Glendora politicians released statements this weekend expressing their outrage after convicted serial rapist Andrew Luster was released after serving more than 20 years of a sentence originally set at 124 years.
Glendora mayor David Fredendall said the release was “unacceptable” in a statement on Friday, Oct. 16. Assemblywoman Blanca E. Rubio, whose jurisdiction covers Glendora, released her own statement on Saturday, Oct. 17, saying she was “outraged and deeply disturbed by the decision to grant parole” to Luster.
Fredenhall later thanked Rubio in a comment left on her Facebook post, saying “California needs to remember the true victims of crime and stop glorifying the criminal. Crime needs consequences.”
On Monday, state Sen. Sasha Renee Perez said her office is concerned about reports from Glendora city staff and its police department that they are not receiving all the information they need from state corrections officials about the case, to keep the public safe.
“Andrew Luster received parole 20 days before the Legislature closed the loophole he benefitted from,” Perez said. “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 and Rubio said their offices are seeking more on the terms and conditons of Luster’s release.
But attorney J. David Nick, who successfully defended Luster in his 2009 habeas corpus and resentencing case, said his former client has already served “what the law said he needed to get.”
“What Andrew did was awful and crass, but I think this implication that he’s some dangerous serial rapist is just wrong,” Nick said. “The mayor should accurately represent the dangers of criminals and not create hysteria when the facts are not there.”
Nick added the Glendora mayor has created a “false and legally incorrect implication that Mr. Luster was better off having been sentenced to 124 years and there’s corruption somewhere in the criminal justice system and this is wrong.”
Blaming Luster’s parole on Prop. 57 is misinformed too, Nick said, because by the terms of that law, Luster’s sentence would be reduced by one or two years.
“When all you say is serial rapist and intoxication, with those words, people will imagine the worst, and this is so far from the truth of what happened in this case,” Nick said, adding it is his opinion that if Luster could take back what he did, he would. “The criminal justice system will never see him again.”
Luster, 62, known as the heir of cosmetic company Max Factor, was convicted in early 2003 of 86 felony counts for drugging women with GHB and raping them while they were unconscious, according to Ventura County court records. Luster infamously fled to Mexico while out on $1 million bail during his trial in 2003 and was captured by Duane Chapman, who would later star in his own television show as Dog the Bounty Hunter.
Luster was brought back to the United States to serve his 124-year sentence in state prison. A judge knocked the sentence down to 50 years in 2013. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kathryne Ann Stoltz ruled the judge in Luster’s 2003 trial made a procedural error by not giving specific legal reasons for imposing full consecutive sentences.
“A court of appeals in downtown Ventura twice ruled that the (124-year) sentence was illegal, and Stoltz agreed,” Nick, the defense lawyer, said.
Fredendall credited Proposition 57, approved by California voters in 2016, for allowing Luster to escape the remainder of his sentence. Proposition 57 established a parole consideration process for people convicted of nonviolent crimes to try to promote rehabilitation, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. It also created a credits-based framework for incarcerated people, allowing them to receive credits for good behavior and rehabilitation efforts that can go toward early release or parole consideration.
Proposition 57 confirms has been a source of controversy for years because it did not recognize rape of an unconscious person as a “violent felony,” creating a pathway for incarcerated people like Luster convicted of that charge to pursue early releases designed for “nonviolent” offenders.
Luster had previously sought parole and was granted his request in 2024. But the parole board reversed its decision within months, citing “significant errors of fact surrounding Luster’s offenses,” according to a 2024 announcement from the Ventura County District Attorney’s office. In between the parole approval and the reversal, California passed SB 268, reclassifying “the rape of an intoxicated person wherein the defendant drugged the victim” as a violent felony.
Luster was released on parole on Oct. 11, per the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Megan’s Law website, managed by the California Department of Justice, confirms he is living in the city, reportedly with his 94-year-old mother.
In a statement posted to her social media on Oct. 14, San Diego Realtor Shawna Morgan identified herself as one of Luster’s victims. Morgan said she testified in court while Luster was on the run in Mexico.
In the years of Luster’s parole proceedings in 2022, 2024, and 2025, Morgan alleged she was intimidated and harassed by incidents of stalking, surveillance, invasions of privacy and threats of financial harm, and did not feel supported by the San Diego Police Department when she tried to file a police report.
“My heart goes out to Glendora as they find out the news,” she wrote on Facebook. “Andrew Stuart Luster was convicted. His crimes were real. 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.”