Jessica M. v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation

── Jessica M. v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN JESSICA M. et al., B343930 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 24STCP02901) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION et al., Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Judge. Affirmed. Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and Kent S. Scheidegger for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Sara J. Romano, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda J. Murray, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Jennifer L. Heinisch, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondents. _______________________________  In 2008 Sergio Linares pleaded no contest to rape and four other forcible sex offenses perpetrated against Jessica M. when he was 25 years old, and he admitted the allegation he used a knife in committing the crimes. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the trial court sentenced Linares under Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (c), 1 to an aggregate sentence of 50 years in state prison, comprising full, consecutive terms of eight years for each of the five sex offenses, plus 10 years for the weapon enhancement. In March 2023, at the beginning of the 15th year of his sentence, Linares received a youth offender parole hearing pursuant to section 3051, subdivision (b)(1). Jessica appeared at the hearing to oppose parole, and parole was denied. However, the California Board of Parole Hearings (Board) set a new parole suitability hearing. Jessica and Crime Survivors, Inc., a nonprofit advocacy group supporting crime victims, contend section 3051 is unconstitutional as applied to forcible sex offenders sentenced under section 667.6’s alternative sentencing scheme because section 3051 amended an initiative statute without a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or voter approval, in violation of Article II, section 10, subdivision (c), of the California Constitution. Specifically, they argue that Proposition 83 (the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act: Jessica’s Law), approved by the voters in November 2006, amended section 667.6, subdivisions (c) and (d), which, respectively, authorize or mandate imposition of “full, separate, and consecutive term[s]” for enumerated sex offenses. Thus, they argue, section 3051, enacted in 2013, was 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 unconstitutional as applied to youth offenders who committed forcible sex offenses because it provides parole hearings after only 15 years of incarceration, contravening Proposition 83’s mandate of longer sentences for sex offenders. In September 2024 Jessica and Crime Survivors filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking an order directing the Board and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to terminate Linares’s youth offender parole proceeding and refrain from enforcing section 3051 as to any California prisoners who were sentenced to full, consecutive terms under section 667.6, subdivisions (c) or (d). 2 The superior court assumed without deciding that Jessica had standing (but not Crime Survivors); however, the court denied the petition. Jessica has standing because she has a beneficial interest in whether Linares is eligible for early parole under section 3051, in light of amendments to the California Constitution made by the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008, commonly known as Marsy’s Law. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28.) 3 We conclude Proposition 83 did not make substantive changes to section 667.6, subdivisions (c) and (d). Section 667.6 provided for imposition of full, consecutive sentences