California lawmakers move to restrict elderly parole for serious sex offenders

California lawmakers advanced a bill Wednesday to prevent serious sex offenders from being released from prison before they turn 65, responding to several cases involving offenders who came close to release this year under expanded parole rules.

"These are not ordinary parole cases," Assembly Member Stephanie Nguyen, D-Elk Grove, told the Senate Public Safety Committee. "They involve individuals convicted of some of the most serious sexual offenses in our state."

Among them is Gregory Lee Vogelsang, 57, who was convicted in Sacramento in 1999 of kidnapping and sexually assaulting five boys. He was originally sentenced to 355 years in prison and later granted parole, though the Board of Parole Hearings reversed that decision in June.

Two other Sacramento-area cases involved Israel Ceja, 63, and David Allen Funston, 64. Both were convicted of sex crimes against children. None of the three men was released, and prosecutors revived old charges against Funston to keep him behind bars.

But the cases alarmed lawmakers in both parties and prompted a backlash.

AB 3234, signed in 2020, expanded California's elderly parole program by lowering eligibility from age 60 after 25 years in prison to age 50 after 20 years. The law excluded some offenders, such as those facing the death penalty or life without parole, but did not categorically bar child abusers or other sex offenders.

AB 2727 would tighten elderly parole eligibility for specified serious sex offenders, requiring them to be at least 65 and to have served at least 25 years. It would also require sex offenders to undergo a psychological risk screening before parole, with possible referral to a state hospital for further evaluation. The bill would require additional training for parole commissioners and recalculate eligibility dates beginning in 2027.

Sacramento Deputy District Attorney Denise M. Halstead told the committee that sufficient time is needed for the evaluations because some offenders can be deemed sexually violent predators and committed to the state hospital system rather than released. Those evaluations can involve hundreds of pages of evidence and input from multiple mental health professionals.

Halstead stressed that prosecutors must complete the process before an inmate is released.

"After they parole, we lose jurisdiction," said Halstead, who is also a member of the Sexually Violent Predator Committee of the California District Attorneys Association.

She said only a small percentage of sex offenders would potentially qualify as sexually violent predators.

"It is 3% to 4% of sexual offenders. We're not talking the entire population," Halstead said.

Multiple law enforcement organizations and district attorneys' offices expressed support for the bill. Committee Vice Chair Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta, said AB 2727 was necessary but not sufficient. He called for follow-up legislation to ensure all necessary evaluations are completed before an offender's potential release.

"If this is what we need to do right now to protect us between now and when we do present that legislation to make sure that this is all done before their proposed parole date, that's fine," he said.

ACLU California Action opposed AB 2727, arguing that release rates in California remain low and prison overcrowding continues to be a problem.

Sen. Dave Cortese, D-San Jose, said the rushed evaluations that occur as offenders approach potential release expose another problem: a lack of mental health care in California prisons.

"Most other penal systems in the world have this work being done all the way, every week, every day, for every year that that person is incarcerated, so that you know who's prepared for release and who isn't," he said.

AB 2727 passed 5-1, with Cortese casting the only vote against it. It now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee for a potentially contentious hearing over its costs.