All of these inmates would qualify for clemency consideration under the description of cruel and unusual punishment.
In this country we have a constitutional law against cruel and unusual punishment. However, The Supreme Court ruled rightfully in my opinion, that it was not cruel and unusual for California to give Santos Reyes a 26 year to life sentence for forging a driving test.
Under California Clemency a similar cruel and unusual punishment provision will establish the fact that California has redefined this portion of our US Constitution 8th Amendment rule to a State of California definition.

Mark Grangetto: serving 20 to live. This is a case of compassionate release.

1. Santos Reyes: serving 26 years to life sentence for forging a DMV text.

2. George Anderson: serving 25 years to life sentence for filling out a false DMV application.

3. Linda Susan Teague: serving 50 years to life for forgery.

4. GARY EWING: Serving 25 years to life for stealing three golf clubs.

5. Thomas Williams: serving 25 years to life sentence for possession of a stolen bicycle.

6. Leandro Andrade: serving 50 years to life for stealing children’s videos.

7. Hayward Doss: serving 25 years to life for possession of $2.00 of a controlled substance.

8. Richard Banales: serving 25 years to life sentence for possession of $3.00 worth of controlled substance while in jail.

9. Joseph Fomby, jr.: Serving 25 years to life sentence for possession for sale of marijuana.

10. John Walker Lindh: Federal prisoner. (Once a new federal clemency law is established many years from now he would still sitting in a federal prison and should be released)

How California Clemency would help Dennis Anderson

Dennis Anderson is serving a 17 year to life sentence for killing his wife and her boyfriend back in 1985.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported on 10/16/09 that during Anderson’s imprisonment, he has tutored blind inmates in braille, set up a hospice program for terminally ill inmates, served as a Roman Catholic minister and helped establish a financial planning program designed mainly for inmates suffering from AIDS, the court said in his appeal.
The appeals court ruled that the reason the parole board must give Anderson a new hearing is because their reason for denying him parole was not according to law.
California Clemency was not created with the intent to release violent or serious offenders. However any prisoner is eligible for a clemency hearing if the State prison system grossly violated an inmate's rights.
The parole board grossly denied Anderson his right to a fair hearing. Under California Clemency Anderson would not have to wait for the appeals court. He could take his case to a clemency hearing first to save time and not lose his ability to an appeal. And even if the clemency board said no he could still be released solely on the ruling of the appeals court (down the line) granting him a new PAROLE BOARD hearing.
The parole board offered an opinion not allowed by law when it ruled that Anderson lacked insight into his crimes and was using his bipolar disorder as an excuse and of course denied him parole on those grounds. Denying a prisoner parole must have a reason on what makes him unfit for parole.
CALIFORNIA CLEMENCY INSURES THAT A PRISONER WHO WAS PROMISED A FAIR PAROLE HEARING BY LAW GETS ONE OR HE/SHE GETS A FULL CLEMENCY.

1. Repeal the authority of the governor’s power to grant clemency in the State of California.
2. Create a new clemency law that supersedes all known and unknown laws in the State of California dealing with clemency. Under this new clemency law a new clemency board shall be created to handle all requests for clemency in California. At least one mini clemency board shall be established in every county in the State of California to handle considerations for clemency do to possible injustice on the part of the State, including prison overcrowding. Five citizens who reside in the county where the inmate was convicted will judge cases only from that same county. If these citizens agree to sit on a clemency board for up to one week (or longer if agreed) they will be paid for their services the sum of $100.00 a day. By random selection using current voter rolls in their county board members will be pre screened before sitting on any panel. The board members will review inmate request for clemency. While in session, they may review many request for that week’s session. Private Citizens, prisoner rights groups and professionals in the field may also petition the board on behalf of an inmate. The citizens of the California Clemency Board will have the power to release any qualified prisoner (once every seven years per individual) reduce his or her sentence or do nothing when the board rules that the prisoner was not unjustly treated by the prison system or judicial process. The California Clemency Board will also have the power to grant clemency for humanitarian reasons and release nonviolent prisoners under established guidelines when prison overcrowding is at unsafe levels. Any county who receives a clemency release shall also receive from the prison budget the sum of $8,000.00 or 1/6 the current California prison incarceration rate per release for rehabilitation services. The county must have State approved rehabilitation services in place to receive these prison budget funds. And the released must register with the county rehab within 30 days of release.
3. Create a State elected administrator to handle the financial responsibilities of the board, ensure that prisoner request are delivered to the county level in a timely manner and make rulings on fairness or fraud in the clemency board. THE CITIZENS OF THE CALIFORNIA CLEMENCY BOARD AND NOT THE ELECTED OFFICIAL WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON CLEMENCY.

