A state prison official told us yes: He served his time and was due to get out last January in any case. The only difference is that under realignment, he was sent to L.A. county probation for supervision instead of to state parole officers.
As the Weekly has learned that prison officials considered him to be an assault risk, an L.A. city councilman is questioning realignment and its effects:
Mitch Englander, who represents the area where the Sunday morning killing took place, has introduced a resolution that asks the legislature to fix prison realignment (and its laws, AB 109 and AB 117) so that people like Pasasouk, with violent-crime convictions under their belts, don't end up being the responsibility of local authorities too early.
A statement from his office notes that ...
... under realignment ... an offender whose most recent conviction is non-violent or non-serious, but who has prior convictions of violent crime, may likely be treated the same as an offender without a prior criminal record.
Realignment allows nonviolent, nonserious offenders to be handed over to county authorities, but it doesn't allow violent offenders to go local.
Pasasouk was given over to county authorities on Jan. 18 following a low-level vehicle theft conviction (and related time behind bars) despite his previous stint for robbery, a violent crime that otherwise would have prevented him from transferring to county supervision.
In other words, theft and not robbery was the "controlling" offense for which he was made eligible for transfer to L.A. county probation supervision, according to information obtained by the Weekly.
Critics wonder if this is a potentially deadly loophole or just a matter of tightening the law's language. AB 109 was drawn with the intention of cutting costs and, arguably, reducing the state's prison and probation burdens.
Englander, whose proposal was endorsed by councilmen Paul Krekorian, Dennis Zine, Joe Buscaino, Paul Koretz, and Herb Wesson, says:
After the jump: Authorities believed Pasasouk was violent: