BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 6
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 14, 2016
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
SB
6 (Galgiani) - As Introduced December 1, 2014
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY: Exempts from medical parole and compassionate release
eligibility a prisoner who was convicted of the murder of a
peace officer, as provided, and applies the provisions of this
bill retroactively.
SB 6
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides if the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR), Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), or both
determine that a prisoner has six months or less to live; that
the conditions under which the prisoner would be released do
not pose a threat to public safety and that the prisoner is
permanently medically incapacitated, the Secretary of CDCR or
BPH may recommend to the court that the prisoner's sentence be
recalled (compassionate release). (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd.
(e)(1) & (2).)
2)Exempts from compassionate release a prisoner sentenced to
death or a term of life without the possibility of parole
(LWOP). (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (e)(2)(C).)
3)Requires any recommendation for recall submitted to the court
by the CDCR Secretary or BPH to include one or more medical
evaluations, a postrelease plan, and findings of the
prisoner's eligibility. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (e)(7).)
4)Requires the court to hold a hearing within 10 days of receipt
of a positive recommendation by BPH or the secretary of CDCR
for a prisoner's sentence to be recalled. (Pen. Code, § 1170,
subd. (e)(3).)
5)States if the court grants the recall and resentencing
application, the prisoner shall be released within 48 hours of
receipt of the court order, unless a longer time period is
agreed to by the inmate. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (e)(9).)
6)Establishes the medical parole program whereby any prisoner
who the head physician of the institution where the prisoner
SB 6
Page 3
is located determines is permanently medically incapacitated
with a medical condition that renders him or her permanently
unable to perform activities of basic daily living, and
results in the prisoner requiring 24-hour care, and that
incapacitation did not exist at the time of sentencing, shall
be granted medical parole if BPH determines that the
conditions under which the prisoner would be released would
not reasonably pose a threat to public safety. (Pen. Code, §
3550, subd. (a).)
7)States that medical parole shall not apply to any prisoner
sentenced to death or LWOP or to any inmate who is serving a
sentence for which medical parole is prohibited by any
initiative statute. (Pen. Code, § 3550, subd. (b).)
8)States that when a physician employed by CDCR who is the
primary care provider for an inmate identifies an inmate that
he or she believes meets the medical criteria for medical
parole, the primary care physician shall recommend to the head
physician of the institution where the prisoner is located
that the prisoner be referred to the BPH for consideration for
medical parole. Within 30 days of receiving that
recommendation, if the head physician of the institution
concurs in the recommendation of the primary care physician,
he or she shall refer the matter to BPH using a standardized
form and format developed by the department, and if the head
physician of the institution does not concur in the
recommendation, he or she shall provide the primary care
physician with a written explanation of the reasons for
denying the referral. (Pen. Code, § 3550, subd. (c).)
9)Allows the prisoner or his or her family member or designee to
independently request consideration for medical parole by
contacting the head physician at the prison or CDCR. Within
30 days of receiving the request, the head physician of the
institution shall, in consultation with the prisoner's primary
care physician, make a determination regarding whether the
prisoner meets the criteria for medical parole as specified
and, if the head physician of the institution determines that
SB 6
Page 4
the prisoner satisfies the criteria, he or she shall refer the
matter to BPH using a standardized form and format developed
by CDCR. If the head physician of the institution does not
concur in the recommendation, he or she shall provide the
prisoner or his or her family member or designee with a
written explanation of the reasons for denying the
application. (Pen. Code, § 3550, subd. (d).)
10)Requires CDCR to complete parole plans for inmates referred
to BPH for medical parole consideration. The parole plans
shall include, but not be limited to, the inmate's plan for
residency and medical care. (Pen. Code, § 3550, subd. (e).)
11)Provides, notwithstanding any other law, that medical parole
hearings shall be conducted by two-person panels consisting of
at least one commissioner. In the event of a tie vote, the
matter shall be referred to the full board for a decision.
Medical parole hearings may be heard in absentia. (Pen. Code,
§ 3550, subd. (f).)
12)Requires BPH, upon receiving a recommendation from the head
physician of the institution where a prisoner is located for
the prisoner to be granted medical parole, to make an
independent judgment regarding whether the conditions under
which the inmate would be released pose a reasonable threat to
public safety, and make written findings related thereto.
(Pen. Code, § 3550, subd. (g).)
