The only thing I can think of is the way in which her Back on Track policy functioned. From my understanding, it was created specifically with non-violent (drug) offenders in mind. This could be something as simple as possession with weed.

The Back on Track program, again from my understanding, would effectively have the convicted person admit to their felony, which would then be expunged in part of the program.

Ah, here it is: https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/Publications/BackonTrackFS.pdf

BOT participants are young adults, ages 18–30, who are facing charges for their first felony offense1 for a low-level drug sale. At charging, prosecuting attorneys refer potential participants to BOT.2 Candidates attend a program orientation and participate in an intensive community service program for a 6-week probationary period. Only defendants who complete 6 weeks of community service and decide to participate are eligible for enrollment. They plead guilty to charges and have their formal sentencing deferred and, after enrolling, start a rigorous, 12–18 month program with goals set by an individualized personal responsibility plan (PRP). The PRP mandates concrete achievements in employment, education, parenting, and child support and requires participants to perform up to 220 hours of community service. In addition, enrollees are closely supervised. They meet three times per week with a BOT case manager and appear in BOT reentry court three times per month, at which a superior court judge and prosecutor track their progress in meeting program requirements and completing the PRP.

To graduate from the program, participants must find employment, enroll in school full time, and comply with all the terms of their PRPs. At graduation, the court dismisses the original case, leaving the graduate with a clean record.3 If an individual still enrolled in the program is charged with a new crime or fails to meet BOT requirements, he or she is removed from BOT, and a judge can immediately impose a jail or prison sentence.

So some feel like it was pointed to force non-felons into a felony status. Which is true, if they didn’t complete the program. But, the program also allowed for education in place of prison time. Which I’m sure happened, but I’m not sure if they would be considered in the image above. If anyone is curious, here’s some bullet points on her timeline.

• As San Francisco District Attorney (2004-2011):

•   Refused to seek the death penalty for a man who killed a police officer
  

  • Created "Back on Track," a program allowing first-time drug offenders to get education instead of prison time
    

•   Implemented a policy to only charge for a third strike if the felony was serious or violent
  

• As California Attorney General (2011-2017):

•   Expanded "Back on Track" program statewide
  

•  Introduced police racial bias training
  

•    Made California DOJ the first statewide agency to require body cameras
  

•   Launched OpenJustice, a platform to track police killings
  

• Controversies as Attorney General:

•  Fought to release fewer prisoners despite court orders on overcrowding
  

•   Argued against releasing some prisoners proven innocent by the Innocence Project
  

•    Appealed a judge's decision that deemed California's death penalty unconstitutional
  

•    Defended law enforcement officials accused of misconduct in some cases
  

•   Resisted some efforts to investigate police shootings
  

• As U.S. Senator (2017-present):

•    Consistently supported criminal justice reforms
  

•    Introduced bail reform legislation
  

•   Co-sponsored bill to make lynching a federal crime
  

•   Voted for the First Step Act
  

•    Supported marijuana legalization efforts
  

• For her 2020 presidential campaign:

•    Released a criminal justice reform plan to reduce incarceration and end the death penalty
  

•   Took responsibility for some controversial decisions made by her office as AG