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