In re Adams

Filed 6/18/19 In re Adams CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re RONALD LEE ADAMS
on
Habeas Corpus.
B292106
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BH011798)
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas
corpus. William C. Ryan, Judge. Petition granted.
Michael Satris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Petitioner.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Phillip J. Lindsay,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Malone and
Jennifer O. Cano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Ronald Lee Adams is a third-strike inmate
currently serving an indeterminate life term of imprisonment for
carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a))1 and taking a vehicle
without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). His
prior convictions include two 1981 registrable sex offenses for
which he served a two-year prison term. In August 2018, he filed
a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) erred in finding him
ineligible for an early parole hearing pursuant to Proposition 57.
We issued an order to show cause and now grant the petition.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Adams’ Prior Sex Offense Convictions Do Not Bar Early
Parole Consideration
The CDCR’s regulations deem Adams ineligible for an early
parole hearing because he was previously convicted of registrable
sex offenses. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3496, subd. (b) [“[A]n
inmate is not eligible for a parole consideration hearing by the
Board of Parole Hearings . . . if the inmate is convicted of a
sexual offense that currently requires or will require registration
as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act,
codified in sections 290 through 290.024 of the Penal Code”].)
In In re Gadlin (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 784, review granted
May 15, 2019, S254599 (Gadlin), we held these regulations
invalid insofar as they bar early parole consideration for an
inmate who, like Adams, is subject to registration under section
1 Unless otherwise stated, all further section references are
to the Penal Code.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
290 for a prior crime for which the inmate has already fully
served his or her sentence (as opposed to inmates who are not
incarcerated as a result of a conviction for a crime specified in
section 290). As we explained in Gadlin, the regulation is
inconsistent with article I, section 32, subdivision (b)(1) of the
California Constitution and therefore void. (See Henning v.
Division of Occupational Saf. & Health (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d
747, 757-758 [“ ‘[T]here is no agency discretion to promulgate a
regulation which is inconsistent with the governing statute. . . .
Administrative regulations that alter or amend the statute or
enlarge or impair its scope are void.’ [Citation.]”.)
As Adams is identically situated to Gregory Gadlin in all
material respects, we adopt our holding in Gadlin and grant the
petition for writ of habeas corpus.
B. The CDCR’s Other Arguments Have Been Mooted or
Withdrawn
The CDCR has advanced two other reasons for denying
early parole consideration to Adams. As these arguments are
now moot or withdrawn, we summarize them only briefly.
Adams was originally found ineligible for an early parole
hearing because the emergency regulations in effect at the time
classified third-strike inmates, like Adams, as violent offenders.
(See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, former § 3490, subd. (a).) In May
2018, the CDCR adopted final regulations omitting this
provision, but nonetheless categorically excluded third-strike
inmates from Proposition 57 parole consideration. (See Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 15, former § 3491, subd. (b)(1).) In In re Edwards
(2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1181 (Edwards), we invalidated this
regulation. The CDCR has since promulgated revised emergency
regulations, effective January 1, 2019, to comply with our holding

-- 3 of 5 --

4
in Edwards. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3491, subd. (b)(1),
Register 2018, No. 52 (Dec. 26, 2018).) These modified
regulations moot the CDCR’s position that Adams is ineligible for
early parole consideration because he is a third strike offender.
In its return to our order to show cause, the CDCR argued
Adams is ineligible for early parole consideration because
carjacking is classified as a violent felony under section 667.5,
subdivision (c)(17) and has been so classified since 2000. Adams
countered that he committed his crime in 1999, when carjacking
was a violent felony only if it was “charged and proved that the
defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon as
provided in subdivision (b) of section 12022 in the commission of
the carjacking.” (Former § 667.5, subd. (c)(17).) Adams was not
charged with using a weapon under section 12022,
subdivision (b). In a motion filed May 21, 2019, the CDCR
withdrew its argument that Adams is ineligible for an early
parole hearing because carjacking is now a violent offense under
section 667.5, subdivision (c)(17). As such, we do not address the
merits of the argument.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
III. DISPOSITION
Our disposition of this proceeding is accordingly as follows:
The petition for habeas corpus is granted. The California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is directed to
evaluate Adams for early parole consideration within 60 days of
the issuance of our remittitur.
RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BAKER, J.
MOOR, J.

-- 5 of 5 --