BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1031|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1031
Author: De León (D)
Amended: 4/3/14
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/28/14
AYES: De León, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Padilla
SUBJECT : State claims
SOURCE : California Victims Compensation and Government
Claims Board
DIGEST : This bill appropriates $776,946.59 from specified
funds to the California Victim Compensation and Government
Claims Board (Board) for the payment of 332 state claims, and
appropriates $305,900 from the General Fund to the Board for the
payment of an erroneous conviction claim.
ANALYSIS : The State Board of Control was established in 1945.
It was revised and renamed the Victim Compensation and
Government Claims Board by AB 2491(Jackson, Chapter 1016,
Statutes of 2000). Government Code 13928 requires the Board to
ensure that all claims that have been approved by the Board, and
for which no legally available appropriation exists, are
submitted for legislative approval at least twice during each
calendar year. In general, the Board will approve claims in
November and February. Those claims are reported to the chairs
of the Appropriations Committees who introduce bills
CONTINUED
SB 1031
Page
2
appropriating General Funds and special funds to pay the claims.
These bills may appropriate funds in amounts to the penny for
tens to hundreds of claims. Government Code 906 provides for
the payment of interest on claims approved by the Board for
which an appropriation has been made beginning 30 days after the
effective date of the law by which the appropriation is enacted.
The re-issuance of stale-dated warrants is the most prevalent
claim approved by the Board. For stale-dated warrants, the
State Controller must confirm that (1) the check was not cashed
and has not been issued, and (2) more than three years have
elapsed since the check was issued and the monies have reverted
to the General Fund or to the relevant special fund. For these
warrants an appropriation is needed to reissue the payment.
This category also may include state treasury bonds that have
not been redeemed within ten years of their maturity date (there
are no such claims in this bill), but the majority of warrants
are payroll or tax refund checks.
Existing law (relative to the circumstances of the erroneous
conviction claim in this bill) authorizes a person convicted and
imprisoned for a felony to submit a claim to the Board for
pecuniary injury sustained as a result of his/her erroneous
conviction and imprisonment. The claimant is required to
introduce evidence in support of his/her claim at a hearing
before the Board, and the Attorney General (AG) may introduce
evidence in opposition. The claimant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the crime was either not
committed at all, or, if committed, was not committed by the
claimant; that the claimant did not contribute to the arrest or
conviction for the crime; and that the claimant sustained
pecuniary injury through the erroneous conviction and
imprisonment. If a claimant meets the burden of proof, the
Board shall recommend to the Legislature that an appropriation
of $100 per day of incarceration served in a state prison
subsequent to the claimant's conviction.
This bill appropriates $776,946.59 in various state funds,
including $699,346.53 from the General Fund, to the Board for
the payment of 332 state claims for reissuance of stale-dated
warrants, and appropriates $305,900 to the Board for payment of
the erroneous conviction claim of Mario Rocha.
Background
CONTINUED
SB 1031
Page
3
On February 16, 1996, a party took place at a Highland Park
residence that was attended by 50 to 70 people. Following a
verbal dispute between Raymond Rivera and Richard Guzman, two
Highland Park gang members and several other guests at the
party, including Martin Aceves and Anthony Moscato, a gang
challenge was issued and a fist fight ensued outside the
residence in the backyard. Gunfire erupted and Mr. Aceves was
shot at close range and killed. Numerous witnesses saw Mr.
Guzman shoot Mr. Aceves. Gunfire also occurred in the driveway
as guests were fleeing, and Mr. Moscato was shot while running
down the driveway, but survived the incident. Witnesses
testified that Mr. Rivera had placed a gun against the ribs of
two guests prior to the fight. One week after the incident,
Mario Rocha, Mr. Rivera, and Mr. Guzman were arrested for the
shooting and charged with murder and attempted murder. It was
alleged that Mr. Rocha, along with Mr. Rivera, were shooting at
guests in the driveway.
All three defendants were tried together, and on December 4,
1997, a jury found them all guilty of murder and attempted
murder, and found that each defendant used a firearm in the
commission of the crimes. Three witnesses identified Mr. Rocha
as a shooter in the driveway, while nine other witnesses
testified that he was not the shooter in the driveway. Most of
these and other witnesses testified to hearing four to six
gunshots and none testified to seeing more than two shooters.
Two bullets were recovered from the scene and expert testimony
indicated that they came from two different guns.
Mr. Rocha was sentenced to 29 years-to-life in prison for the
murder charge, with a consecutive prison term of one year and
four months-to-life for the attempted murder charge. The
conviction and sentence was affirmed by an appellate court on
June 29, 1999. Subsequently, Mr. Rocha filed numerous
challenges, including a claim for ineffective assistance of
counsel, which was initially denied by the Los Angeles Superior
Court. On December 28, 2005, however, the Court of Appeals
reversed the previous decision and granted Mr. Rocha's Writ of
Habeus Corpus based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr.
Rocha was returned from state prison to jail on April 19, 2006,
and released on bail on August 24, 2006 while the Los Angeles
District Attorney's Office (DA) determined whether or not to
retry him. On October 28, 2008, the DA dismissed the charges
CONTINUED
SB 1031
Page
4
against Mr. Rocha, citing the unavailability of witnesses as a
reason for dropping charges. Mr. Rocha then filed a claim with
the Board for compensation related to the erroneous conviction
on April 22, 2009.
Findings . The hearing officer's proposed decision concludes
that Mr. Rocha has met his burden of proving by a preponderance
of the evidence that he did not commit the crimes of murder and
attempted murder. The decision was based upon the following:
Forensic evidence shows that only two guns were fired.
No witnesses named three different shooters and there is no
evidence whatsoever that there was a third shooter.
Two documented gang members who brought weapons to the party
were convicted of murder and attempted murder and are still
in prison. (the proposed decision indicates this point weighs
most in determining Mr. Rocha's innocence)
Nine witnesses state that Mr. Rocha was not the shooter
while only one solidly states that he was the shooter,
another witness thinks Mr. Rocha looks like the shooter, and
a third witness originally told law enforcement he did not
see the shooter. The proposed decision notes the witnesses
varying degrees of credibility and confidence regarding
claims that Mr. Rocha was or was not the shooter in the
driveway.
The Board approved the claim on a vote of 2-1 on December 12,
2013, determining that Mr. Rocha is entitled to $305,900 in
compensation for incarceration in state prison for 3,059 days.
Although the AG presented evidence opposing Mr. Rocha's claim at
the previous in-person hearing, the AG's final response to the
hearing officer's proposed decision includes the following
statement: "At age 16, Rocha affiliated with gangs, violated the
express terms of his probation, and sold marijuana. But he
probably did not commit murder or attempted murder. In the
final analysis that is the only issue that matters.
Accordingly, the Attorney General does not intend to challenge
CONTINUED
SB 1031
Page
5
the hearing officer's recommendation."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Stale-dated warrants : General Fund appropriations in the
amount of $669,346.53 to pay 299 claims, and special fund
appropriations in the amount of $100,600.06 to pay 33 claims.
All of these claims are for reissuance of stale-dated warrants
(expired checks). The individual claim amounts range from
$14.03 to $90,688.06.
Erroneous conviction : General Fund appropriation in the
amount of $305,900 to pay the claim of Mario Rocha, approved
by the Board on December 12, 2013.
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/29/14)
California Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board
(source)
Department of Finance
JA:d 4/30/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED