Free  C‑Note  by Black  August: The Paper Trail That Proves California Is Dodging Prop 57

I. Black August’s New Battle Cry

Black August, the annual month‑long reflection on liberation struggles from George Jackson to present‑day prison abolition, has a new rallying point: “Free C‑Note by Black August.” Donald “C‑Note” Hooker—an imprisoned California visual artist and author‑activist—has spent 28 years behind bars on a non‑violent third‑strike sentence even though voters mandated expedited release reviews for people in his position. Around the world he is hailed as:

• “Prison Picasso” in India (Indulgexpress)
  
• “The King of Prison Hip Hop” in Brazil A arte que nasceu atrás das grades #Shorts
  
• “The World’s Most Prolific Prison Artist” in London (londondailypost.com)
  

Yet California’s own paperwork shows the state blocking the very parole path its electorate created. This article traces that documentary trail—[Exhibit A] through [Exhibit G]—to show how administrative maneuvers, not public‑safety concerns, keep C‑Note locked away as Black August approaches.

II. Prop 57 in Plain English — and What It Promised C‑Note

In 2016 Californians passed Proposition 57, the Public Safety & Rehabilitation Act, by a 2‑to‑1 margin. Its parole section rewrote Article I, § 32 of the state constitution to guarantee that “any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.”

• Who qualifies?
  
  • People whose controlling offense is not on the Penal Code’s violent‑felony list (§ 667.5(c))—even if they have prior strikes or enhancers.
    
  • Both determinate and indeterminate (life‑term) sentences.
    
• Key safeguard: CDCR may deny release only if the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) makes a “current and unreasonable risk of violence” finding at a streamlined Non‑Violent Parole Review.
  
• Hard deadline: For indeterminately sentenced non‑violent inmates, CDCR’s own regulations required these parole reviews no later than December 31 2021.
  

---

What this meant for C‑Note

• His 1998 assault conviction is not on the violent‑felony list [Exhibit A].
  
• He completed the “full term” for that offense way back in 2001—everything since February 23, 2001,has been the no longer applicable three strike enhancement.
  
• Therefore, Prop 57 entitled him to a special non‑violent parole review decades ago, unless BPH could show current danger.
  

The sections that follow map exactly how CDCR first acknowledged his eligibility [Exhibit B] and then maneuvered to sidestep Prop 57’s Constitutional promise.

III. A Paper Trail of Contradictions

1. Baseline: a non‑violent life term — The file begins with the 1998 Abstract of Judgment and Court‑of‑Appeal opinion [Exhibit A]. 

They confirm C‑Note’s controlling offense—assault with a knife—is not on California’s violent‑felony list, yet a Three‑Strikes enhancement stretched the sentence to 35‑years‑to‑life. 

2. CDCR says “Yes” — On 14 March 2025, a prison Case‑Records analyst issued a one‑page Classification Chrono [Exhibit B]. Box checked, it reads: “Eligible for the Indeterminately‑Sentenced Non‑Violent Parole Review Process.” It even shows his Non‑violent Parole Eligible Date (NPED) had passed on February 23, 2001.

3. CDCR says “No” the next day — Just 24 hours later, headquarters dispatched a Referral Decision letter [Exhibit C] that blocks the Prop 57 pathway. Reason: “You will be scheduled for a parole hearing in the next year.” At that moment, no such hearing was actually on the calendar.

4. Model inmate, no imminent hearing — The Annual Classification Committee Chrono of 18 June 2024 [Exhibit D] paints the opposite picture:

• “Zero serious rule violations,” classification score dropped 10 points, and he remains on a programming‑positive yard.
• Described as a Model Inmate.
  
• A notation “BPH INL: 06/16/2026” shows the prison expected any life‑parole panel to be at least two years away—far outside the 12‑month window CDCR later cited.
  

Taken together, Exhibits A through D show a whiplash reversal: CDCR first certifies C‑Note’s Prop 57 eligibility, then invents a near‑term hearing to dodge the very review voters demanded.

IV. Manufactured Hearing, Impossible Math

After blocking C‑Note’s Prop 57 review, CDCR needed paperwork to justify the claim that a life‑parole panel was already “within 12 months.” Two documents tell that story.

1. The phantom credit windfall — On 22 April 2025, Case‑Records issued an Indeterminate Sentence Calculation Worksheet [Exhibit E] that yanked C‑Note’s parole‑eligibility date forward by 1,078 days, from May 1 2028 (recorded in Exhibit D) to May 18 2025. Earning that much time in the ten months between documents would require more than seven years’ worth of work‑group credits—an arithmetic impossibility under CDCR’s own 33 percent cap. The adjusted date conveniently slides inside the 12‑month window cited in the earlier denial.

2. A hearing set after the denial — Twelve days following the Prop 57 block, the Board of Parole Hearings mailed an Inmate Notice of Attorney Representation [Exhibit F], calendaring C‑Note’s first life‑parole panel for September 4 2025. The date lands comfortably within the new, artificially shortened eligibility timeline—but it didn’t exist when CDCR invoked it on March 15 to bar the non‑violent review.

