BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 260| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 260 Author: Hancock (D), et al. Amended: 9/3/13 Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 4-2, 4/9/13 AYES: Hancock, De León, Liu, Steinberg NOES: Anderson, Knight NO VOTE RECORDED: Block SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-0, 5/23/13 AYES: De León, Walters, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg NO VOTE RECORDED: Gaines SENATE FLOOR : 27-11, 5/28/13 AYES: Beall, Calderon, Cannella, Corbett, De León, DeSaulnier, Emmerson, Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Monning, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Roth, Steinberg, Walters, Wolk, Wright, Yee NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Block, Correa, Fuller, Gaines, Huff, Knight, Nielsen, Torres, Wyland NO VOTE RECORDED: Galgiani, Vacancy ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available SUBJECT : Youth opportunity review hearings SOURCE : Friends Committee on Legislation of California Human Rights Watch CONTINUED SB 260 Page 2 USC School of Law Post Conviction Clinic Youth Justice Coalition Youth Law Center DIGEST : This bill establishes a parole process for persons sentenced to prison for crimes committed before attaining 18 years of age. Assembly Amendments revise and recast with the same intent as it left the Senate but make considerable changes, most notably, to the parole process now going through the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) for a prisoner who at the time of their conviction was under the age of 18. 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 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/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 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 CONTINUED SB 260 Page 3 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. 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. 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. 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. The 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 three year period following a summary denial or decision of BPH. 6.Requires BPH to meet with each inmate, except as specified, during his/her third year of incarceration for the purpose of reviewing his/her file, making recommendations, and documenting activities and conduct pertinent to granting or withholding post-conviction credit. CONTINUED SB 260 Page 4 This bill: 1.Establishes a youth offender parole hearing which is a hearing by BPH for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of any prisoner who was under 18 years of age at the time of his/her controlling offense. 2.Defines "incarceration" as detention in a city or county jail, a local juvenile facility, a mental health facility, a Division of Juvenile Justice facility, or a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facility. 3.Defines "controlling offense as the offense or enhancement for which any sentencing court imposed the longest term of imprisonment. 4.Provides the following parole mechanism for a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed before the person had attained 18 years of age: A. If the sentence is a determinate sentence, the person shall be eligible for release on parole at a youth offender parole hearing during his/her 15th year of incarceration, unless previously released pursuant to other statutory provisions. B. If the sentence is a life term of less than 25 years to life, the person shall be eligible for release on parole during his/her 20th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing, unless previously released or entitled to an earlier parole consideration hearing pursuant to other statutory provisions. C. If the sentence is a life term of 25 years to life, the person shall be eligible for release on parole during his/her 25th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing, unless previously released or entitled to an earlier parole consideration hearing pursuant to other statutory provisions. 1.Specifies that the youth offender parole hearing to consider release shall provide for a meaningful opportunity to obtain release. CONTINUED SB 260 Page 5 2.Mandates BPH to review and, as necessary, revise existing regulations and adopt new regulations regarding determinations of suitability made pursuant to the provisions of this bill, and other related topics, consistent with relevant case law, in order to provide that meaningful opportunity for release. 3.Provides in assessing growth and maturity, if BPH uses psychological evaluations and risk assessment instruments, those evaluations and instruments shall be administered by licensed psychologists employed by BPH and shall take into consideration the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to that of adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the individual. 4.States that, family members, friends, school personnel, faith leaders, and representatives from community-based organizations with knowledge about the individual before the crime or his/her growth and maturity since the time of the crime may submit statements for review by BPH. 5.Clarifies that nothing in this bill is intended to alter the rights of victims at parole hearings. 6.States, if parole is not granted, BPH shall set the time for the subsequent youth offender parole hearing in accordance with existing provisions of law, and in exercising its discretion BPH shall consider the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law. 7.Excludes persons sentenced under the "Three Strikes" law, the "One-Strike" sex law, or sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. 8.Makes ineligible a person to whom the provisions of this bill would otherwise apply, but who, subsequent to attaining 18 years of age, commits an additional crime for which the person is sentenced to life in prison or commits murder, as specified. CONTINUED SB 260 Page 6 9.Sets a deadline of July 1, 2015, for BPH to complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who become entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of this bill. 10.Requires BPH in reviewing a prisoner's parole suitability at a youth offender parole hearing, to give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law. 11.Requires BPH to meet with each inmate during the sixth year prior to the inmate's minimum eligible parole release date for the purposes of reviewing and documenting the inmate's activities and conduct pertinent to both parole eligibility and to the granting or withholding of post-conviction credit. 