13)Authorizes the board or the Division of Adult Parole
Operations to impose any reasonable conditions on prisoners
subject to medical parole supervision, including, but not
limited to, the requirement that the parolee submit to
electronic monitoring. As a further condition of medical
parole, the parolee may be required to submit to an
examination by a physician selected by the board for the
purpose of diagnosing the parolee's current medical condition.
In the event such an examination takes place, a report of the
examination and diagnosis shall be submitted to the board by
the examining physician. If the board determines, based on
SB 6
Page 5
that medical examination, that the person's medical condition
has improved to the extent that the person no longer qualifies
for medical parole, the board shall return the person to the
custody of the department. (Pen. Code, § 3550, subd. (h).)
14)Requires CDCR, at the time a prisoner is placed on medical
parole supervision, to ensure that the prisoner has applied
for any federal entitlement programs for which the prisoner is
eligible, and has in his or her possession a discharge medical
summary, full medical records, parole medications, and all
property belonging to the prisoner that was under the control
of the department. Any additional records shall be sent to
the prisoner's forwarding address after release to health
care-related parole supervision. (Pen. Code, § 3550, subd.
(i).)
15)Requires CDCR to give notice at least 30 days' notice, or as
soon as feasible, to the county of commitment, and the
proposed county of release if applicable, of any medical
parole hearing or any medical parole release. (Pen. Code, §
3550, subd. (k).)
16)Provides that the penalty for a defendant found guilty of
murder in the first degree, with a finding of one of the
enumerated special circumstances, is death or LWOP. Includes
first degree murder of a peace officer, as specified, as one
of the enumerated special circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 190.2,
subd. (a)(7).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
SB 6
Page 6
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "The original
compassionate release legislation (SB 1399 from 2010) was
intended to prohibit compassionate release for anyone
convicted of murder against an officer - as it prohibited
compassionate release for anyone serving a death sentence, or
sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
"However, there was a multi-year period in the 1970s where
California had neither a death penalty nor a sentence of life
without the possibility of parole available. For that period
of time, persons convicted of first degree murder of a police
officer were sentenced to life with parole.
"The honorable work that our men and women in law enforcement
perform on a daily basis is crucial to ensuring that our
neighbors and families live in safe communities. Senate Bill 6
is necessary to guarantee that individuals convicted of these
heinous crimes serve their entire sentences given to them by a
jury of their peers."
2)Compassionate Release: To be eligible for compassionate
release, a prisoner must be "terminally ill with an incurable
condition caused by an illness or disease that would produce
death within six months, as determined by a physician employed
by [CDCR]." (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (e)(2)(A).) The court
must also make a finding that the conditions under which the
prisoner would be released or receive treatment do not pose a
threat to public safety. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd.
(e)(2)(B).) Compassionate release may also be available to a
prisoner who is permanently incapacitated by a medical
condition and unable to perform activities of daily living,
requiring 24-hour care. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (e)(2)(C).)
The prisoner is ineligible if he or she is sentenced to death
or a term of LWOP. (Ibid.)
SB 6
Page 7
If the secretary of CDCR determines that the prisoner satisfies
the criteria for recall of his or her sentence, the secretary
or BPH may recommend to the court that the sentence be
recalled. At its next lawfully noticed meeting, BPH must
consider this information and make an independent judgment and
related findings before rejecting the request or making a
recommendation to the court. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd.
(e)(6).) Any recommendation for recall of the inmate's
sentence submitted to the court shall include one or more
medical evaluations, a postrelease plan, and findings
regarding the prisoner's eligibility for release. (Pen. Code,
§ 1170, subd. (e)(7).) Within 10 days of receipt of a positive
recommendation, the court must hold a hearing to consider
whether recall is appropriate. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd.
(e)(3).) If possible, the matter must be heard by the judge
who sentenced the prisoner. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (e)(8).)
If the court grants recall of the prisoner's sentence, the
prisoner must be released within 48 hours of receipt of the
court's order, unless the inmate agrees to a longer time
period. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (e)(9).)
Due to its stringent criteria and lengthy process, the number of
prisoners released on compassionate release is quite low.
From 2007 through the first ten months of 2013, CDCR received
488 requests for compassionate release, of which 99 were
approved. In 2012, 97 applications for compassionate release
were submitted to CDCR for review; 35 were approved and
advanced to the sentencing court; 13 sentences were recalled
by judges, clearing the way for release. 27 cases were never
completed due to withdrawal, death, or not meeting the
criteria. (McNichol, Final Requests (Jan. 2014) California
Lawyer, at pp. 18-21.)
