California Officials Challenge Andrew Luster Parole Release in Glendora

California officials and Glendora community leaders are demanding answers after Andrew Luster, a 62-year-old heir to the Max Factor cosmetics fortune convicted of multiple sexual offenses, was released from state prison on parole on October 11, 2026. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation says he completed his legally calculated sentence, while local officials question the rules that permitted his release and seek assurances about public safety.

Luster was convicted in 2003 on 86 felony counts involving drugging women with gamma-hydroxybutyrate, or GHB, and sexually assaulting them while they were unconscious. He initially received a 124-year prison sentence, which a judge reduced to 50 years in 2013 after finding a procedural error in the original sentencing. Authorities say he spent more than 20 years in custody, including time in pretrial detention and under house arrest.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said Luster accumulated 977 days of eligible credit and qualified for additional reductions based on work and good conduct. The agency maintained that his October release followed the applicable sentencing rules rather than an exceptional decision to shorten his punishment.

"This is not an early release," the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said in a statement.

State officials' explanation has not eased concerns in Glendora, where California's Megan's Law website lists Luster as a resident. NBC Los Angeles reported that it could not independently verify his precise living location.

Glendora Mayor David Fredendall said the city was outraged and argued that residents deserved a clearer explanation of the decision. He connected Luster's release to Proposition 57, a voter-approved 2016 measure that expanded opportunities for certain incarcerated people convicted of nonviolent offenses to earn sentence credits and seek parole consideration.

"The people of Glendora should not have to worry about their safety because of a decision by the State that allows an individual with a history of rape and violence to now live in close proximity to schools, parks, playgrounds, churches, and community centers. They deserve better than explanations that hide behind the mechanics of a deeply flawed system," Fredendall said.

The mayor also pledged cooperation between local police and state parole authorities to ensure that supervision requirements are enforced. He called for transparency about Luster's parole conditions and the safeguards intended to protect nearby communities.

"We expect transparency regarding the circumstances of this release, the conditions imposed, and the measures being taken to protect Glendora residents and surrounding communities," Fredendall said.

Assemblywoman Blanca E. Rubio, who represents the area, said she was deeply disturbed by the release and is working with local officials and law enforcement to obtain information about the decision. Rubio also highlighted her role as a co-author of Senate Bill 268, enacted in 2024, which reclassified certain rapes involving unconscious or drugged victims as violent felonies.

"This decision raises serious questions about California's parole system, its accountability, and whether we are truly putting the safety of our communities and the rights of victims first," Rubio said.

State Sen. Sasha Renee Perez also expressed concern about the information available to Glendora officials. She said the release occurred shortly before lawmakers closed a legal loophole affecting cases involving sexual assaults against unconscious victims.

"I do think people are rightfully concerned given this person has multiple offenses, fled the country and used his wealth to be able to escape. And I completely disagree with anyone saying raping an unconscious woman is not a violent crime. It absolutely is a violent crime," Perez said.

Perez and Rubio are seeking further details about the conditions governing Luster's parole. Their concerns follow an earlier dispute over his eligibility for release, including a parole decision in 2024 that was subsequently reversed after officials identified significant factual errors surrounding his offenses.

Former Sacramento County District Attorney Ann Marie Schubert criticized the outcome, arguing that the 2024 legislative change did not cover every relevant offense. She said the legal changes came too late to affect Luster's case.

"The Legislature finally acted in 2024, but for Luster's victims, it was too late," Schubert said.

Luster's former defense attorney, J. David Nick, disputed claims that his client remains a danger and argued that the release followed the law governing his sentence. Nick also challenged the suggestion that Proposition 57 alone determined the outcome, saying the sentencing history and applicable legal calculations required closer examination.

"What Andrew did was awful and crass, but I think this implication that he's some dangerous serial rapist is just wrong," Nick said.

Nick maintained that the original 124-year sentence had been overturned because of a legal error and said the revised sentence established the period Luster was required to serve. Prosecutors had previously opposed his release, while all three victims objected during an earlier parole hearing.

One of those victims, Shawna Morgan, publicly addressed the case on October 14. She described the continuing impact on survivors and said her experiences during Luster's parole proceedings included alleged intimidation, surveillance, invasions of privacy and threats of financial harm.

"The harm was real. And the impact on survivors does not disappear when the headlines fade. I have lost more than most people will know," Morgan wrote in a social media statement.

Luster fled to Mexico during his 2003 trial while released on bail and was later captured by bounty hunter Duane Chapman before being returned to California. His release has renewed scrutiny of the state's sentencing-credit rules, the classification of sexual offenses involving unconscious victims and the communication between state corrections officials and local authorities.