BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|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 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
SENATE FLOOR : 27-11, 5/28/13
AYES: Beall, Calderon, Cannella, Corbett, De Le�n, 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
Gasc�n
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