In re Mohammad
Annotate this Case
After petitioner pleaded no contest to nine counts of second degree robbery and six counts of receiving stolen property, the trial court designated one of the receiving stolen property counts of conviction (count 11) as petitioner's principal sentencing term, and ordered the sentences imposed for the remaining convictions to run consecutively as subordinate terms. Petitioner subsequently requested an early parole hearing pursuant to Proposition 57, arguing that he had completed the three-year term of his nonviolent primary offense. However, CDCR denied the request and petitioner sought habeas relief.
The Court of Appeal held that CDCR's implementing regulations that condition eligibility for early parole consideration on status as a "nonviolent offender" are not consistent with the constitutional provision that authorizes their promulgation. The court explained that CDCR's regulations, which focus on the offender and not the offense, are inconsistent with the Constitution's text. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for habeas relief, and directed CDCR to treat as void and repeal California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3490, subdivision (a)(5) and to thereafter make further changes as necessary to ensure its Proposition 57 implementing regulations are consistent with this opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.