3)Medical Parole: In 2010, California's medical parole law was
signed into law. (SB 1399 (Leno), Chapter 405, Statutes of
2010.) The law applies to those inmates who have been
declared by the head physician in the institute where they are
housed to be permanently medically incapacitated with a
medical condition that renders him or her permanently unable
SB 6
Page 8
to perform activities of basic daily living, and results in
the prisoner requiring 24-hour care. BPH must also make a
determination that the conditions under which the prisoner
would be released would not reasonably pose a threat to public
safety.
The Legislature crafted SB 1399 to address some of the
shortcomings of the compassionate release statute (Pen. Code,
§ 1170, subd. (e)). (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of
Sen. Bill No. 1399 (2009-10 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23,
2014.) Unlike compassionate release which requires the court
to recall the sentence, medical parole creates an alternative
procedure that permits these inmates to be placed on parole
supervision under conditions determined by the parole board,
and allows parole to be revoked if for any reason the
parolee's condition changes and creates a danger to the
public.
The purpose of the medical parole law was to alleviate some of
the financial burden facing CDCR in caring for inmates
suffering from certain medical conditions. According to the
background information provided by the author's office for SB
1399:
"SB 1399 will medically parole, the sickest of the sick. And
although this would only apply to a handful of inmates, these
inmates are by far the most costly in the system. The average
cost for an inmate placed in a correctional treatment center
bed is $10,604. When you add the costs of medical guarding
and transportation to that (patients in this setting normally
average one to three outside medical visits with hospital
transportation and two correctional officers at the hourly
rate, plus benefits) the figure rises to $114,395 dollars per
inmate. The Federal Receiver has identified 11 inmates as
extremely incapacitated and housed within the prison system in
correctional treatment center beds with medical bills
averaging over $114,000 each per year.
"An additional 21 inmates are housed at an even higher rate to
SB 6
Page 9
the taxpayer in nursing facilities or hospitals outside of the
prison facility. These type of beds average a cost of $3,500
per day. When you add the guarding costs to that (two
correctional officers per shift, three shifts per day,
straight time plus benefits) the number jumps to $5,406 a day.
So the total cost for a single inmate in this type of
treatment setting is nearly $2 million - $1,973,252. This
means that the state has paid a total of $41.4 million a year
for just 21 individuals who would most likely qualify as
medical parole candidates under this legislation due to their
severe medical condition as evidenced by the exorbitant costs
of their medical care.
"Finally, there is one more type of bed, the hospice bed. For
inmates dying in this type of medical setting, the costs of a
physician assistant, registered nurse, office assistant, and
clinical social worker total nearly $2 million per hospice bed
- $1,868,232. CDCR has 17 hospice beds currently within the
system at a price of $31,759,944 - nearly $32 million dollars
a year.
"By eliminating the requirement for 24-hour guard care at
health facilities, a medical parole program could save the
state millions just in custody and transportation costs alone.
According to the State Auditor, between 2003 and 2008,
medical guard time accounted for 24% of the prison system's
total guard overtime. Spending for guard costs has increased
by $66 million since 2003. The price for two correctional
officers to guard a single inmate at an outside nursing
facility has been reported to be $2,317 a day. The guard
price for the inmate during a six-month period was $410,000.
That's nearly equal to actual cost of medical care provided to
the inmate during the same timeframe which totaled an
additional $421,000. We can assume that for every inmate we
send out into the community for special treatment, we are
nearly doubling the taxpayer burden for the cost of their
incarceration.
"Incarcerated inmates, regardless of their medical condition,
SB 6
Page 10
are not eligible to receive any federally funded medical care.
However, these restrictions do not apply to persons on
parole, meaning that SB 1399 would allow the State to receive
federal reimbursement for a significant portion of the costs
associated with inmates eligible to be placed on medical
parole.
"Currently, prisoners who are suffering from severe medical
incapacitation are treated in correctional treatment center
beds, outside hospital patient beds, or hospice beds; the
price tag for which starts at nearly $115,000 a year for the
lowest level treatment setting of the three options. Now,
taking that into account, imagine the savings that could be
realized given that the average annual cost of Medi-Cal
fee-for-service skilled nursing care is only about $60,000.
