BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 260
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 2, 2013
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 260 (Hancock) - As Amended: June 27, 2013
SUMMARY : Establishes a parole process for persons sentenced to
lengthy prison terms for crimes committed before attaining 18
years of age. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to conduct a youth
opportunity review hearing to provide a meaningful opportunity
for release based on demonstrated growth and maturity.
2)States that BPH must give great weight to mitigating factors
and circumstances attendant in the person's crime and life,
including:
a) The fundamental differences between juveniles and
adults, and a juvenile's diminished culpability compared to
that of an adult;
b) The hallmark features of youthfulness, including but not
limited to, immaturity, impetuosity, susceptibility to peer
pressure or the negative influence of older individuals,
and the failure to appreciate risks and consequences;
c) Childhood trauma, including but not limited to, extended
exposure to violence, dysfunctional or chaotic family or
home environment, and physical, sexual, or emotional abuse;
d) The person's physical and mental development at the time
of the offense and the impact of physical or mental
impairments in combination with youthfulness; and,
e) Growth, maturity, and rehabilitation during
incarceration and relative to the individual's age at the
time of the offense, age when he or she entered prison, and
his or her age at the time of parole consideration hearing.
SB 260
Page 2
3)States if any of the specified mitigating factors and
circumstances are in conflict with existing suitability or
unsuitability criteria, the mitigating factors listed shall
prevail.
4)Provides in assessing the growth and maturity, if BPH uses
psychological evaluations and risk assessment instruments,
those evaluations and instruments shall be administered by
qualified professionals, provide reliable assessment of the
growth and maturity of individuals who committed a crime when
they were under 18 years of age, and include dynamic variables
associated with growth and maturity.
5)States that family members, school personnel, faith leaders,
and representatives from community-based programs with
knowledge about the individual at the time of the crime or his
or her growth and maturity in prison shall be allowed to
attend and testify at the youth opportunity review hearing.
6)Limits the parole period to 10 years, unless a longer parole
period is otherwise provided for in the law.
7)States, if parole is not granted, BPH shall set the time for
the subsequent youth opportunity review hearing not more than
three years later and use the factors and circumstances
specified above.
8)Specifies for nonhomicide offenses, attempted murder,
conspiracy to commit murder or manslaughter, BPH shall
consider the person for parole eligibility at a youth
opportunity review hearing:
a) During the 15th year of his or her incarceration if the
person was sentenced to a determinate term of 40 years or
less, or an indeterminate term with a base term of 40 years
or less; or,
b) During the 20th year of his or her incarceration if the
person was sentenced to a determinate term of more than 40
years, or an indeterminate term with a base term of more
than 40 years.
9)Specifies for a homicide offense, BPH shall consider a person
for parole eligibility at a youth opportunity review hearing:
SB 260
Page 3
a) During the 15th year or his or her incarceration if his
or her primary offense was murder in the second degree; or,
b) During the 20th year of his or her incarceration if his
or her primary offense was murder in the first degree.
10)Requires a BPH commissioner to meet with an individual five
years prior to eligibility for release under the provisions of
this bill for consultation and direction on the individual's
progress toward parole suitability. During the meeting, the
commissioner shall provide the individual with information on
the parole process and the factors relevant to a suitability
determination at a youth opportunity review hearing.
11)Requires, within 30 days of the meeting described above, BPH
to issue written recommendations to the individual addressing
any issues the individual will have to address prior to being
found suitable for release through a youth opportunity review
hearing and guidance on how to successfully address those
issues.
12)Excludes persons sentenced under the Three Strikes law or for
murder in the first degree with special circumstances.
13)Makes various legislative declarations and findings.
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. [Welfare
and Institutions Code (WIC) Sections 602(b) and 707(d)(3).]
2)Provides that a minor within the jurisdiction of the juvenile
delinquency court may be sentenced to the Department of
Juvenile Facilities or tried as an adult, as specified, if he
or she has been charged with one of the following: murder;
arson, as specified; robbery; rape with force, violence, or
threat of great bodily harm; sodomy by force, violence,
duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm; a lewd or
lascivious act on a person under the age of 14; oral
copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of
great bodily harm; forcible sexual penetration, as specified;
kidnapping for ransom; kidnapping for purposes of robbery;
kidnapping with bodily harm; attempted murder; assault with a
SB 260
Page 4
firearm or destructive device; assault by any means of force
likely to produce great bodily injury; discharge of a firearm
into an inhabited or occupied building; a specified violent
crime against a person over the age of 60; use of a firearm in
a crime, as specified; a felony offense in which the minor
personally used a weapon specified in existing law; a felony
offense of intimidating or dissuading a witness;
manufacturing, compounding, or selling one-half ounce or more
of a salt or solution of a depressant listed as a controlled
substance; a violent felony or gang crime, as specified;
escape, by the use of force or violence, from a county
juvenile hall, home, ranch, camp, or forestry camp, as
specified, if great bodily injury is intentionally inflicted
upon an employee of the juvenile facility during the
commission of the escape; torture; aggravated mayhem;
carjacking, while armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon;
kidnapping for purposes of sexual assault; kidnapping during
the commission of a carjacking; discharging a firearm into a
vehicle, as specified, or; voluntary manslaughter. [WIC
Section 707(b)(1) to (30).]
