BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 230 Hearing Date: April 28, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hancock |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 24, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Sentencing: Parole
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:SB 1363 (Hancock) failed Senate Floor 2014
Support: California Public Defenders Association
Opposition:None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill it to provide that once a person is
found suitable for parole he or she will be released.
Existing law provides that in the case of any inmate sentenced
to an indeterminate sentence the Board of Parole Hearings (the
Board) shall meet with each inmate during the sixth year prior
to the inmate's eligible parole release date for the purposes of
reviewing and documenting the inmates activities and conduct
pertinent to both parole eligibility and to the granting and
withholding of postconviction credit. (Penal Code § 3041(a))
Existing law provides that one year prior to the inmate's
minimum eligible parole release date a panel of two or more
commissioners or deputy commissioners shall meet with the inmate
SB 230 (Hancock ) Page
2 of ?
and shall normally set a parole release date. (Penal Code §
3041(a))
Existing law provides that the release date shall be set in a
manner that will provide uniform terms for offenses of similar
gravity and magnitude with respect to their threat to the
public, and that will comply with the sentencing rules that the
Judicial Council may issue and any sentencing information
relevant to setting of the parole release dates. The Board
shall establish criteria for the setting of parole release dates
and in doing so shall consider the number of victims of crime
for which the inmate was sentenced and other factors in
mitigation or aggravation of the crime. (Penal Code § 3041 (a))
Existing law provides that one year prior to the inmate's
minimum eligible parole release date a panel of two or more
commissioners or deputy commissioners shall again meet with the
inmate, and except as provided, normally set a parole release
date as provided in Section 3041.5. (Penal Code § 3041(a))
Existing law provides that any decision of the parole panel
finding an inmate suitable for parole shall become final within
120 days of the date of the hearing. During that hearing the
board may review the panel's decision. The decision shall
become final unless there was an error of law or an error of
fact or new information that should be presented to the board.
No decision of the parole panel shall be disapproved and
referred for rehearing except by a majority vote of the board,
sitting en banc, following a public meeting. (Penal Code §
3041(b))
Existing regulations provide that, based on facts from the
underlying crime, an inmate can be held for a longer period of
time once they are found suitable for parole.
This bill provides that an inmate found suitable for parole
shall be paroled subject to review by the Governor.
Existing law provides that up to 90 days prior to a scheduled
release date, the Governor may request review of a decision by a
parole authority concerning the grant or denial of parole to any
inmate in state prison. (Penal Code § 3041.1)
This bill provides instead that any time before an inmate's
SB 230 (Hancock ) Page
3 of ?
release the Governor can make such a request.
This bill makes technical and conforming changes.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
SB 230 (Hancock ) Page
4 of ?
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Under existing law, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH)
holds hearings to determine if an inmate serving a
life sentence is suitable for parole. However, because
of the confusing, convoluted way parole dates are
calculated, an inmate can remain in prison several
years after BPH deems him or her suitable.
Under Penal Code §3041 and pursuant to the settlement
in In re Butler (2013), BPH holds an initial
suitability hearing for an inmate one year before his
or her minimum eligibility parole date. If the inmate
is found suitable for parole, BPH then calculates the
inmate's "base term."
The base term is the first step in determining the
amount of time before an inmate is paroled. It is
determined using a bi-axial matrix that calculates how
much time in prison an inmate deserves based on the
circumstances of the crime he or she committed. In
addition to the time dictated by the base term, BPH
can add enhancements for the use of a firearm, or
offenses other than the original life sentence. The
SB 230 (Hancock ) Page
5 of ?
result is the "adjusted base term."
Many of the enhancements added can be problematic. For
instance, some are used against an inmate twice; once
by the trial judge at sentencing, and again (possibly
years later) by BPH when calculating the adjusted base
term. This goes against a determinate sentencing
system in which enhancements are intended to be used
at the front end, at the sentencing stage.
Some enhancements may also be based on assertions that
are unsupported by a jury's finding-of-fact. For
instance, a jury could omit finding that the inmate
used a firearm. At a parole suitability hearing years
later, BPH could assert that in spite of a jury
finding to the contrary, it believes the inmate used a
firearm and add an additional enhancement to the base
term.
In addition, an enhancement can be added for an
additional criminal charge that did not result in a
conviction. The only requirement is that BPH believes
the facts surrounding the crime are "reliably
documented." Again, this would be contrary to the
findings-of-fact by a jury at trial, or a decision by
a district attorney to drop the criminal charge.
At a subsequent parole hearing, BPH further adjusts
the adjusted base term, which was calculated using
these enhancements. It does so by giving an inmate
post-conviction credits for the amount of time he or
she has already served in prison. The adjusted base
term minus post-conviction credits determines the
calculated release date. If that date is in the
future, the inmate must serve more time before being
paroled.
This perverse result in which an inmate is found
suitable for parole but must serve additional time
(often years) before actually being paroled is the
result of the confusing, convoluted system used to
calculate release dates.
2. Release Upon a Finding of Suitability
SB 230 (Hancock ) Page
6 of ?
Under existing law a person can be found suitable for parole by
the board and still not be released because of the various
enhancements that can be added to the person's term. The first
parole hearing is not until the date that seems like the
person's sentence (ie. 15 years is 15 to life minus any eligible
credits etc.), yet because of the added time a person could be
found suitable for parole and held in prison 2, 5, or even 10 or
more years beyond that date. This is the case even though the
Board of Parole Hearings, in determining suitability, takes into
consideration the facts of the original crime along with the
steps the inmate has taken toward rehabilitation and his or her
current danger to the public. To be found suitable for parole
the board has found that he or she is not a current danger;
however, the current system keeps them in for longer at great
expense and no added safety to the public.
This bill provides that if an inmate is found suitable he or she
shall be released, after the Governor's statutory right of
review. The author believes that this is a truth in sentencing
provision. If a person serves his or her time as imposed by the
sentencing court and is found suitable, he or she is released.
This will also give the inmate a realistic time frame to work
toward rehabilitating himself or herself. The author believes
that to be found suitable by the board and then kept longer
because of factors in your original crime, that were already
considered by the board, does not encourage rehabilitative
behavior by inmates.
3. Change in Time for the Governor to Request a Review of the
Parole Decision
Under existing law the Governor can ask for the review of a
parole decision up to 90 days prior to the release. This works
under the existing system in which a person can be found
suitable for parole but not released for years afterwards.
Under this bill once found suitable, a person will be released
after the 120 days the Governor has to review parole decisions.
Because of this shorter time frame to release, the Governor may
not have time to ask for a review of the decision 90 days prior
to the release. Thus this bill would allow the Governor to ask
for the review any time prior to the release to give the
Governor the time to study the decision and determine whether to
ask for a review.
SB 230 (Hancock ) Page
7 of ?
4. Support
In support the California Public Defenders Association states:
The effect of SB 230 is restoration of truth in
sentencing. SB 230 would provide that when an
individual is found suitable for parole by the Board
of Parole Hearings (BPH), that they would actually be
granted parole pending review by the Governor. Under
the current convoluted system of calculating parole
time, an inmate can remain in prison, sometimes
upwards of years, after BPH finds them suitable for
parole. Under current law, BPH considers and adds
additional years to an inmate's incarceration based on
previous criminal charges that the inmate was never
convicted of or enhancements that the sentencing court
already took into account. This opaque parole system
results in inmates who have been found suitable for
parole serving additional time (often years) before
they are actually paroled.
SB 230 simplifies our parole system in a basic and
commonsense way. It saves money and ensures public
safety, by ensuring that suitable inmates are
released.
-- END -