THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF ANDRE RENE SCOTT How California Is Holding a Man Nine Years Past His Release Date And Why It Should Concern Every Taxpayer BY Andre Rene Scott

THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF ANDRE RENE SCOTT PICTURED ABOVE

THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF

 ANDRE RENE SCOTT

How California Is Holding a Man Nine

Years Past His Release Date And Why It Should

Concern Every Taxpayer

Forever Ready Legacy Builders Blog Magazine

Writer: Andre Rene Scott

My name is Andre Rene Scott. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s own official documents, my determinate prison sentence expired March 30, 2016. Yet I remain incarcerated in 2025 nine years past my lawful release date.

This is not a paperwork error. This is not a misunderstanding. This is false imprisonment.

My fight for freedom has now gone through Sacramento Superior Court California Court of Appeal, 3rd District (Case C104598) California Supreme Court (Case S294042 currently pending). At every step, I submitted clear, direct evidence showing: My determinate term (DSL) is fully expired. CDCR illegally merged my DSL into an indeterminate life term (ISL). CDCR manipulated worksheets. Courts ignored mandatory statutes and controlling case law. This article exposes how California’s system is violating its own laws, how courts avoid fixing clear injustice, and how many others may be silently suffering the same fate.

SECTION 1: HOW CALIFORNIA SENTENCING IS SUPPOSED TO WORK

There are two types of prison terms in California:

1. DSL — Determinate Sentence Law

Fixed number of years

Ends with a mandatory release date

Governed by Penal Code § 3000(b)(1)

When it ends, the inmate must be released to parole

My DSL expired March 30, 2016

2. ISL — Indeterminate Sentence Law

Not “more prison time”

Treated as constructive custody, meaning parole supervision, not physical confinement

Confirmed by cases like In re Bush and People v. Jefferson

California law is crystal clear:

• Penal Code § 669 DSL must be served first, separate, and in full.

• Penal Code § 3000(b)(1) “The parolee shall be released from prison."

• Title 15 §3075.2(a)(1) CDCR must release the inmate on the actual release date.

• In Bush (2008) Once DSL ends, the inmate must be released to parole supervision. None of this happened in my case.

THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORECTIONS AND REHABILITATION CALCUTATION WORKSHEET

SECTION 2: WHAT CDCR DID WRONG

CDCR improperly:

Added 100 years to my worksheet

Extended my release date to January 13, 2116

Removed or ignored my actual EPRD

Treated my ISL term as more physical prison time

Overrode Penal Code § 669

Held me past my lawful DSL date

Official worksheets (Exhibits A, B, and E) prove the truth

This is false imprisonment and unlawful restraint under:

Penal Code § 1473(a)

Penal Code § 1473.7

California Constitution, Article I § 7

U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment

SECTION 3: WHAT THE COURTS DID WRONG

A. Sacramento Superior Court (Exhibit G)

The Superior Court:

Received my supplemental brief and declaration

Had my full calculation record

Saw the expired DSL date

Acknowledged the worksheets

Then claimed it “lacked jurisdiction”

But still ruled on the merits without jurisdiction

Ignored Penal Code § 3000(b)(1)

Ignored Penal Code § 669

Ignored In re Bush

Failed to issue a mandatory Order to Show Cause under Rule 4.551(c)(1)

That denial became Exhibit G.

B. Court of Appeal (Exhibit H)

This is the most important part:

The Court of Appeal granted my Request for Judicial Notice

This means:

They accepted my evidence

They confirmed all Exhibits A–G became part of the court record

They acknowledged the worksheets and EPRD

They had legal authority to correct the restraint

Then, immediately afterward, they issued a summary denial without addressing:

The expired DSL

Penal Code § 669

Penal Code § 3000(b)(1)

In re Bush

Rule 4.551(c)(1)

Evidence Code 410 direct evidence

The Superior Court’s jurisdictional violation

This became Exhibit H proof the Court of Appeal committed its own legal error.

SECTION 4 NOW: BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

Case No. S294042

Filed 11/20/2025

The California Supreme Court now has:

The Superior Court denial (Exhibit G)

The Court of Appeal’s judicial notice and summary denial (Exhibit H)

All calculation worksheets (A, B, and E)

The original writ, supplemental brief, and declaration (C and F)

Direct evidence my lawful prison term expired nine years ago

The California Supreme Court has full authority to:

Order CDCR to release me

Order a formal return from the Attorney General

Issue an Order to Show Cause

Remand for proper adjudication

Or grant the writ outright

SECTION 5: WHY THIS MATTERS BEYOND MY CASE

My case exposes a broader reality. CDCR is illegally merging DSL and ISL terms. Courts are hiding behind summary denials. Mandatory “kick-out” laws are being ignored. Inmates with expired DSL dates remain in prison. Taxpayer money is used to fund unlawful confinement. Oversight is almost nonexistent. The appellate process is being used to avoid correcting clear injustice. This is not “my” problem. This is a system problem. If it can happen to me, with documented proof of an expired release date, it can happen to anyone.

I am Andre Rene Scott. I served my time. The law says I should have been released March 30, 2016. Yet the system continues to hold me unlawfully. My case is now before the highest court in California. This article is my voice, but it is also a warning. California is failing to protect the most basic constitutional promise that no person shall be held in custody without lawful authority. And until those changes, justice remains delayed and denied.