3)Specifies if prosecution is commenced against a minor as a
criminal case as a "direct file" case, which does not require
a prior fitness hearing in juvenile court, and the minor is
convicted of a "direct file" offense, the minor is required to
be sentenced as an adult. [Penal Code Section 1170.17(a).]
4)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. [Penal Code Section 1170(d)(2).]
5)Requires BPH to consider the views and interests of the victim
when scheduling parole rehearings, and provides that the
denial period between rehearings shall be 15, 10, 7, 5 or 3
years as specified. An inmate may request BPH to exercise
discretion to advance a set hearing to an earlier date, by
submitting a written request to BPH which sets forth new
information or a change in circumstances. BPH has the sole
discretion to determine whether to grant or deny a request.
An inmate is allowed to make one written request during each
SB 260
Page 5
three year period following a summary denial or decision of
BPH. (Penal Code Section 3041.5.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Piecemeal
changes to California law since the 1990s have removed many
safeguards and points for review that once existed for youth
charged with crimes. Currently, over 6,500 young people in
California prisons were under the age of 18 at the time of
their crime and prosecuted as adults - many are transferred to
the adult criminal justice system without careful
consideration of their amenability to rehabilitate and
demonstrate remorse. The current system provides no viable
mechanism for reviewing a case after a young person has served
a substantial period of incarceration and can show maturity
and improvement.
"Existing sentencing laws do not distinguish youth from
adults, however, recent court decisions are moving in this
direction. The US Supreme Court recently held
unconstitutional mandatory life without parole sentences for
people under the age of 18, and required courts to consider
the youthfulness of defendants facing that sentence (Miller v.
Alabama (2012). The California Supreme Court recently ruled
in People v. Caballero (2012) that a sentence exceeding the
life expectancy of a juvenile is the equivalent of life
without parole, and unconstitutional in nonhomicide cases.
Specifically, the California Supreme Court called for
legislative action to establish a review process for cases
with lengthy sentences.
"Recent scientific evidence on adolescent development and
neuroscience show that certain areas of the brain,
particularly those that affect judgment and decision-making,
do not fully develop until the early 20's. The US Supreme
Court stated in its 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision, '[t]he
reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity
means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous
crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably
depraved character.' Moreover, the fact that young adults are
still developing means that they are uniquely situated for
personal growth and rehabilitation.
SB 260
Page 6
"In the wake of the US and the California Supreme Courts'
decisions and consistent with neuroscientific research, SB 260
establishes a comprehensive Youth Opportunity Review process
to evaluate cases involving extreme sentences for juveniles.
SB 260 holds young people responsible for the crimes they
committed and creates a parole mechanism in which they must
demonstrate remorse and rehabilitation to merit any possible
release on parole as determined by the Board of Parole
Hearings."
2)Review of Case Law: Juvenile Sentencing : In 2010, the United
States Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to
sentence a youth who did not commit homicide to a sentence of
life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). [Graham v.
Florida (2010) 130 S.Ct. 2011.] The Court discussed the
fundamental differences between a juvenile and adult offender
and reasserted its earlier findings from Roper v. Simmons
(2005) 543 U.S. 551, 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." [Graham, supra, 130 S.Ct. at
2016.] However, the Court stressed 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 who commit truly horrifying crimes as juveniles
may turn out to be irredeemable, and thus deserving of
incarceration for the duration of their lives. The Eighth
Amendment does not foreclose the possibility that persons
convicted of nonhomicide crimes committed before adulthood
will remain behind bars for life. It does forbid States from
making the judgment at the outset that those offenders never
will be fit to reenter society." (Id. at pg. 2031.)
In 2012, the California Supreme Court ruled that sentencing a
juvenile offender for a non-homicide offense to a term of
years with a parole eligibility date that falls outside the
juvenile offender's natural life expectancy constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
[People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 262, 268.] The Court
stated that "the state may not deprive [juveniles] at
sentencing of a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate their
SB 260
Page 7
rehabilitation and fitness to reenter society in the future."
[Ibid.] Citing Graham, supra, the Court stated "the
sentencing court must consider all mitigating circumstances
attendant in the juvenile's crime and life, including but not
limited to his or her chronological age at the time of the
crime, whether the juvenile offender was a direct perpetrator
or an aider and abettor, and his or her physical and mental
development, so that it can impose a time when the juvenile
offender will be able to seek parole from the parole board."