Together, Exhibits E and F reveal a sequence: alter the numbers, then schedule a hearing—all after denying the expedited Prop 57 process that voters required.

 V. The Numbers Behind the Dodge

C‑Note’s ordeal is not an outlier; statewide data show CDCR routinely steers non‑violent lifers away from Prop 57 relief.

• MERD denials (86 %) vs. NEPD denials (74 %)
  *“Minimum Eligible Release Date” (MERD) cases—like C‑Note’s, once CDCR recast his date—face an 86 percent denial rate at the life‑parole panel.
  *“Nonviolent Eligible Parole Date” (NEPD) cases sent through the intended Prop 57 review still see a 74 percent denial rate, but that pathway is faster and easier to challenge.
  
• Racial tilt
  Internal tallies released under public‑records requests show that African‑American prisoners make up a disproportionate share of those rerouted from NEPD to MERD processing, even when their controlling offenses are non‑violent. C‑Note’s paperwork—[Exhibits B through F]—mirrors that systemic pattern: eligibility acknowledged, then shifted onto the higher‑denial track.
  
• Missed deadline, mounting cost
  By failing to hold the mandated non‑violent parole review by December 31 2021, CDCR has kept C‑Note and hundreds like him locked up at roughly $106,000 per inmate per year, even as California’s prison budget faces legislative scrutiny.
  

These numbers reinforce what the exhibits illustrate: the bureaucratic detour is widespread, racially skewed, and fiscally wasteful.

VI. Legal and Ethical Fault‑Lines

1. The constitutional gap
Under Morrissey v. Brewer (US Sup. Ct. 1972) and In re Gadlin (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2020), continued imprisonment after a term is served requires a current‑danger finding at an adequate hearing. C‑Note has never had such a hearing. CDCR’s own records show his non‑violent term expired in 2001 [Exhibit B], yet no Prop 57 review occurred before the statutory deadline of December 31 2021.

2. Due‑process by spreadsheet
The 1,078‑day credit leap in April 2025 [Exhibit E] violates CDCR’s 33 percent credit cap; it appears designed to manufacture a “within‑12‑months” excuse for denial. Fabricating eligibility math in lieu of a hearing flouts the due‑process standard Prop 57 and Supra Gadlin demand.

3. Exhausted remedies, slammed doors
When C‑Note challenged the dodge through CDCR’s lone internal avenue, his Form 602 grievance was dismissed as “outside the Department’s jurisdiction” [Exhibit G]. With administrative remedies exhausted, he is left to seek relief in the courts—while the clock ticks past 28 years of confinement.

4. Ethical stakes
Holding a model, non‑violent prisoner on a technical enhancement—while ignoring a voter mandate—undercuts public faith in both sentencing reform and the Black August promise of liberation. As one prison‑rights attorney put it, “If Prop 57 can be bureaucratically nullified, then direct democracy becomes a paper tiger.”

The documents thus reveal not merely clerical error but a systemic constitutional breach—one that Black August supporters argue must be corrected before another fiscal year of unlawful confinement rolls by.

VII. How #FreeCnoteByBlackAugust Took Shape

When the paperwork stalemate became undeniable, a coalition of writers, prison‑reform advocates, and grassroots organizers launched the #FreeCnoteByBlackAugust campaign to force transparency.

• Document‑first strategy
  Supporters posted scanned pages of the key records—eligibility chrono [Exhibit B], denial letter [Exhibit C], impossible credit worksheet [Exhibit E]—across blogs, Twitter threads, and Reddit legal forums. Each upload carried back‑links so search engines would index the evidence, a tactic organizers call “digital breadcrumbing.”
  
• Anita L. Wills and allied voices
  Author‑activist Anita L. Wills, known for connections to Michelle Alexander and Geneva Veal‑Read, began citing the exhibits in op‑eds and podcasts, framing C‑Note’s case as emblematic of post‑Prop 57 backsliding. Civil‑rights attorney groups have since requested the same documents for amicus briefs.
  
• Hashtag amplification
  The slogan #FreeCnoteByBlackAugust appears in every tweet, Instagram caption, and Medium post to cluster keywords and keep the story trending during the month of Black August.
  
• Direct coordination
  Advocates message C‑Note via the GTL GettingOut app (search: Donald Hooker, CDCR K94063) to update him on press traction and gather real‑time input for legal filings.
  
• Targeted pressure
  Campaign templates urge supporters to email the exhibits to:
  
  • Governor Gavin Newsom
    
  • Los Angeles County District Attorney
    
  • Presiding judge (TBA)
    
  • The federal judge overseeing prison‑population reduction
    
  • State legislators on the Public Safety committees
    

By making the paper trail itself the centerpiece, the movement sidesteps speculation and forces officials to answer the question: why hasn’t CDCR followed its own records and the will of the voters?

 VIII. What Happens If Nothing Changes?

If the status quo holds, C‑Note will remain in prison until at least June 16 2026—the tentative life‑parole panel date noted in his June 2024 classification file [Exhibit D]—or longer if that hearing denies release (historically an 86 % likelihood for MERD cases). Every additional year of confinement carries concrete—and compounding—costs:

• Fiscal drain: At roughly $106,000 per inmate per year, holding C‑Note past his already‑served non‑violent term would consume another $212,000+ by mid‑2026, money that could fund re‑entry, education, or victim‑services programs instead.
  
