Summary
California Court of Appeal case challenging a statute that makes young adult rapists eligible for parole far earlier than a voter initiative provides. CJLF is representing a victim of crime and a victim services organization challenging this law.
Jessica M., then 23, was waiting for a bus in Los Angeles when Sergio Linares, then 25, abducted her at knife point, forced her into his car, took her to an isolated location and committed numerous sex crimes against her over an extended period. He could have been sentenced to 136-to-life for these crimes, but the prosecution agreed to a plea bargain that guaranteed he would be locked up for at least 42 years under the law at the time. This sentence was imposed under a law that had been extensively rewritten in a 2006 initiative called Jessica's Law. Under the California Constitution and the terms of the initiative, it cannot be amended by the Legislature except by a bill that receives a two-thirds vote in both houses. Even so, the Legislature in 2017 extended so-called "youth offender parole" to criminals who commit crimes before their 26th birthday, even murderers and rapists. The bill making this amendment did not receive the required two-thirds vote. Under this statute, Linares received a parole hearing after only 15 years, little more than one-third of the time promised at sentencing. To oppose the unjustly early release, Jessica M. had to attend the hearing and relive the trauma she had suffered years earlier. This kind of revictimization is committed regularly by the Board of Parole Hearings, depriving victims of crime of the finality and the peace of mind they were guaranteed by Jessica's Law and by Marsy's Law in 2008.
In 2024, Jessica M. and Crime Survivors, Inc., a victim service organization, filed suit to stop these illegally early hearings. Kathleen Cady, then a private attorney representing victims, and CJLF provided representation without fee in the trial court. The trial judge denied relief. After Ms. Cady returned to the district attorney's office, CJLF took on sole representation. We appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second District in Los Angeles. Our brief argues that the sentencing law is an initiative statute within the meaning of the California Constitution, that the Legislature illegally amended it, and that victims and victim service organizations have standing to challenge it. The case is pending in the Court of Appeal and will likely be decided in 2026.
