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