(Id. at pp. 268-269.) In Caballero, the defendant was
convicted of three counts of attempted murder and received a
sentence of 110-years-to-life. Relying on the reasoning in
the Graham case, the Court found that while the juvenile did
not receive a sentence of LWOP, trial court's sentence
effectively deprives the defendant of any "realistic
opportunity to obtain release" from prison during his or her
expected lifetime, thus the sentence is a de facto LWOP
sentence and violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment. (Id. at pg. 268.)
The court in Caballero, supra, advised that "[d]efendants who
were sentenced for crimes they committed as juveniles who seek
to modify life without parole or equivalent de facto sentences
already imposed may file petitions for writs 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." (Id. at p. 269.) While the
Court did not provide a precise timeframe for setting these
future parole hearings, the Court stressed that "the sentence
must not violate the defendant's Eighth Amendment rights and
must provide [the defendant with] a 'meaningful opportunity to
obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and
rehabilitation' under Graham's mandate." (Ibid.)
While the court in Caballero pointed out that these inmates may
file petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the trial court,
the court also urged the Legislature to establish a parole
eligibility mechanism for an individual sentenced to a de
facto life term for crimes committed as a juvenile. This bill
establishes a parole process for inmates who were sentenced to
lengthy prison terms for crimes committed when they were under
the age of 18, without requiring the inmate to file a writ of
habeas corpus and appear before the trial court for
resentencing.
SB 260
Page 8
For defendants serving indeterminate prison terms, i.e.
110-years-to-life, even if he or she were to successfully
petition a court for resentencing, the court would only be
authorized to resentence the inmate to another indeterminate
term, requiring the inmate to have to appear before BPH to
determine parole eligibility after serving the base term. For
inmates sentenced to a determinate term under current law, the
inmate does not have to appear before BPH to determine
eligibility for release because the inmate is automatically
released when his or her sentence has been served. This bill
requires eligible inmates who are sentenced to both
indeterminate terms and determinate terms to have a youth
opportunity review hearing before the BPH. This creates a new
process for BPH to consider the release of inmates serving
determinate sentences.
3)SB 9 (Yee) Chapter 828, Statutes of 2012 : SB 9 allows an
inmate who was under 18 years of age at the time of committing
an offense for which the prisoner was sentenced to LWOP to
submit a petition for recall and resentencing to the
sentencing court after serving 15 years of that sentence. The
new law requires the person to submit a petition to the court
which includes the defendant's statement that he or she was
under 18 years of age at the time of the crime and was
sentenced to LWOP, the defendant's statement describing his or
her remorse and work towards rehabilitation, and other
specified information. If the court finds that the statements
in the petition are true, the court shall hold a hearing to
consider whether to recall the sentence and commitment
previously ordered and to resentence the defendant in the same
manner as if the defendant had not previously been sentenced,
provided that the new sentence, if any, is not greater than
the initial sentence. [Penal Code Section 1170(d)(2).]
The court has the discretion to recall the sentence and
resentence the defendant. If the petition is denied, the
inmate may petition the court for recall and resentencing
after he or she has served 20 years of the current sentence.
If that petition is denied, the new law allows the inmate to
submit a new petition after serving 24 years; if that is
denied, then the new law allows a final petition to be
submitted during the 25th year of his or her petition. [Penal
Code Section 1170(d)(2)(H).]
SB 9 applies to defendants sentenced to LWOP for a crime
SB 260
Page 9
committed when the defendant was under the age of 18. Only a
juvenile convicted of first-degree murder with special
circumstances, as specified, may be sentenced to a term of
LWOP or, in the alternative, a term of years sentence of
25-years-to-life. [See Penal Code Section 190.5(b), Graham v.
Florida, supra, 130 S.Ct. 2011.] "First-degree murder" is
defined as all murder perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive; a weapon of mass destruction; knowing use
of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor;
poison; lying in wait; torture; or by any other kind of
willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing; or which is
committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate,
arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem,
kidnapping, train wrecking; or any act punishable as a violent
sex offense, as specified; or any murder which is perpetrated
by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with
the intent to inflict death. (Penal Code Section 189.) One
of the enumerated special circumstances must be shown in
addition to the elements of first-degree murder in order to
sentence a defendant to a term of LWOP. [Penal Code Section
190.2(a).]
The offense for which a juvenile can be sentenced to LWOP is
first-degree murder with special circumstances; and under SB
9, this category of inmates can petition the court for recall
and resentencing after serving 15 years of his or her
sentence. The court may, within its discretion, resentence
the defendant to the only statutorily authorized alternative,
which is 25-years-to-life. After the resentenced inmate
serves 25 years, he or she will have the opportunity to appear
before BPH to determine parole eligibility. This bill will
address parole eligibility and release of persons convicted of
crimes as a juvenile and sentenced to lengthy prison terms for
non-LWOP and non-Three Strikes Law sentences.
