BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 9 (Yee)
Hearing Date: 05/23/2011 Amended: As Introduced
Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Public Safety 5-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 9 would authorize an inmate who was under 18
years of age at the time of committing an offense for which the
inmate was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole
(LWOP) to submit a petition to the court for recall and
resentencing. This bill is retroactive, and staggers the filing
dates for eligible inmates to petition the court. This bill
establishes certain criteria that must be met in order to hold a
hearing, and provides that a new sentence, if any, shall not be
greater than the initial sentence.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Resentencing hearings Up to $52 Up to $64 Up to
$90 General*
Case-processing/admin Unknown, likely minor
General*
Petitioner transportation Minor, absorbable
General
Reduced sentences Unknown, potential cost savings General
of up to $25 per inmate per year
*Trial Court Trust Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
This bill authorizes the 293 inmates serving LWOP in California
who were juveniles at the time they committed the crime for
which they are serving LWOP to petition the court for a recall
and resentencing. This bill allows up to three petitions to be
filed for inmates who entered custody prior to January 1, 1996.
The initial petition may be filed between 2012 and 2015, as
specified, with subsequent eligibility to file after 20 and 24
years in custody. Inmates who have served at least ten but less
than 15 years as of January 1, 2012, will be eligible to file
petitions after 15, 20, and 24 years in custody. Inmates who
entered custody after January 1, 2002 (less than ten years in
SB 9 (Yee)
Page 3
custody as of January 1, 2012), are eligible to submit a
petition after 10, 15, 20, and 24 years in custody.
Based on data from the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, there are 47 eligible inmates statewide who
entered custody prior to 1996 whose eligibility to submit a
petition will be staggered. There will also be a phase-in of
inmates who entered custody after 1996 who will be eligible to
submit a petition as they reach 15 years served of their
sentence beginning in 2011-12. Further, a phase-in of inmates
who reach ten years in custody will be eligible to file a
petition beginning in 2011-12. If resentencing is not granted
under the initial petition, inmates may file another petition as
specified above.
This bill staggers petition eligibility, resulting in
approximately 26 eligible to file petitions in fiscal year
2011-12, 32 eligible in 2012-13, and 45 eligible in 2013-14
across the state. It cannot be known with certainty how many
eligible inmates will file petitions in the fiscal year in which
they first become eligible, since the burden is on the inmates
to prepare appeal documents and petition the court. In future
years, the potential number of eligible petitioners will be
greater as inmates reaching 10, 15, 20, and 24 years in custody
may be eligible to petition in the same year.
This bill does not require the court to hold a hearing for every
petition received. If the court finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the statements in the petition are true, a hearing
shall be held to consider whether to recall and resentence the
defendant.
The increased court workload to handle petitions from ineligible
inmates is expected to be minor. For eligible petitioners, local
courts anticipate processing these petitions
would require two court hearings - one hearing to recall the
original sentencing and set a resentencing hearing
(approximately one hour of court time), and a second hearing to
issue findings and enter a judgment on the resentencing (two
hours of court time). According to the Judicial Council, three
hours of court time is estimated to cost approximately $2,000
for judge, court staff, and security. The exact cost cannot be
determined because it relies on the number of eligible petitions
filed and the degree of concentration in a single county.
SB 9 (Yee)
Page 4
Judicial Council also indicates that this bill would increase
courts' workload, contribute to existing backlogs, and
exacerbate the need for additional resources. The exact amount
and cost of increased workload and backlog exacerbation could
not be determined because it depends on the number of petitions
filed and hearings held. It is also unclear which specific
superior courts would receive the petitions allowed under the
provisions of this bill.
The court will also incur expenses to notify the victims or
victims' family members regarding the resentencing hearing, as
they have the right to participate. The court may not have
contact information readily available, and this would likely
lead to ongoing administrative costs.
Staff notes, however that under current law any inmate can
submit a petition to the court. This bill simplifies the process
for a small group of specified inmates to petition the court,
which may result in individuals submitting petitions that might
not have otherwise done so. However, there are no restrictions
on Habeas Corpus petitions, which are used by inmates to
challenge their conviction, sentence, or both. For those who
would have submitted Habeas Corpus petitions, this bill would
likely offer a less expensive alternative, as it involves only a
resentencing hearing, and no potential for a new trial.
It cannot be known how many of the 293 inmates serving LWOP for
crimes committed as juveniles will file Habeas Corpus petitions,
but there is a possibility of General Fund savings if eligible
individuals petition under the provisions of this bill in lieu
of submitting a Habeas Corpus petition. Staff notes that
although the California 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision,
In re Nunez (April 30, 2009, G040377), overturned the sentence
of
one of these inmates on 8th amendment grounds of cruel and
unusual punishment, this decision has not resulted in a large
increase in Habeas Corpus petitions filed to date.
There is also a potential for future cost savings if any
petitioner receives a reduced sentence. If a juvenile were
sentenced to LWOP at age 16, he would likely live in prison for
more than 50 years, at a marginal cost of $25,000 annually. If
one such sentence were reduced to 25 years, there would be an
average cost savings of $625,000 over 25 years. Those cost
SB 9 (Yee)
Page 5
savings would be offset to some degree by any parole supervision
costs assessed as a condition of the reduced sentence.
Prior Legislation. SB 399 (Yee) 2009 was substantially similar
to this bill, but failed on the Assembly Floor.