His original 124-year sentence was cut to 50 years, while California credit rules further reduced the time he remained behind bars.
GLENDORA, CA — Andrew Luster, the Max Factor cosmetics heir convicted of drugging and raping three women, was released from California state prison Oct. 11 and is living in Glendora after a complicated series of sentencing decisions and prison-credit rules shortened the time he spent behind bars.
Luster’s release has drawn renewed attention because a court originally sentenced him to 124 years in prison in 2003. That sentence, however, did not remain in effect. A judge vacated it a decade later and imposed a 50-year term. California corrections officials also credited Luster for time served before sentencing and allowed him to earn additional sentence credits while incarcerated. The state says those calculations meant Luster had completed the prison portion of his sentence required by law when he was released to parole supervision.
Luster, 62, was convicted in Ventura County in 2003 on 86 felony counts stemming from the drugging and sexual assault of three women. Prosecutors said he used GHB to incapacitate women and assaulted them while they were unconscious. Video recordings made by Luster became important evidence at trial. He fled the United States while the case was underway and was later captured in Mexico before being returned to California.
The first major change in how long Luster would remain imprisoned came in 2013. Ventura County Superior Court Judge Kathryne Ann Stoltz vacated the original 124-year sentence after finding that the trial judge had failed to give the specific reasons required for imposing full consecutive sentences. Stoltz did not overturn Luster’s convictions. At a new sentencing hearing, she imposed a 50-year prison term instead.
That decision dramatically changed Luster’s possible release date. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials said Luster also received 977 days of presentence credit and was eligible to earn credits while incarcerated through work and good conduct. Such credits reduce the amount of time a person with a determinate sentence must physically remain in prison. Corrections officials said Luster’s Oct. 11 release was therefore not an early release but followed completion of his sentence under the calculations required by state law.
The case was further complicated by California’s legal definition of a violent felony. For years, state law did not place every form of rape involving an intoxicated or unconscious victim on the Penal Code’s list of violent felonies. That distinction became especially significant after voters approved Proposition 57 in 2016. The measure expanded parole consideration for people convicted of nonviolent felonies and gave corrections officials broader authority over sentence credits.
California lawmakers changed part of that framework in 2024. Senate Bill 268 added to the violent-felony list rape of an intoxicated person when prosecutors prove that the defendant caused the intoxication by administering a controlled substance without consent and with the intent to commit sexual assault. The law took effect Jan. 1, 2025. The change did not prevent Luster from completing his sentence under the calculations applying to his case.
Luster had separately sought early parole before reaching his calculated release date. In August 2024, a two-member Board of Parole Hearings panel found him suitable for early release despite objections from his three victims and Ventura County prosecutors. That decision was later reversed by the full parole board. Ventura County District Attorney Erik Nasarenko continued opposing an early release in 2025, but prosecutors had already acknowledged that Luster would eventually finish his sentence in late 2026 even if parole continued to be denied.
The distinction between an early parole grant and completion of a sentence has become central to the dispute over his release. Glendora Mayor David Fredendall has criticized the outcome and pointed to Proposition 57 and California’s former treatment of some sexual offenses as nonviolent felonies. The corrections department, however, has maintained that Luster was not freed through the disputed early-parole decision and instead served the prison term required after applicable sentencing and credit calculations.
Luster’s presence in Glendora has also prompted concern from local and state officials. California’s Megan’s Law sex-offender registry listed him as residing in Glendora after his release. Fredendall said the city wants more information about the circumstances of the release and the supervision conditions imposed on Luster. Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, whose district includes Glendora, also said she was working with local officials and law enforcement following his release.
Glendora police said they will coordinate with state parole authorities to make sure applicable laws and supervision conditions are followed. Luster remains under parole supervision, while city officials continue seeking information from the state about the conditions governing his release and residence in the community.
Author note: Last updated October 20, 2026.