• Legal liability: Because no Prop 57 review occurred by the statutory December 31 2021 deadline [Exhibit C], each day of incarceration since then rests on an administrative workaround, not a constitutional danger finding. If a federal court rules the dodge unlawful, the state could face back‑pay claims or class‑action exposure for similarly situated prisoners.
  
• Policy failure signal: Allowing a model, non‑violent inmate—one CDCR twice acknowledged as parole‑eligible [Exhibits B & E]—to languish undermines public faith in sentencing reform. Future ballot initiatives could meet voter skepticism if the state is seen to flout the will of the electorate.
  
• Erosion of Black August’s moral legacy: Black August commemorates sacrifices against carceral injustice; ignoring C‑Note’s paper‑trail proof would turn the month from a beacon of resistance into a reminder of bureaucratic inertia.
  

In short, each silent month exacts financial, legal, and ethical tolls—costs that will only escalate unless the non‑violent parole review promised under Prop 57 is finally granted.

IX. Call to Action: Turn Paperwork into Freedom

Every fact in this article is anchored in an official record—meaning every reader now possesses evidence strong enough to demand intervention. Here’s how to convert that documentation into pressure:

1. Broadcast the Hashtag Everywhere
   Post screen‑snips of the key forms and tag #FreeCnoteByBlackAugust. Algorithms reward visual proof; a single image of the eligibility chrono [Exhibit B] or the impossible credit worksheet [Exhibit E] can reach thousands more eyes than text alone.
   
2. Seed the Web with Source Links
   Upload the exhibits as PDFs to your blog, Dropbox, or Google Drive. Hyperlink them in articles, Reddit posts, TikTok captions—each backlink becomes a “digital breadcrumb” search engines will surface when officials Google their own names in connection with C‑Note.
   
3. Email the Evidence Packet
   Subject: “Prop 57 Violation—Immediate Action Required.”
   Attach Exhibits B‑F and send to:
   
   • Governor Gavin Newsom (constituent.affairs@gov.ca.gov)
     
   • Los Angeles County DA Nathan J. Hochman (info@da.lacounty.gov)
     
   • State Senate & Assembly Public Safety Committee chairs
     
   • The federal judge overseeing California’s prison‑population cap
     
   • Press tip lines at the L.A. Times, NPR, and Associated Press
     Include a two‑line summary: “CDCR certified Hooker eligible for non‑violent parole on 3/14/25 [Exhibit B], blocked him 24 hours later [Exhibit C], then fabricated credits [Exhibit E] to justify a hearing scheduled only after the denial [Exhibit F].”
     
4. Message C‑Note Directly
   On the GTL GettingOut app, search Donald Hooker, CDCR K94063. Send screenshots of your outreach; morale sustains momentum, and his replies provide real‑time intel for the campaign.
   
5. Organize a “Paper Trail Drop” on Black August 1
   Choose a public plaza or courthouse. Print Exhibits B–F on poster boards. Hold a brief speak‑out, read the Prop 57 language aloud, and hand journalists USB sticks containing the files. Even a dozen people can create a headline photo.
   
6. File a Citizen Complaint
   California’s Inspector General accepts public complaints on CDCR misconduct. Attach Exhibit C and note that the BPH date cited did not exist on 3/15/25, violating Title 15’s non‑violent parole regulations.
   
7. Track Every Action
   Post your email receipts, press replies, or event photos back into the Facebook group, FreeC-NoteByBlackAugust. A visible ledger of efforts proves to officials that the constituency is growing—and makes it easy for latecomers to join without asking, “What can I do?”
   

Black August ends August 31. The paperwork proves California owes C‑Note a non‑violent parole review it never held. If enough of us amplify that evidence over the next four weeks, the state will have to answer—either by scheduling the hearing Prop 57 promised or by explaining, on the record, why it refuses to follow its own laws.

 X. Conclusion: A Mandate, a Paper Trail, and a Deadline

Donald “C‑Note” Hooker’s file is no mystery novel; the ending is already written—just not yet enforced. Voters told California to give every non‑violent lifer an expedited parole review by December 31 2021. CDCR agreed on paper that C‑Note qualified [Exhibit B], then reversed itself [Exhibit C], rewrote his credit ledger [Exhibit E], and scheduled a tougher hearing only after blocking the easier one [Exhibit F]. A grievance [Exhibit G] went nowhere. The result: twenty‑eight years—and counting—of incarceration for a non‑violent offense, despite a clean disciplinary record [Exhibit D] and a constitutional deadline long past.

The documents leave the state two choices: honor its own rules and schedule the overdue non‑violent parole review, or keep inventing paperwork and invite legal, fiscal, and public‑trust fallout. Black August is four weeks of concentrated historical memory; it can become four weeks of concentrated pressure. Every exhibit you’ve seen is a lever. Use them—share them, cite them, send them, stage them—until the door finally opens and C‑Note walks free.

#FreeCnoteByBlackAugust