Special note:
California Clemency Boards is not a get out of jail free card for those bent on committing crime and has many safe guards to prevent abuse of this new clemency process.

On August 4, 2009 a 3 judge panel in a federal court ruled the State of California has 45 days to come up with a plan to release 44,000 prisoners from California’s overcrowded prison system.

While listening to a PBS station earlier this week I learned that the State of California is going to offer up last Friday’s passed prison bill as the solution. If this is true then someone should go to jail for contempt. The deadline is Friday, September 18, 2009 and this Senate bill does not come close especially if you’re trying to pull a fast one over on these 3 judges.

The bill passed last week by the Senate offers no relief to this problem. California releases more than 10,000 prisoners a month already according to the Attorney General’s Office. Nowhere in the bill does it address serious measures for keeping people out of prison. It only tweaks technicalities that can send a person back to prison. This bill also calls for allowing 17,000 of our most healthy prisoners to be released but the Senate rejected a plan to release 6,300 of our most infirm or elderly prisoners which makes little sense when you cry “Public Safety.”

We can safely release 44,000 prisoners in two years as this federal court ruled we must do due to prison overcrowding and health conditions. The math works out to be on average 379 prisoners to each of the 58 counties in California at a rate of 32 prisoners each month to those counties in two years equals about 44,544. And since studies have shown that more than half of those incarcerated in our prison system are nonviolent we can also sleep at night.

Lawmakers must first make the release of prisoner easy to understand. Because the easier it is to understand the better chance you have that the convicted felon would follow it.

Lawmakers must be willing to offer an incentive that only a fool would pass up. Offer a full pardon if the released inmate stays out of any United States prison system for 3, 4 or 5 years, depending on their prison record. This is an incentive that is sure to get the attention of anyone who realizes they made a mistake and here is the best way to prove their remorse. Extend this offer to those currently on parole and watch the rate of returning offender drop. Now no one in their right mind would make this offer to a murderer or sex offender but even they will be released and should be offered some kind of incentive not to re-offend.

Finally but most important the State of California must offer a sum of $8,000.00 going directly to the county (must have State approved services in place) for each prisoner it receives from this release for rehabilitation services only. No release of thousands of inmates without rehabilitation services will succeed.

If that is too radical and we don’t want to spend $352,000,000 on these released inmate’s rehabilitation services then we can simply forget it.

Simply put, prisoners don’t need assistance in going back to prison they need assistance in staying out of prison.

According to an article I read in AlterNet, Montel Johnson is wanted by the State of California.

Montel Johnson requires "total care," according to a court statement submitted this summer by Chicago neurologist Dr. Norman Kohn. "He is severely impaired in speech and communication. His speech is almost unintelligible," the statement reads. "He relies on his mother for communication and decision-making." Indeed, his mother has worked out a system in which she goes through the alphabet and he opens and closes his eyes to try to signal the words he is trying to say. She says she is the only person patient enough to walk him through the process.

Despite all this, California officials are pressing forward to take him back -- and the state of Illinois is cooperating. According to a sworn affidavit by the Chief Legal Counsel for the Illinois Department of Corrections, an "air ambulance company" has already been contacted to arrange the transfer of Johnson to California. On August 5, Judith Harper, Assistant Chief Counsel for the CDCR wrote to James Doran, a lawyer in the Illinois Attorney General's office, to "confirm our conversation this morning" that the CDCR "is expecting that [Johnson] will be returned to California to serve out the sentence imposed on him here."

The California Senate on Friday September 11, 2009 passed a bill that would release 17,000 of the State’s most healthy convicted felons and rejected a plan to release 6,300 of its most infirmed and elderly convicted felons.

I sure would like someone to try and defend these two dumb moves by California officials.

It is not clear if the California authorities have brought Johnson back to California yet. Of course his mother has gone to court to block it but I have not herd any more on this story.

If you would like to read the full story on Montel Johnson web search www.alternet.org