

Under these regulations, thousands of criminals, including murderers and sex offenders have been declared eligible for parole and released years earlier than their sentences prescribed.

One example is last year’s approval of parole for child murderer Patrick Goodman. Goodman, a repeat felon, beat his girlfriend’s three-year-old son to death in 2000. The medical examiner reported that the little boy died of a broken neck, broken ribs, a severed bowel, a severed artery, and 50 separate external injuries. In 2002 Goodwin was convicted of murder and child abuse in San Francisco and was sentenced to 25-years-to-life. Twenty-one years later, after 15 minutes of deliberation, two state Board of Parole Commissioners announced, “We find that Mr Goodman does not currently pose an unreasonable risk to public safety and is therefore suitable for parole.” Following news reports of Goodwin’s pending release and a personal appeal by the District Attorney to the Governor, the Board of Parole rescinded its decision. In most other cases, the public and the media do not know who or when violent criminals are being released.

In 2023 the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit on behalf of the families of crime victims to block these early releases arguing that Proposition 57 did not override state laws which proscribe who is eligible for “good time” credits and how many an inmate can receive. CJLF urged the court to recognize that a state agency cannot adopt regulations contrary to state laws. On December 13, 2023, Superior Court Judge Jennifer Rockwell held that Proposition 57 did not authorize these new regulations to apply to offenders serving indeterminate sentences such as 25 or 15 years to life. Under the judge’s decision a convicted murderer or repeat violent offender must serve the full 15- or 25-year minimum term before the CDCR can award credits and consider parole.

The court also issued a writ of mandate ordering the CDCR and state parole to halt the releases while the state challenges the ruling on appeal.

In January 2024, Attorney General Rob Bonta asked the Third District Court of Appeal to overturn Judge Rockwell’s decision.

CJLF has filed its cross-appeal encouraging the appellate court to extend the bar on increased “good time” credits to all violent state prison inmates. “The law limits violent criminals on fixed sentences to 15 percent credits. CDCR has no valid authority to break that cap,” said CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.

The need for this extension is evident in the case of Devin Calderon. On March 14, 2022, Calderon, a repeat drunk driver, ran her pickup truck into 16-year-old Angel Renteria, who was walking her dog in the rural Sacramento County town of Galt. Calderon drove away with a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit. She was arrested after crashing into a patrol car. Renteria was severely injured and will spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair and unable to speak. Calderon was sentenced to eight years in prison but, after serving less than two years CDCR has deemed her eligible for early release.

On February 4, 2025, the Sacramento District Attorney’s office filed a brief in support of the CJLF position. In excerpts from the brief, Deputy District Attorney David Boyd writes: “[T]here can be little doubt that construing Proposition 57 to grant CDCR plenary authority to grant credits to whomever it pleases, whether or not the voters or the Legislature have agreed, or will agree in the future, renders these Constitutional provisions a dead letter…. Effectively repealing such significant parts of our Constitution should require a more direct approach so that it can be unquestionably agreed that is what was intended, especially since CDCR has applied the majority of its increased good conduct credits to the very populations the voters have repeatedly rejected: violent criminals, those who commit repeat serious and violent crimes, habitual sex offenders, aggravated sex offenders, and murderers. ‘[O]ne constitutional provision “should not be construed to effect the implied repeal of another constitutional provision.” ’ (City and County of San Francisco v. County of San Mateo (1995) 10 Cal.4th 554, 567.) CDCR’s claim of the power to do so without the voters explicitly saying so should be rejected.”

Oral argument in the case of CJLF v. CDCR has yet to be scheduled.