BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 260 (Hancock) - Sentencing.
Amended: April 4, 2013 Policy Vote: Public Safety 4-2
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: April 22, 2013
Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 260 would establish a process for a person
sentenced for a crime committed before he or she was 18 years of
age to submit a petition for a re-sentencing after serving 10
years in prison if certain criteria are met.
Fiscal Impact:
Significant annual trial court costs of $0.3 million to
$0.8 million (General Fund*) to review and respond to
re-sentencing petitions, and to hold re-sentencing hearings
for every 10 percent to 25 percent of the 2,072 eligible
inmates who will have served at least 10 years in prison as
of January 1, 2014. This estimate assumes a cost of $1,500
per hearing.
Potentially significant additional ongoing trial court
costs (General Fund*) to review and respond to both initial
(as inmates reach 10 years served) and resubmitted petitions
(unlimited), and to hold re-sentencing hearings for
petitions deemed eligible. Currently, there are 3,300
inmates remaining in prison who were under 18 years of age
at the time of their offense with life or extended
determinate sentences who could potentially be eligible to
petition the court.
Unknown, offsetting cost savings to the extent the
re-sentencing process reduces the number of writs of habeas
corpus that otherwise would have been filed under existing
law.
Potential annual incarceration savings of $0.2 to $0.5
million (General Fund) for every 20 to 50 inmates released
or sentences reduced. Savings would grow as the years they
otherwise would have served compound. Over ten years, the
savings could increase to $2 to $5 million assuming the
inmates would have served ten additional years. The savings
impact for reduced sentences would not be incurred until
after the term of the re-sentencing has been served.
SB 260 (Hancock)
Page 1
Ongoing minor costs to CDCR (General Fund) for
notifications to victims and victim family members of the
re-sentencing hearings.
*Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)
Background: In People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, the
California Supreme Court held that a determinate sentence that
exceeds the expected lifetime (in this case 110 years to life)
of the juvenile defendant violates the Eighth Amendment because
it effectively denies a juvenile any opportunity to demonstrate
rehabilitation. The Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's
opinions in Graham v. Florida (2010) 130 S.Ct. 2011 and Miller
v. Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455, holding that no legitimate
penological interest justifies a life without parole sentence
for juvenile offenders in non-homicide cases, and that such a
sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel
and unusual punishment.
In its conclusion, the Court states, "Defendants who were
sentenced for crimes they committed as juveniles who seek to
modify life without parole or equivalent defacto sentences
already imposed may file petitions for a writ of habeas corpus
in the trial court in order to allow the court to weigh the
mitigating evidence in determining the extent of incarceration
required before parole hearings."
In light of Caballero, it is anticipated that an increased
number of inmates serving extended prison terms who were
convicted as minors may bring writs of habeas corpus on the
basis of cruel and unusual punishment. This bill would serve to
establish an alternative process for the review of such cases,
as well as for additional cases meeting the eligibility criteria
specified in this measure.
Proposed Law: This bill would establish a process for a person
convicted as a minor in adult criminal court to submit a
petition for review and re-sentencing, as follows:
Provides that upon 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 of
age at the time of the offense and was prosecuted as an
adult, after the person has served 10 years in prison.
After review of the sentence, if the person meets the
eligibility criteria of the alternative disposition, the
judge may suspend or stay all or a portion of the sentence,
SB 260 (Hancock)
Page 2
reduce the sentence to any sentence that could lawfully have
been ordered at the time of the original judgment, or both
reduce and suspend or stay all or a portion of the sentence.
Authorizes the court to consider, in conjunction with any
other evidence the court deems relevant, various factors.
Requires the court to identify on the record the criteria
relied on and to provide a statement of reasons for adopting
those criteria.
Provides that victims, or victim family members if the
victim is deceased, shall be notified of the re-sentencing
hearing and shall retain their rights to participate in the
hearing.
Authorizes each person granted review to be entitled to an
additional review in the event of a change in circumstances
that is proven by a preponderance of the evidence in a
petition filed with the sentencing court.
Provides that the review consideration provisions do not
apply to a person who was sentenced for first degree murder
with special circumstances, sentenced under three strikes,
sentenced under provisions increasing the penalty for priors
or multiple convictions, or who has a sentence of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP).
Related Legislation: AB 1276 (Bloom) would require a person who
was convicted of a non-homicide offense that was committed
before the person had attained 18 years of age to be given a
meaningful opportunity for parole or other form of supervised
release after having served 25 years in state prison. This bill
is pending hearing in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety.
SB 9 (Yee) Chapter 828/2012 authorizes a person who was under 18
years of age at the time of committing an offense for which the
person was sentenced to LWOP to submit a petition for recall and
re-sentencing to the sentencing court, as specified.
SB 399 (Yee) 2010 would have authorized a person who was under
18 years of age at the time of committing an offense for which
the person was sentenced to LWOP to submit a petition for recall
and re-sentencing to the sentencing court, as specified. This
bill failed passage on the Assembly Floor.
SB 1223 (Kuehl) 2004 would have authorized a court to review and
suspend or reduce the sentence of a person convicted as a minor
in adult criminal court and sentenced to state prison after the
SB 260 (Hancock)
Page 3
person has either served 10 years in prison or attained the age
of 25. This bill was held on the Suspense File of the Assembly
Committee on Appropriations.
Staff Comments: Based on data from the CDCR, 5,372 inmates are
currently in state prison who were under 18 years of age at the
time of their offense (excluding inmates sentenced to death
penalty or to life without the possibility of parole). Of the
total, 2,072 will have served 10 years by January 1, 2014, and
would be eligible to file a petition for re-sentencing upon the
enactment of this measure.
While it is unknown how many petitions will be filed initially
or within any one year, to the extent 10 percent to 25 percent
of the 2,072 eligible inmates file petitions for re-sentencing
per year, annual costs to the courts to hold re-sentencing
hearings are estimated at $0.3 million to $0.8 million (TCTF),
assuming a hearing cost of $1,500 (based on the average full-day
court cost of $4,000). In future years, in addition to
responding to initial petitions and holding re-sentencing
hearings for the population of 3,300 inmates and prospective
inmates reaching 10 years served, the courts could incur
increased costs to review resubmitted petitions, and to
subsequently hold re-sentencing hearings for petitions deemed
eligible.
To the extent the courts reduce or suspend a number of sentences
due to the review process, CDCR could incur substantial future
savings due to reduced incarceration. The magnitude of the
fiscal impact is unknown, as the potential savings would be
determined by the factors specific to each individual case and
the decisions of individual judges in re-sentencing hearings. If
the courts were to reduce or suspend the sentences of 10 percent
of cases granted a re-sentencing hearing (based on 10 percent to
25 percent of those who file a petition), incarceration savings
for 20 to 50 inmates of $0.2 to $0.5 million (General Fund) per
year would result. Savings would grow as the years they
otherwise would have served compound over time. Over ten years,
the savings could increase to $2 to $5 million assuming the
inmates would have served ten additional years. For inmates
granted even greater reduced or suspended sentences, the
cumulative savings over time would increase commensurately. The
savings impact for reduced sentences would not be incurred until
after the term of the re-sentencing has been served.
SB 260 (Hancock)
Page 4
Recommended Amendments: As drafted, there is no effective limit
on the number of petitions for re-sentencing that an inmate may
file. To address the potential workload and cost impact on the
trial courts, the author may wish to consider an amendment to
restrict the subsequent filings to no more than once within a
specified and reasonable recurring time period.