Of course, the cost of skilled nursing varies significantly
depending on the acuity level of patients and it's likely that
terminally ill patients on average would have greater care
needs and thus have a higher average cost; nevertheless, the
Medi-Cal cost share is 50-percent state and 50-percent federal
meaning the state would only pay half one-the costs of caring
for a parolee being treated in the community if he or she
qualified for Medi-Cal. Further, it is conceivable that many
of these inmates will qualify for Medicare which is entirely
funded by the federal government." (Assem. Com. on Public
Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1399, supra, pp. 5-7.)
4)Parole Suitability: The California Supreme Court has held
that parole suitability cannot be based solely on the nature
of the crime. (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221.)
Parole suitability must be based on an evaluation of several
factors to determine the current dangerousness to the public.
(Ibid.) The nature of the crime is merely a consideration in
parole suitability and in the context of medical parole, BPH
can consider that factor along with whether the prisoner is
eligible due to his or her medical condition; and whether his
or her parole would pose a reasonable public safety risk in
making its decision.
SB 6 excludes prisoners from medical parole based solely on the
SB 6
Page 11
nature of the crime. This is contrary to the purpose of the
medical parole law and contrary to the law on parole
suitability in general. While the rationale to exclude this
particular category of inmates is based on parity because an
inmate sentenced to first degree murder of a peace officer
today would receive a sentence of either LWOP or death, thus
making the inmate ineligible for medical parole, it also
creates a new precedent of excluding certain prisoners from
medical parole based solely on the nature of the offense.
This could lead to new categories of exclusion in the future
which would further erode the medical parole law.
5)Ex Post Facto Concerns: Both the United States Constitution
and the California Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws.
(U.S. Const. art. I, Section 10; Cal. Const. art. I, Section
9.) "[T]wo critical elements must be present for a criminal
or penal law to be ex post facto: it must be retrospective,
that is, it must apply to events occurring before its
enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by
it." (Weaver v. Graham (1981) 450 U.S. 24, 29.) The purpose of
the prohibition against ex post facto laws is to ensure due
process through fair notice of the conduct that constitutes a
crime and the punishment that may be imposed for a crime. (In
re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 638.)
Although courts have held that certain changes to parole violate
the ex post facto rule (see In re Thomson (1980) 104 C.A.3d
950, 954; In re Bray (1979) 97 C.A.3d 506, 510 [increase in
length of parole term violates ex post facto]), procedural
changes in the parole system are generally not ex post facto
violations (see California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales
(1995) 514 U.S. 499 [changes to parole procedures allowing a
state parole board to decrease the frequency of parole
suitability hearings under certain circumstances does not
violate the Ex Post Facto Clause]). Whether a change in
parole procedures violates ex post facto principles requires
consideration of whether there is a significant risk the
change will prolong a prisoner's incarceration. (In re Vicks
(2013) 56 Cal.4th 274, 300.)
SB 6
Page 12
In Morales, supra, the United States Supreme Court considered
California's 1981 increase in the potential deferral period
between parole suitability hearings. Specifically, the
amended statute authorized the Board to defer subsequent
suitability hearings for up to three years if the prisoner has
been convicted of more than one offense which involves the
taking of a life and if the Board finds that it is not
reasonable to expect that parole would be granted at a hearing
during the following years and states the bases for the
finding. (Morales, supra, 514 U.S. at p. 503.) After
evaluating whether the change would violate ex post facto
principles, the Supreme Court concluded that the Board's new
authority to defer hearings created only a speculative
possibility of increasing a prisoner's punishment because:
(1) the amendment applied only to a class of prisoners for
whom the likelihood of release on parole is remote; and, (2)
only after the Board had concluded at the initial parole
hearing that the prisoner was not suitable for parole and it
was not reasonable to expect that the prisoner would be
suitable for parole in a year would the timing of a prisoner's
hearings be affected. (Id. at pp. 510-511.)
Similarly, in Vicks, supra, the California Supreme Court
considered whether the increase in the period of time between
parole hearings established by Marsy's Law violated the Ex
Post Facto Clause by creating a significant risk of prolonged
incarceration. Marsy's Law (enacted by Proposition 9,
approved by California voters in 2008) increased the time
between parole hearings. The default period between hearings
became 15 years, absent a finding by BPH that there is a
reasonable likelihood the prisoner would be suitable for
parole at an earlier hearing. In evaluating Vicks' ex post
facto challenge, the Court compared his case to Weaver, supra,
where the United States Supreme Court found an ex post facto
violation where there was a reduction in the rate at which the
prisoner accumulated credit for good behavior in prison
because the reduction was a lost opportunity for release.