4)Argument in Support : The Friends Committee on Legislation of
California (a co-sponsor of this bill) states, "Changes in
California law have eroded legal safeguards for young people
and in some cases mandate that juveniles be tried as adults.
There are now more than 6,500 people serving sentences in
California's adult prisons for an offense committed under the
age 18. More than 90 percent of them are people of color and
more than half are serving life sentences.
SB 260
Page 10
"Federal law and recent course cases increasingly recognize that
minors are physically and psychologically different than
adults. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court
recognized a large body of scientific and sociological
research pointing to the diminished culpability of youth as
well as their capacity for rehabilitation. For the most part,
California law still fails to distinguish these very real
differences. People who cannot vote, serve on juries, or
legally purchase alcohol or tobacco are nevertheless
considered as culpable as adults when convicted of certain
crimes.
"While society wants young people who commit crimes to be
punished, rehabilitation, redemption and the belief in second
chances reflect our nation's core values. SB 260 will require
the Board of Parole Hearings to consider objective criteria
consistent with the California Supreme Court's ruling in
People v. Caballero and the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v.
Alabama and Graham v. Florida in determining whether to grant
parole. Youth will be held accountable while creating
incentives for their rehabilitation."
5)Argument in Opposition : The California District Attorney's
Office (CDAA) writes, "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. . . . This represents a severe risk to public
safety and is insulting to victims who were promised justice
through meaningful incarceration.
"For reference, CDAA is opposed to this bill for many of the
same reasons that it opposed SB 9 last year and its
predecessors in prior years. There are many safeguards and
opportunities to argue for lesser sentences, appeal
convictions, and seek executive clemency. SB 260 gives
serious offenders yet another chance to avoid deserved
punishment."
6)Related Legislation : AB 1276 (Bloom) establishes a parole
mechanism for a person convicted of a non-homicide offense
that was committed before the person had attained 18 years of
age. AB 1276 will be heard by Senate Committee on Public
Safety today.
7)Prior Legislation :
SB 260
Page 11
a) SB 9 (Yee), Chapter 828, Statutes of 2012, authorizes a
prisoner who was under 18 years of age at the time of
committing an offense for which the prisoner was sentenced
to LWOP to submit a petition for recall and resentencing to
the sentencing court, and to the prosecuting agency, as
specified.
b) SB 399 (Yee), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session, was
substantially similar to SB 9. SB 399 failed passage on
Assembly Floor.
c) SB 999 (Yee), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session, would
have eliminated the LWOP sentence thus making the sentence
for first-degree murder with special circumstances by a
defendant under 18 years of age 25-years-to-life. SB 999
failed passage on Senate Floor.
d) SB 1223 (Kuehl), of the 2003-04 Legislative Session,
would have authorized a court to review the sentence of a
person convicted as a minor in adult criminal court and
sentenced to state prison after the person has either
served 10 years or attained the age of 25. SB 1223 failed
passage in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Friends Committee on Legislation of California (Co-Sponsor)
Human Rights Watch (Co-Sponsor)
Youth Justice Coalition (Co-Sponsor)
A Place Called Home
Advancement Project
All of Us or 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
SB 260
Page 12
California Catholic Conference
California Church IMPACT
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Coalition for Youth
California Committees United Institute
California Families to Abolish Solitary Confinement
California Fund for Youth Organizing
California National Organization for Women
California Public Defenders Association
California Teachers Association
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth
Center for Juvenile Law and Policy at Loyola Law School
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Children's Defense Fund - CA
Children's Rights Project at Public Counsel
City and County of San Francisco
Day One
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Disability Rights of California
Dolores Mission
East Bay Children's Law Offices
Equal Justice Society
Everychild Foundation
Friends Outside
Healing Justice Coalition
Healing Justice Coalition
Human Rights Advocates of the University of San Francisco School
of Law
Jesuits of the California Province of the Society of Jesus
Just Detention International
Justice Not Jails
Justice Now
Juvenile Law Center
Law Office of Donald R. Hammond
Legal Services for Children
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Life Support Alliance
Los Angeles Community Action Network
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Center for Youth Law
National Juvenile Justice Network
SB 260
Page 13
National Partnership for Juvenile Services
Office of Restorative Justice of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
Post-Conviction Justice Project, USC Gould School of Law
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Post-Conviction Justice Project, USC Gould School of Law
Prison Law Office
Religious Sisters of Charity
Santa Clara University
Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
Sisters of Mercy U.S. Province
Sisters of the Company of Mary
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
The W. Hayward Burns Institute
United Methodists in California-Nevada Conference
University Synagogue
Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
Women's Foundation
Yolo County Public Defender's Office
Yolo County Office of Education
Youth Justice
Youth Law Center
2,991 Private Individuals
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Analysis Prepared by : Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744