Felony Murder Elimination Project wishes to share a fact sheet addressing the impact of recent Superior and Appellate Court rulings in the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation v. CDCR litigation on Proposition 57 credits and parole release.

California Proposition 57, designed to help address prison overcrowding approved by voters in November 2016, is a law that expands parole and credit-earning opportunities for people convicted of nonviolent felonies and changes how juveniles are transferred to adult court. It is officially known as the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016.

Key Provisions of Prop 57:

• Parole Consideration: Allows individuals convicted of nonviolent felony offenses to be considered for parole after completing the full term of their primary offense, rather than extra time added by sentence enhancements.
• Good Behavior Credits: Authorizes the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to award sentence-reduction credits for rehabilitation, education, and good conduct.
• Juvenile Court Hearings: Requires a judge, ather than a prosecutor—to hold a hearing in juvenile court to decide if a youth should be tried in adult court.

In response to implementing Prop 57, CDCR adopted regulations that: (1) award credits beyond statutory limits and (2) use credits to advance all indeterminately-sentenced inmates’ minimum eligible parole dates (the regulations). The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and several family members of crime victims (collectively, petitioners) challenged the validity of these regulations through a petition for writ of mandate. The trial court denied the writ in part and granted it in part, invalidating the department’s regulations to the extent they allow the use of credits to advance an indeterminately-sentenced inmate’s minimum eligible parole date. Both the department and petitioners appealed.

The ongoing legal battle over Proposition 57 between the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and CDCR boils down to a fight over who gets to leave prison early, and which rules the state must follow.

For Fixed Sentences (A regular sentence with a set end date): The courts agree that Prop 57 works perfectly here. Incarcerated persons with regular, fixed sentences can earn credits to shorten their stay and leave prison early. Older laws that put a “cap” on how many credits they could earn are gone.

The litigation centers on Indeterminate (Life) Sentences: CDCR wanted to use these good-behavior credits to let “lifers” (like certain third-strikers) see the parole board sooner than their original minimum sentence allowed. Criminal Legal Justice Foundation, a “tough on crime” conservative, non-profit public interest law organization disagreed and filed suit.

The Court of Appeal stepped in and put on the brakes to CDCR’s proposed plans for indeterminate sentences. They ruled that while the prison system can technically give credits to lifers, it cannot use those credits to advance their parole dates if doing so breaks older, stricter laws passed by the legislature. Essentially, the court said Proposition 57 didn’t give the prison system a blank check to ignore existing laws about life sentences.

The California Supreme Court granted review on October 22, 2025, leaving the appellate limitation active while higher court proceedings continue. That review continues.

You (or your incarcerated loved one) are only impacted if ALL aspects of the following statement apply to you:
● You are indeterminately sentenced
● You were granted parole at a hearing that you were only eligible for because Prop 57 credits moved up your minimum eligible parole date
● You are still in CDCR custody

For more details, read and download this fact sheet —>>> CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATION v. CDCR Litigation Update & Frequently Asked Questions –– Impact On Prop 57 Credits And Parole Release UPDATED September 4, 2026 (note: This Fact Sheet Is Not Intended As Legal Advice In Any Individual’s Case.)