BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 230 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 16, 2015 Counsel: David Billingsley ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Bill Quirk, Chair SB 230 (Hancock) - As Amended March 24, 2015 SUMMARY: Allows inmates serving life sentences who are found suitable for parole, to be paroled as specified. Authorizes the Governor to request a review of a decision by the board to grant or deny parole at any time before the inmate's scheduled release. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy commissioners to meet with each inmate one year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date in order to grant or deny parole, as specified. SB 230 Page 2 2)Provides that an inmate found suitable for parole shall be paroled subject to review by the Governor. 3)Specifies that any time before an inmate's release the Governor can request a review of parole suitability. 4)Requires an inmate found suitable for parole not be released prior to his or her minimum eligible parole date, unless eligible for an earlier release as a youthful offender. 5)Makes technical and conforming changes. EXISTING LAW: 1)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. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a).) 2)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 and shall normally set a parole release date. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a).) SB 230 Page 3 3)Specifies 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. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a).) 4)States 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. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (a).) 5)Specifies 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 time 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. (Pen. Code, § 3041, subd. (b).) 6)Provides 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. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2403.) SB 230 Page 4 7)States 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. (Pen. Code, § 3041.1.) 8)Specifies that the panel shall first determine whether a prisoner is suitable for release on parole. Regardless of the length of time served, a life prisoner shall be found unsuitable for and denied parole if in the judgment of the panel the prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (a).) 9)States that all relevant, reliable information available to the panel shall be considered in determining suitability for parole. Such information shall include the circumstances of the prisoner's: social history; past and present mental state; past criminal history, including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and other commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and after the crime; past and present attitude toward the crime; any conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special conditions under which the prisoner may safely be released to the community; and any other information which bears on the prisoner's suitability for release. Circumstances which taken alone may not firmly establish unsuitability for parole may contribute to a pattern which results in a finding of unsuitability. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (b).) FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. SB 230 Page 5 COMMENTS: 1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "SB 230 is the Responsible Parole Act. It ensures that once the Board of Parole Hearings determines that an inmate is eligible, suitable, and safe for parole, the implementation of that decision is expedited. "Currently, it is possible for an inmate to be found suitable and safe for parole by the Board but still have their parole date delayed by significant time, often years. This is because the current system of sentencing enhancements can add time for charges that the inmate was never convicted of, or factual findings that the jury at trial declined to find. "If a prisoner is deemed eligible and safe for release by the authorities, they should be released as soon as feasible and not subjected to excessive delays. Why should we keep them for additional months or years in our state prison system at tremendous cost to taxpayers? "The bill creates steps to minimize bureaucratic delay, remove duplication, and eliminate unfair procedures that often result in a supposedly "paroled" inmate spending additional time-often years-in prison before his or her actual release. "The bill also makes it easier for the Governor to review all parole decisions by allowing him or her to decide whether to approve parole any time before an inmate's scheduled parole date." 2)The Board of Parole Hearings: The Board of Parole Hearings was created in 2005. Prior to 2005, the Board of Prison Terms SB 230 Page 6 handled the adult population eligible to receive parole. The Board of Prison Terms was charged with parole hearings and revocation hearings for adults. Based on the recommendations of a task force assembled by then Governor Schwarzenegger the Board of Prison Terms was dissolved to form the Board of Parole Hearings charged with similar responsibilities and governed by the same statutory language. Among its many powers, the Board of Parole Hearings has the authority to determine parole suitability and set a date for parole release when an individual is found suitable for release. Parole Board Discretion and the Use of Base Term Enhancements, (2013) Eric Dunn and Michael Ruiz, p. 16. 3)Release Upon a Finding of Suitability: 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. Even after the parole board finds an individual suitable for release they may still require an individual to spend months or even years in prison before being released. These lengthened sentences result from the term calculation process the parole board engages in to determine how many years an individual should spend in prison to satisfy the non-rehabilitative purposes of incarceration. These term calculations can extend or alter an individual's sentence, creating a system of back-end sentencing in which a judge's sentence may bear little resemblance to the actual time an individual serves under correctional control. Parole Board Discretion and the Use of Base Term Enhancements, supra, p. 3. The regulations' system of base term calculation is complex, inconsistent, and not at all apparent from the sentences issued by trial judges. Parole Board Discretion and the Use of SB 230 Page 7 Base Term Enhancements, supra, p. 27. 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. 4)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. 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. 5)Argument in Support: According to California Public Defenders Association, "SB 230 would amend the Penal Code sections governing parole to require that the Board of Parole Hearings meet with every inmate during the sixth year before the inmate's minimum parole eligibility date. The purpose of the meeting is to review and document the inmate's activities and behavior bearing on their potential parole. SB 230 would authorize the Governor to request a review of the Board of Parole Hearings decision to grant or deny parole at any time instead of the 90 day review period in existing law. SB 230 Page 8 "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." 6)Prior Legislation: a) SB 1363 (Hancock), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would have changed to process to set a parole date for inmates sentenced to indeterminate life terms. SB 1363 failed Senate Floor. b) SB 260 (Hancock), Chapter 312, Statutes of 2014, established a parole process for persons sentenced to lengthy prison terms for crimes committed before attaining 18 years of age. c) SB 9 (Yee), Chapter 828, Statutes of 2012, authorizes a prisoner who was under 18 years of age at the time of committing an offense for which the prisoner was sentenced to life with out parole to submit a petition for recall and resentencing to the sentencing court, and to the SB 230 Page 9 prosecuting agency, as specified. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California Public Defenders Association Californians for Safety and Justice Opposition None Analysis Prepared by:David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) SB 230 Page 10 319-3744