(Weaver, supra, 450 U.S. 24 at pp. 35-36.) In contrast to the
SB 6
Page 13
change considered in Weaver, Marsy's Law did not alter the
criteria for obtaining release. The court found that Vicks
had not lost an opportunity for earlier release because there
is no reasonable likelihood that he would be suitable for
parole earlier than the hearing date he was assigned, which
was five years. (Vicks, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 312.)
Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took up the issue
of whether Propositions 9 and 89 violated the Ex Post Facto
Clause. (Gilman v. Brown (9th Cir. 2016) 814 F.3d 1007.)
Proposition 9 is discussed in the Vicks case. Proposition 89,
approved by California voters in 1988, amended the California
Constitution to grant the Governor 30 days to affirm, modify,
or reverse decisions of BPH. Prior to the passage of
Proposition 89, BPH had the exclusive power to make parole
decisions. The Court weighed whether the changes in law
effected by these Propositions, which applied retroactively to
the defendant who was convicted prior to the passage of the
Propositions, created a "significant risk of a higher
sentence." (Id. at 1015.) As to the defendant's challenge to
Proposition 89, the Court held that the change in law as
applied to the defendant did not violate the Ex Post Facto
Clause because he could not show that he would have received
parole before the enactment of Proposition 89. The Court
stated that the law did not change the factors used to
determine whether a person would receive parole, rather, it
changed who would ultimately make the decision. (Id. at
1016.)
As to defendant's challenge to Proposition 9, the Court,
similar to the rationale used in Vicks, pointed out that "in
reviewing decisions of state parole authorities for potential
Ex Post Facto Clause issues, the question is not whether
'discretion is been changed in its exercise' by changes in
parole procedures, but whether discretion 'will not be
exercised at all.'" (Gilman, supra, 814 F.3d at 1007, quoting
Garner v. Jones (529 U.S. 244, 254).) The Court found that
Proposition 9 did not require BPH to engage in a "categorical
exemption" and held that the change in law did not violate the
SB 6
Page 14
Ex Post Facto Clause as applied to the defendant. (Id. at
1020.)
In Morales and Vicks BPH retained discretion to expedite the
parole hearing sooner than the established deferral times if
there was a reasonable likelihood that the prisoner would be
suitable for parole prior to the date of the established
hearing. Also, in Gilman, while the Court held that an Ex
Post Facto claim cannot be successful if based on a
speculative, attenuated risk of affecting a priosner's actual
term of imprisonment, the Court again made note that the Ex
Post Facto Clause is violated when BPH retains its discretion,
rather than being required to engage in a categorical
exemption from parole. (Gilman, supra, 814 F.3d at 1007.)
Unlike Morales, Vicks and Gilman, SB 6 removes discretion from
BPH by stating that categorically prisoners who have committed
first degree murder of a peace officer is ineligible for
medical parole or compassionate release. SB 6 will increase a
prisoner's incarceration by altering the criteria for release
so a prisoner who is currently eligible for medical parole or
compassionate release would no longer be eligible if SB 6
becomes law. Thus, similar to Weaver, this change can be
viewed as a lost opportunity for a prisoner who may be
eligible for medical parole or compassionate release prior to
passage of this bill.
While it would be speculative to argue that Mr. Youngberg (the
inmate referenced in the author's statement) would have been
released but for this law, it may be violate the Ex Post Facto
Clause as applied to another prisoner. In fact, Mr. Youngberg
applied for medical parole in 2012 and BPH denied his
application, thus similar to Gilman, it cannot be shown that
he would have received medical parole but for this law. This
Committee has been informed by CDCR that Mr. Youngberg died
shortly after he was denied medical parole. When asked how
many other inmates would be affected by SB 6's provisions,
SB 6
Page 15
CDCR could not provide data because the Penal Code section
related to first-degree murder covers all first degree murder,
not just those involving a peace officer victim. If there are
any other inmates who would be affected by this legislation,
they may still challenge the SB 6 if it becomes law as
violating the Ex Post Facto Clause as applied to them.
