BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1276
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1276 (Bloom) - As Amended: April 16, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill provides that a person who was convicted of a
non-homicide offense committed before the age of 18 years is
eligible for parole after serving 25 years in prison. Subsequent
parole hearings would be set according to current law.
This bill states legislative intent to provide a meaningful
opportunity to obtain release according to the standards set
forth by the California Supreme Court in People v. Caballero
(2012), in which the California Supreme Court ruled that
sentencing a juvenile offender to a term with a parole
eligibility date that falls outside the offender's life span
violates the Eighth Amendment, constituting cruel and unusual
punishment.
(There are currently 5,372 inmates in prison who were under 18
at the time of their offense, excluding death row inmates and
those sentenced to life-without-the-possibility of parole
(LWOP). According to CDCR , more than 80% are serving
life-with-the possibility-of parole, the rest are determinately
sentenced; 2,079 have served at least 10 years.)
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Moderate annual GF costs to the Board of Prison Hearings
(BPH), in excess of $150,000, to hold additional parole
hearings. If the BPH held an additional 500 hearings per year,
the cost would be in the range of $150,000, assuming one hour
per hearing and five personnel equivalents.
2)These costs would likely be more than offset by an
AB 1276
Page 2
accompanying reduction in writs of Habeas Corpus, by which
inmates challenge their convictions and/or sentences.
3)Potentially significant annual out-year GF savings to the
extent inmates are actually paroled as a result of this bill.
For example, for every 10 inmates who receive parole hearings
and are actually paroled, and end up serving 30 years rather
than life, assuming a marginal per capita cost of $25,000 per
inmate, the annual savings will be about $250,000. Savings at
this rate would increase annually to about $2.5 million in 10
years.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . Current law, allows an inmate who was under 18 at
the time of an offense that resulted in a term LWOP
(first-degree murder) to petition the court for resentencing
after 15 years. This bill addresses the situation, the subject
of People v Caballero, in which a youth is sentenced to what
amounts to a de facto life sentence - a term in excess of the
years the youth is likely to live.
According to the author, "This bill provides these youth
automatic parole consideration after serving 25 years in
prison and aligns California law with a United States Supreme
Court mandate that a juvenile offender have a meaningful
opportunity for release."
2)Recent Case Law . (See Assembly Public Safety Committee
analysis for a full review.) In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled it unconstitutional to sentence a youth who did not
commit homicide to a sentence of LWOP (Graham v. Florida). The
Court discussed the differences between juvenile and adult
offenders and reasserted its findings from Roper v. Simmons
(2005) that juveniles have lessened culpability than adults
due to those differences. The Court stated that "life without
parole is an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile,"
noting that a juvenile offender "will on average serve more
years and a greater percentage of his life in prison than an
adult offender."
The Court stressed, however, that "while the Eighth Amendment
forbids a State from imposing a life without parole sentence
on a juvenile nonhomicide offender, it does not require the
State to release that offender during his natural life. Those
AB 1276
Page 3
who commit truly horrifying crimes as juveniles may turn out
to be irredeemable, and thus deserving of incarceration for
the duration of their lives."
In 2012, the California Supreme Court ruled that sentencing a
juvenile offender for a non-homicide offense to a term with a
parole eligibility date that falls outside the offender's life
expectancy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment (People v.
Caballero). Relying on the reasoning in Graham, the Court
found that while the juvenile did not receive LWOP, the trial
court's sentence effectively deprives the defendant of any
"realistic opportunity to obtain release" from prison,
resulting in de facto LWOP and thus violating the Eighth
Amendment.
In Caballero, the California Supreme Court stated that
defendants unconstitutionally sentenced to LWOP, or de facto
LWOP may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
trial court in order to allow the court to determine the
appropriate length of imprisonment.
This bill allows an inmate who was under 18 when he or she
committed a non-homicide offense to have a parole hearing
after serving 25 years, without specifying the length of the
underlying sentence. This approach avoids making the
determination of what constitutes a de facto LWOP sentence and
provides a parole mechanism for all inmates who were under the
age of 18 when they were sentenced.
3)Related Legislation/Alternative Approach. SB 260 (Hancock)
provides that upon a motion, and after 60 days' notice to the
prosecution, the sentencing court shall hold a hearing to
review the sentence of a person who was under 18 years at the
time of the offense and was prosecuted as an adult, after the
person has served 10 years in prison. After reviewing the
sentence, the judge may suspend or stay all or a portion of
the sentence. SB 260 is pending hearing by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations.
The SB 260 approach is preferred by most inmates' rights
advocates and the defense bar, who contend recall and
resentencing by the court after 10 years is more effective and
more appropriate. The SB 260 approach is opposed by the CA
District Attorneys Association, who argue it is too much, too
soon.
AB 1276
Page 4
The AB 1276 approach is preferred by the L.A. District
Attorney's Office and is opposed by several inmates' rights
advocates and CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice.
4)Support . According to the L.A. District Attorney's Office, the
sponsor of this bill, "Opponents have argued that Senate Bill
260 (Hancock) is a better approach. We respectfully disagree.
SB 260 would permit any person who has served 10 years in
prison for a crime committed as a juvenile to request
resentencing by the court. However, there is no guarantee of
parole consideration. This approach is likely to lead to
inconsistent and unfair results. Under SB 260, a person
sentenced to 105 years in prison (a de facto LWOP sentence)
could be resentenced to 50 years (not a de facto LWOP sentence
as the parole date is not 'outside the offender's natural life
expectancy'). We can then expect years of additional
litigation as the courts ponder whether or not 50 year
sentences are also unconstitutional. On the other hand, other
courts may release dangerous offenders after serving only 10
years, a clear threat to public safety. AB 1276 avoids these
issues by treating all offenders equally and guaranteeing
parole consideration after the defendant has served 25 years
in prison."
5)Opposition . The Friends Committee on Legislation of
California states, "Last year, Governor Brown signed SB 9 into
law. Under SB 9, a bill supported by FCLCA, juveniles
convicted of first degree murder with a finding of a special
circumstance(s) and sentenced to life without the possibility
of parole, have the opportunity for review after serving 15
years along with the possibility of being paroled after
serving 25 years. Under AB 1276, persons convicted of
non-homicide offenses would have to serve 10 years longer
before they would be eligible for a review. This is
inconsistent with California law and fails to take into
account the diminished culpability of youth as a result of the
neurological, physical and psychological differences between
adults and youth, as well as young people's capacity for
rehabilitation. These factors are based on the
characteristics of the defendants as opposed to the underlying
conviction.
"We also have misgivings about referring these cases to the
Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), which has a dismal record for
AB 1276
Page 5
granting parole. In our estimation, petitioners are more
likely to receive fair reviews in sentencing courts, which are
further removed from the political process and are better able
to gauge the growth and maturity of petitioners whom the court
presided over at trial."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081