12.Specifies during this consultation, BPH shall provide the inmate information about the parole hearing process, legal factors relevant to his/her suitability or unsuitability for parole, and individualized recommendations for the inmate regarding his/her work assignments, rehabilitative programs, and institutional behavior. 13.Requires BPH, within 30 days following the consultation, to issue its positive and negative findings and recommendations to the inmate in writing. 14.States notwithstanding provisions of law requiring specified minimum terms to be served on life sentences before being paroled, a prisoner found suitable for parole pursuant to a youth offender parole hearing shall be paroled regardless of the manner in which BPH sets release dates. 15.Makes various legislative declarations and findings related to youthful offenders. 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 CONTINUED SB 260 Page 7 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. 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 Assembly Appropriations Committee: Significant one-time General Fund (GF) costs to 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 CONTINUED SB 260 Page 8 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 will 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. One time GF costs in the range of $150,000 to review and re-write regulations, pursuant to specified litigation. The above costs will 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. 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 cost of $10,000). SUPPORT : (Verified 9/6/13) Friends Committee on Legislation of California (co-source) Human Rights Watch (co-source) USC School of Law Post Conviction Clinic (co-source) Youth Justice Coalition (co-source) Youth Law Center (co-source) 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 CONTINUED SB 260 Page 9 Americans for Tax Reform President, Grover G. Norquist 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 for Safety and Justice Californians United for a Responsible Budget Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth Campaign for Youth Justice Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Children's Defense Fund City and County of San Francisco, District Attorney George Gascón City of San Diego, Chief of Police William Lansdowne County of Los Angeles, Sheriff Leroy D. Baca Day One Disability Rights California Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund Dolores Mission Catholic Church East Bay Children's Law Offices Equal Justice Society Everychild Foundation Former Republican Leader of the California Assembly Pat Nolan Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich Friends Outside Healing Justice Coalition Human Rights Advocates Jesuits of the California Province Just Detention International Justice Fellowship Justice Not Jails CONTINUED SB 260 Page 10 Justice Now Juvenile Law Center Law Office of Donald R. Hammond 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 Saint Francis Xavier Catholic Church Saint Mark's United Methodist Church Santa Clara University Service Employees International Union Local 1000 Sisters of Mercy U.S. Province Sisters of the Company of Mary Tax Payers for Improving Public Safety The W. Haywood Burns Institute 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 Yolo County Public Defender's Office OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/6/13) Anaheim Police Officers Association Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations California District Attorneys Association California Fraternal Order of Police California Narcotics Officers Association California Police Chiefs Association CONTINUED SB 260 Page 11 Crime Victims Action Alliance Crime Victims United Long Beach Police Officers Association Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union-AFSME- Local 685 Los Angeles Police Protective League Los Angeles Professional Peace Officers Association Riverside Sheriffs Association Sacramento Deputy Sheriffs Association Santa Ana Police Officers Association Southern California Alliance of Law Enforcement ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office: 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 U.S. 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 CONTINUED SB 260 Page 12 decision-making, do not fully develop until the early 20's. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in its 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision, the 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 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 BPH. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office states: We agree that persons who commit crimes before the age of 18 should have a meaningful opportunity to petition for parole based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the recent amendments to SB 260 could have the unintended consequence of releasing dangerous offenders into the community. As currently drafted, SB 260 tips the scales toward release of the offender by creating a new standard that requires the parole board to give "great weight" to the "diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth and any subsequent growth and maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law. Significantly, "great weight" is expressly given to no other factor, not even the number of victims the prisoner killed or injured, the egregious nature of the offense or the prisoner's threat to public safety. This is of particular concern in murder, rape and gang cases. Moreover, by giving "great weight" solely to youthfulness factors, SB 260 arguably creates a presumption that the offender who committed a crime as juvenile should be released at the minimum eligible parole date. CONTINUED SB 260 Page 13 Even if the courts do not hold that there is a presumption in favor of release, SB 260 would tip the scales in favor of release by elevating the age at the time of the offense, and subsequent growth and maturity, to be more important than any aggravating factor. This is a clear threat to public safety. JG:ej 9/6/13 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED