{"id":216,"date":"2026-04-23T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=216"},"modified":"2026-04-23T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T12:00:00","slug":"jessica-m-cdcr-section-3051-youth-offender-parole-section-667-6-jessicas-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=216","title":{"rendered":"Jessica M. v. CDCR \u2014 Penal Code Section 3051 Youth Offender Parole Hearings Constitutional as Applied to Forcible Sex Offenders Sentenced Under Section 667.6"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Jessica M. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-23<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B343930<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Penal Code section 3051; youth offender parole; Penal Code section 667.6; Proposition 83 (Jessica’s Law); initiative amendments; Marsy’s Law; victim standing<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

In 2008, Sergio Linares pleaded no contest to rape and four other forcible sex offenses against Jessica M. when he was 25 years old, and admitted using a knife. He was sentenced under Penal Code section 667.6(c) to an aggregate term of 50 years in state prison, comprising full consecutive terms for each of the five sex offenses plus an enhancement.<\/p>\n

In 2013, the Legislature enacted Penal Code section 3051, which provides youth offender parole hearings for offenders sentenced for crimes committed when they were under 26 years of age. Under section 3051(b)(1), most youth offenders are entitled to a parole hearing in their 15th year of incarceration. In March 2023, Linares received such a hearing, and Jessica appeared to oppose parole. Parole was denied, but the Board set a new suitability hearing.<\/p>\n

Jessica and Crime Survivors, Inc., a victims’ rights advocacy group, filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to end Linares’s youth offender parole proceedings and to prohibit section 3051 hearings for prisoners sentenced under section 667.6’s full consecutive sentence scheme. They argued that section 3051 unconstitutionally amended Proposition 83 (Jessica’s Law, approved by voters in 2006) without the required two-thirds legislative vote or voter approval. The trial court denied the petition. Jessica appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Seven, affirmed. The court first held that Jessica had standing because, under Marsy’s Law (the 2008 Victims’ Bill of Rights Act), crime victims have a beneficial interest in matters affecting whether their offenders may be released early. The court did not reach Crime Survivors’ standing because Jessica’s standing was sufficient.<\/p>\n

On the merits, the court held that Penal Code section 3051 is constitutional as applied to forcible sex offenders sentenced under section 667.6’s full consecutive sentence scheme. The constitutional rule that initiative statutes may be amended only by another vote of the people or by a supermajority of the Legislature applies only to substantive amendments. Restating an existing statute without changing its substance does not constitute an amendment requiring voter or supermajority legislative action.<\/p>\n

Section 667.6 had provided for full consecutive sentences for enumerated forcible sex offenses since 1979, well before Proposition 83. Proposition 83 restated section 667.6, moved the list of qualifying offenses to a new subdivision (e), and made some clarifying and streamlining changes. The only substantive changes were to expand the list of qualifying offenses in subdivision (e). Section 3051’s youth offender parole provisions did not amend, modify, or undermine these substantive changes; they simply added a parole hearing mechanism that operates regardless of the underlying sentencing scheme.<\/p>\n

The court was also unpersuaded that restating section 667.6 was integral to the voters’ goals in enacting Proposition 83. The ballot materials focused on Proposition 83’s expanded sex offender registration, residency restrictions, civil commitment provisions, and other measures, not on locking in the existing full consecutive sentencing structure of section 667.6.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n