In re Hughes CA2/6

Filed 8/18/21 In re Hughes CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re WAYNE VERITEL 2d Crim. No. B309804 HUGHES (Super. Ct. Nos. F338205, 20HC-0009) on Habeas Corpus. (San Luis Obispo County)

Wayne Veritel Hughes filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking an order directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to determine his eligibility for early parole consideration. We deny the petition as moot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2003, a jury convicted Hughes of conspiracy to possess marijuana for sale and conspiracy to sell marijuana (Pen. Code,1 § 182, subd. (a)(1); Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11359, 11360,

1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.

subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that Hughes had suffered three prior “strike” convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), including a 1983 conviction for forcible rape that required him to register as a sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). It sentenced him to 25 years to life in state prison. Thirteen years later, the electorate adopted Proposition 57 (Prop. 57), which provides “that ‘any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for [their] primary offense.’ [Citation.]” (In re Gadlin (2020) 10 Cal.5th 915, 919 (Gadlin II), alterations omitted.) Prop. 57 also directed CDCR to adopt regulations to implement that provision. (Gadlin II, at p. 919.) In response, CDCR adopted “regulations [that] exclude[d] from nonviolent offender parole consideration any inmate who ‘[had been] convicted of a sexual offense that currently requires or will require registration as a sex offender’ under [SORA].’” (Ibid.) Hughes was among the inmates excluded from early parole consideration under the regulations. In 2019, our colleagues in Division 5 concluded that CDCR’s categorical exclusion of SORA registrants from early parole consideration conflicted with the plain language of Prop. 57, and invalidated the regulations. (In re Gadlin (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 784, 789-790 (Gadlin I).) The following year, Hughes filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court challenging CDCR’s refusal to determine his eligibility for early parole consideration, arguing that he was entitled to such a determination under Gadlin I. The court denied Hughes’s petition, noting that the Supreme Court had granted review of