6)Proposed Amendments: This bill is being heard as proposed to
be amended. The amendments are technical in nature and
intended to clarify that the exclusion applies to those who
would be convicted of first degree murder with special
circumstances which carries a penalty of either LWOP or death
in order to accomplish the bill's stated purpose of covering
only those inmates who were sentenced to first degree murder
of a peace officer between 1972 and 1977 when the death
penalty was not an available sentence because it was declared
to be unconstitutional. The sentence of LWOP in these types
of cases was also not available until 1977.
7)Argument in Support: According to California Narcotic
Officers' of California, the sponsor of this bill, "Senate
Bill 6 will close a loophole that currently exists in
California's Medical Parole and Compassionate Release laws.
When Medical Parole and Compassionate Release were first
enacted, that law contained within its provisions language
that specifically exempted persons who had been sentenced to
death or persons who had been sentenced to life in prison
without the possibility of parole.
"The clear intent of this provision was to assure that persons
who had committed the most serious of crimes would not be
eligible for Medical Parole. The challenge is that, unknown
when the law was first enacted, from 1972 through 1977
California had neither a death penalty nor a sentence of life
in prison without the possibility of parole. What this meant
is that persons who committed first degree murder of peace
officers in the line of duty during that period - a crime that
would result in a sentence of death or life without
possibility of parole at any other time in California history
- were eligible for Medical Parole or Compassionate Release."
SB 6
Page 16
8)Argument in Opposition: According to the American Civil
Liberties Union, "Under existing law, in order to be granted
medical parole, an inmate must be deemed 'medically
incapacitated, with a medical condition that renders him or
her permanently unable to perform activities of basic daily
living, and results in the prison requiring 24-hour care.'
(P.C.§3550, subd. (a).) The intent of medical parole is to
release inmates who require twenty-four hour care at huge
expense to the State. An inmate living in a persistent
vegetative state or otherwise medically incapacitated is not
likely to pose a threat to public safety, yet the state is
responsible for around-the-clock in-custody care at a cost of
thousands of dollars per week.
"Moreover, current law simply allows an inmate to petition
Board of Parole Hearings for release. The Board is fully
capable of screening the petitions to determine who is
appropriate to be released in the totality of circumstances,
including the offense the person committed. Given that the
intent of medical parole is to reduce the financial strain of
caring for medically incapacitated inmates, the Legislature
should not start excepting out specified offenses for which an
inmate is not eligible, despite being medically incapacitated.
If an inmate meets the requirements specified in the law, he
or she should be eligible for release."
9)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 1284 (Galgiani), of the 2013-2014 Legislative
Session, was substantially similar to this bill. SB 1284
died in this Committee.
b) AB 353 (Brown), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session,
was substantially similar to this bill. AB 353 died in
this Committee.
c) SB 1399 (Leno), Chapter 405, Statutes of 2010,
established California's medical parole law.
SB 6
Page 17
d) AB 1539 (Krekorian), Chapter 740, Statutes of 2007,
established criteria and procedure for which a state
prisoner may have his or her sentence recalled and be
re-sentenced if he or she is diagnosed with a disease that
would produce death within six months or is permanently
medically incapacitated and whose release is deemed not to
threaten public safety.
e) SB 1547 (Romero), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session,
would have required CDCR to establish programs that would
parole geriatric and medically incapacitated inmates who no
longer pose a threat to the public safety. SB 1547 failed
passage on the Assembly floor.
f) AB 1946 (Steinberg), of the 2003-04 Legislative Session,
would have provided that terminally ill or medically
incapacitated prisoners, as specified, are eligible to
apply to have their sentences recalled and to be
re-sentenced; and made legislative findings that programs
should be available for inmates that are designed to
prepare nonviolent felony offenders for successful reentry
into the community. AB 1946 was vetoed by the Governor.
g) AB 29 (Villaraigosa), Chapter 751, Statutes of 1997,
established a procedure whereby a court may have the
discretion to re-sentence or recall a sentence if a
prisoner is terminally ill with an incurable condition
caused by an illness or disease that would produce death
within six months
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
SB 6
Page 18
California Narcotic Officers' Association (Sponsor)
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
California District Attorneys Association
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Fraternal Order of Police
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
SB 6
Page 19
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside State Sheriffs Association
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Analysis Prepared by:Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
SB 6
Page 20