BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 260
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 260 (Hancock) - As Amended: August 12, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill provides that a person committed to the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) who was
under the age of 18 at the time of the offense shall be
considered for parole after serving 15 to 25 years in prison, as
specified. Subsequent parole hearings would be set according to
current law. This bill states legislative intent to (a) create a
process by which the growth and maturity of youthful offenders
can be assessed, and (b) establish a meaningful opportunity for
release. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to hold a special
"youth parole hearing" for every inmate who was under the age
of 18 at the time of his or her offense as follows:
a) For a determinately-sentenced offender, the hearing
shall be held in the 15th year of confinement.
b) For offenders sentenced to 15/20 years-to-life, the
hearing shall be held in the 20th year.
c) For offenders sentenced to 25 years-to-life, the hearing
shall be held in the 25th year.
2)Requires that six years prior to eligibility for parole under
this scheme, an inmate shall meet with a BPH representative to
review the inmate's file and receive written recommendations
regarding parole suitability.
3)Requires CDCR to review and rewrite regulations regarding
youthful offender parole suitability consistent with relevant
case law requiring a meaningful opportunity for release.
SB 260
Page 2
4)Does not apply to persons sentenced under three strikes or
persons sentenced to life-without-possibility-of-parole
(LWOP).
5)Provides if parole is not granted under these provisions, the
board shall set a time for a subsequent hearing pursuant to
current law, using its statutory discretion to advance the
hearing, giving "great weight to the diminished culpability of
juveniles" pursuant to case law.
6)Requires BPH to complete all hearings required for offenders
who become eligible for hearings on the effective date of this
legislation, by July 1, 2015.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Significant one-time GF costs to the Board of Prison Hearings
(BPH), likely in excess of $2 million by July 1, 2015, to hold
additional parole hearings. As this bill requires BPH to hold
a hearing by July 1, 2015 for every determinately-sentenced
offender who has served more than 15 years for an offense
committed before the offender turned 18, and for
indeterminately-sentenced inmates who have served 15, 20 or 25
years, as specified, the cost of an additional 1,000 hearings
would be in the range of $2.5 million, assuming a BPH estimate
of $2,500 per hearing.
Annual hearing costs thereafter would likely be in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
2)One time GF costs in the range of $150,000 to review and
re-write regulations, pursuant to specified litigation.
3)The above costs would be offset to an unknown degree by state
trial court GF savings as a result of an accompanying
reduction in writs of Habeas Corpus, by which inmates
challenge convictions and/or sentences.
4)Potentially significant annual out-year GF savings to the
extent inmates are actually paroled earlier following the
required hearings. For example, for every 10 inmates per year
who are actually paroled as a result of this bill and end up
serving 20 rather than 30 years, the annual net savings will
exceed $1.5 million in 10 years (assuming a marginal per
capita savings of $25,000 per inmate, and a per capita parole
SB 260
Page 3
cost of $10,000).
There are about 5,700 inmates serving time in CDCR facilities
who were sentenced when they were under the age of 18. Of these:
1,469 will have served at least 15 years by January 1,
2014.
729 will have served at least 20 years by January 1,
2014.
335 will have served at least 25 years by January 1,
2014.
70 are 2nd Strikers
2 are 3rd Strikers
286 are serving LWOP
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . Current law allows an inmate who was under 18 at
the time of an offense that resulted in a term of
life-without-the-possibility-of parole (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
life-with-the-possibility of parole, which may serve as a de
facto life sentence.
According to the author, "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
SB 260
Page 4
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."
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 life without the possibility
of parole (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
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 Caballero, 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. 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.
The court stated that defendants unconstitutionally sentenced
to LWOP, or de facto LWOP, may file a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus to allow the court to determine the appropriate
length of imprisonment.
SB 260
Page 5
This bill creates a statutory parole process by which youthful
offenders are assured of parole review pursuant to recent
court decisions.
3)Related Legislation/Alternative Approach. AB 1276 (Bloom)
posed a different approach to the Caballero de facto life term
issue. AB 1276, sponsored by the L.A. D.A.'s Office, 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 20 years in prison. Subsequent parole hearings
would be set according to current law.
AB 1276 has stalled in Senate Public Safety in favor of SB
260, though the L.A. D.A.'s Office opposes SB 260, and
expresses concerns with the 15-year hearing provisions now in
SB 260 for determinately-sentenced offenders, which moves SB
260 further from AB 1276 and the de facto life term case law
that was the impetus for both bills. The L.A. D.A.'s Office
contends determinately-sentenced offenders should serve at
least 20 years before parole consideration, and
indeterminately-sentences offenders at least 25 years, unless
they have a lower minimum parole consideration date. (The CA
District Attorneys' Association opposes both proposals.)
4)SB 9 (Yee), Statutes of 2012 addressed the 2010 Graham ruling
that youthful offenders could not be sentenced to
life-without-the-possibility-of-parole (LWOP) by statutorily
authorizing 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.
5)Support includes a lengthy list of organizations, including
Human Rights Watch, the Youth Justice Coalition, the ACLU, CA
Attorneys for Criminal Justice, CA Public Defenders
Association, CA Teachers Association, Youth Law Center, L.A.
Sheriff's Office, and the Prison Law Office.
According to the Friends Committee on Legislation of
California, "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
SB 260
Page 6
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."
6)Opposition . The California District Attorney's Office (CDAA)
states, "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."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081