BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 260|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 260
Author: Hancock (D), et al.
Amended: 5/24/13
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 4-2, 4/9/13
AYES: Hancock, De Le�n, Liu, Steinberg
NOES: Anderson, Knight
NO VOTE RECORDED: Block
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-0, 5/23/13
AYES: De Le�n, Walters, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gaines
SUBJECT : Sentencing
SOURCE : Human Rights Watch
The Friends Committee on Legislation of California
USC School of Law Post Conviction Clinic
Youth Law Center
DIGEST : This bill establishes a process for a person
sentenced for a crime committed before he/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.
CONTINUED
SB 260
Page
2
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Provides that minors age 14 and older can be subject to
prosecution in adult criminal court depending upon their
alleged offense and their criminal offense history.
2.Provides, with some exceptions, that when a defendant who was
under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the
offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment
for life without the possibility of parole has served at least
15 years of that sentence, the defendant may submit to the
sentencing court a petition for recall and resentencing and
sets forth the requirements for filing and granting such a
petition.
This bill:
1.Provides notwithstanding any law, 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.
2.Provides that after reviewing the sentence, if the person
meets the eligibility criteria, the judge can do any of the
following:
A. Suspend or stay all or a portion of the sentence.
B. Reduce the sentence to any sentence that could lawfully
have been ordered at the time of the original judgment.
C. Both reduce and suspend all or a portion of the
sentence.
1.Provides that in reviewing the sentence the court may
consider, in conjunction with any other evidence the court
deems relevant, the following:
CONTINUED
SB 260
Page
3
A. The person's record of serious disciplinary offenses.
B. Whether the person has performed acts that tend to
indicate rehabilitation or the potential capacity for
rehabilitation.
C. The defendant's use of self-study for self-improvement.
D. The defendant's statement describing his/her remorse and
work towards rehabilitation.
E. The person's youth at the time of the crime, including
his/her immaturity, impulsiveness.
F. Failure to appreciate risks and consequence.
G. Family and home environment.
H. Intellectual functioning, mental disorder or
disabilities.
I. The circumstances of the offense, including the extent
of participation in the offense and the way familial and
peer pressures may have affected him/her.
J. Whether the person might have been charged and convicted
of a lesser offense if not for the lesser abilities of
youth, including an inability to effectively deal with
police officers or prosecutors or a limited capacity to
fully understand proceeding to assist his/her attorney.
1.Provides that the court shall identify on the record the
criteria relied on and shall provide a statement of reasons
for adopting those criteria. The court shall state why the
defendant does or does not satisfy the criteria.
2.Provides that victims, or victim family members if the victim
is deceased, shall be notified of the resentencing hearing and
shall retain their rights to participate in the hearing.
3.Permits each person granted a review whose sentence is not
suspended, stayed, or reduced, to file a petition three or
more years after any review hearing, and requires the review
hearing to be granted if the petition demonstrates a change in
CONTINUED
SB 260
Page
4
the circumstances, as specified, by a preponderance of the
evidence.
4.Provides that it does not apply to a person who was sentenced
for: first degree murder with special circumstances; under
three strikes; under provisions increasing the penalty for
priors or multiple convictions; or, has a sentence of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
5.Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature to provide a
judicial mechanism for reconsidering the sentences of adults
who served a significant amount of time in state prison for
the conviction of crimes they committed as children.
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 People v. 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.
CONTINUED
SB 260
Page
5
Prior/Similar Legislation
SB 9 (Yee, Chapter 828, Statutes of 2012), provides that a
person who was sentenced to life without parole who committed
the offense when he/she was under the age of 18 can under
specified circumstances seek a review of the sentence after
he/she served 15 years in prison.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
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% to 25% 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
CONTINUED
SB 260
Page
6
or sentences reduced. Savings will grow as the years they
otherwise would have served compound. Over 10 years, the
savings could increase to $2 to $5 million assuming the
inmates will have served 10 additional years. The savings
impact for reduced sentences will not be incurred until
after the term of the re-sentencing has been served.
Ongoing minor costs to CDCR (General Fund), for
notifications to victims and victim family members, of the
re-sentencing hearings.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/23/13)
Human Rights Watch (co-source)
The Friends Committee on Legislation of California (co-source)
USC School of Law Post Conviction Clinic (co-source)
Youth Law Center (co-source)
A Place Called Home
Advancement Project
All of Us of None
All Saints Church Foster Care Project
American Civil Liberties Union
American Friends Service Committee
American Probation and Parole Association
Amnesty International
Bar Association of San Francisco
Berkeley Organizing Congregations for Action
Black Organizing Project
Boys and Girls Club of San Gabriel Valley
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Church IMPACT
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Coalition for Youth
California Communities United Institute
California Families to Abolish Solitary Confinement
California Fund for Youth Organizing
California Public Defenders Association
California Teachers Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth
Campaign for Youth Justice
CONTINUED
SB 260
Page
7
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Children's Defense Fund
City of San Francisco District Attorney, George Gasc�n
County of Los Angeles Sheriff, Leroy D. Baca
Day One
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
Dolores Mission Catholic Church
East Bay Children's Law Offices
Equal Justice Society
Everychild Foundation
Friends Outside
Healing Justice Coalition
Human Rights Advocates
Jesuits of the California Province
Just Detention International
Justice Not Jails
Justice Now
Juvenile Law Center
Legal Service for Prisoners with Children
Legal Services for Children
Life Support Alliance
Los Angeles Community Action Network
Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law and Policy
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Center for Youth Law
National Juvenile Justice Network
National Partnership for Juvenile Services
Office of Restorative Justice of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Prison Law Office
Public Council - Children's Right's Project
Religious Sisters of Charity
Santa Clara University
Service Employees International Union Local 1000
Sisters of Mercy US Province
Sisters of the Company of Mary
St. Mark's United Methodist Church
Tax Payers for Improving Public Safety
The Women's Foundation of California
University of San Francisco Center for Law and Global Justice
University Synagogue
Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
Yolo County Office of Education
CONTINUED
SB 260
Page
8
Yolo County Public Defender's Office
Youth Justice Coalition
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/23/13)
California District Attorneys Association
Crime Victims United
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, the
supporters agree that juveniles who commit crimes should be
punished, but they also argue that as science has shown and the
courts are recognizing, their minds and judgment is not the same
as adults and that should be considered. They also point to the
fact that young people have a great capacity for rehabilitation.
For example the Center for Juvenile Law and Policy at Loyola
Law School states:
Youth who commit crimes should be held accountable.
However, when California sentences someone under the age of
18 to an adult prions sentence, it disregards the human
capacity for rehabilitation and ignores the very real
physical and psychological differences between youth and
adults. Punishment should reflect the capacity of young
people to change and mature.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California District Attorneys
Association opposes this bill stating:
We have many concerns with this bill, and paramount among
them is the fact that this bill will potentially result in
the early release of many serious offenders. SB 260 gives
courts near limitless authority to suspend or reduce
sentences based on criteria that may have already been
considered or that are irrelevant to a sentencing decision.
Offenders who are deserving of the very long custodial
sentences they have received can petition under this bill
after only serving 10 years. This represents a severe risk
to public safety and is insulting to victims who were
promised justice through meaningful incarceration.
While the bill describes criteria that can be used by the
court to make a determination under this bill, the only
requirement is that whatever criteria are used is noted on
the record. This is hardly a safeguard against courts that
CONTINUED
SB 260
Page
9
exhibit contempt for sentences that may be required by law.
Additionally, there is no effective limit on the number of
petitions for resentencing that an offender may file.
JG:ej 5/25/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED