In re King
Annotate this Case
In 2016, Proposition 57 amended the California Constitution to allow early parole consideration for persons “convicted of a nonviolent felony.” The regulations the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) adopted pursuant to Proposition's authority excluded from early parole consideration any person convicted of an offense requiring the person to register as a sex offender. Ural King was serving 25 years to life for 2000 conviction of possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. The CDCR denied King early parole consideration under Proposition 57 on the ground that he was required to register as a sex offender because of prior offenses. King petitioned for habeas relief, claiming that the CDCR’s regulation improperly excluded from the benefits of Proposition 57 inmates like him who were serving sentences for nonviolent offenses but were required to register as sex offenders because of prior offenses.
The Court of Appeal concluded the plain language of section Cal. Const., art. I, section 32(a)(1) required early parole consideration to be based solely on the present offense of conviction. The Court therefore concluded the CDCR regulation excluding from early parole consideration prisoners who were required to register as sex offenders because of prior convictions was invalid. Consequently, King’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted.
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.