BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 261|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 261
Author: Hancock (D)
Amended: 6/1/15
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/28/15
AYES: Hancock, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Nielsen
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
SUBJECT: Youth offender parole hearings
SOURCE: Anti-Recidivism Coalition
Human Rights Watch
National Center for Youth Law
DIGEST: This bill expands the youth offender parole process, a
parole process for persons sentenced to lengthy prison terms for
crimes committed before attaining 18 years of age, to include
those who have committed their crimes before attaining the age
of 23.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
SB 261
Page 2
1)Creates the youth offender parole hearing, which is a hearing
by the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) for the purpose of
reviewing the parole suitability of any prisoner who was under
18 years of age at the time of his or her controlling offense.
(Penal Code § 3051)
2)Provides that the timing for the youth offender parole hearing
depends on the sentence: if the controlling offense was a
determinate sentence the offender shall be eligible for
release after 15 years; if the controlling offense was a life
term less than 25 years then the person is eligible for
release after 20 years; and, if the controlling offense was 25
years or more then the person is eligible for release after 25
years. (Penal Code § 3051 (b).)
3)Provides that if the youth offender is found suitable for
parole at the youthful offender parole hearing then the youth
offender shall be released on parole. (Penal Code § 3051 (e).)
4)Provides that in reviewing a prisoner's suitability for parole
in a youthful offender parole hearing, the Board shall give
great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as
compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any
subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in
accordance with relevant case law. (Penal Code § 4801 (c).)
This bill:
1)Expands those eligible for a youthful parole hearing to those
whose committing offense occurred before they reached the age
of 23.
2)Provides that those with indeterminate sentences who are
eligible for a youthful offender parole hearing on the
effective date of this bill shall have their hearing by July
1, 2017.
3)Provides that those with determinate sentences who are
eligible for youthful offender parole hearing on the effective
date of this bill shall have their hearing by July 1, 2021,
and shall have their consultation with the Board before July
1, 2017.
SB 261
Page 3
Background
On April 15, 2015, the State filed its most recent status report
in response to the Three-Judge panel. The report set forth the
status of cases brought under SB 260 (Hancock) which created
youthful offender parole hearings:
The State continues to implement Senate Bill 260 (2013),
which allows inmates whose crimes were committed as
minors to appear before the Board of Parole Hearings
(the Board) to demonstrate their suitability for release
after serving at least fifteen years of their sentence.
From January 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015, the Board
held 534 youth offender hearings, resulting in 158
grants, 328 denials, 46 stipulations to unsuitability,
and 2 split votes that required referral to the full
Board for further consideration. An additional 225 were
scheduled during this time period, but were waived,
postponed, continued, or cancelled. All available
inmates who were immediately eligible for a hearing when
the law took effect on January 1, 2014, have had a
hearing date or have one scheduled on or before July 1,
2015, as required by the terms of Senate Bill 260. In
addition, nearly all youth offenders who received a
prior to January 1, 2014, have reached their minimum
eligible parole dates and have been processed for
release from their life term by the Board." (Defendants'
April 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).
This bill expands those eligible for a youthful parole hearing
to those whose committing offense occurred before they reached
the age of 23.
Comments
According to the author:
Science, law, and common sense support the
appropriateness of SB 260 youth offender parole
hearings for young adults between the age of 18 and
23.
SB 261
Page 4
Recent scientific evidence on adolescent and young
adult development and neuroscience shows that certain
areas of the brain-particularly those affecting
judgment and decision-making - do not fully develop
until the early - to mid-20s. Various studies by
researchers from Stanford University (2009),
University of Alberta (2011), and the National
Institute of Mental Health (2011) all confirm that the
process of brain development continues well beyond age
18.
This research has been relied on by judges and
lawmakers. The US and California Supreme Courts have
recognized in several recent opinions that adolescents
are still developing in ways relevant to their
culpability for criminal behavior and their special
capacity to turn their lives around.
California already recognizes the uniqueness of young
adults in its Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
DJJ is mandated to detain and provide services and
programming to some young adults until age 23. The
state has recognized early adulthood as a vulnerable
period in other arenas as well, for example, extending
foster care support beyond age 18 to age 21 in AB 12
(Beall, 2010). As recently as 2013, the Legislature
passed AB 1276 (Bloom), which provided special
protections and opportunities for young adults through
age 22 entering prison.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Immediately eligible caseload: Significant one-time costs to
the Board of $1.3 million (General Fund) to complete risk
assessments and conduct parole hearings for 800 inmates
estimated to be eligible upon this bill's effective date.
Future caseload: Significant future annual costs, likely in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars or greater (General
SB 261
Page 5
Fund), to conduct hearings for inmates as they become
eligible. The magnitude of costs would be dependent upon the
rate at which the Board conducts hearings, as there is no
timeframe mandated for prospectively eligible inmates. The
CDCR estimates an additional 5,600 inmates would be added to
the Board's hearing calendar over the next several years. An
additional 3,000 inmates are estimated to be within the
Board's hearing cycle currently and would be eligible to
request to advance their next hearing date, as specified.
Regulations: One-time costs of about $100,000 to review and
re-write regulations.
Reduced writs: Potential offset to an unknown degree by state
trial court savings as a result of an accompanying reduction
in writs of Habeas Corpus, by which inmates challenge
convictions and/or sentences.
Future incarceration savings: Potential cost savings of $0.2
to $0.5 million (General Fund) for every 20 to 50 inmates
released or sentences reduced. Savings would grow as the years
they otherwise would have served compound. Over 10 years, the
savings could increase to $2 to $5 million assuming the
inmates would have served 10 additional years. Minor
offsetting increase in parole costs.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/29/15)
Anti-Recidivism Coalition (co-source)
Human Rights Watch (co-source)
National Center for Youth Law (co-source)
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Catholic Conference
California Public Defenders Association
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Drug Policy Alliance
Everychild Foundation
Islamic Shura Council of Southern California
SB 261
Page 6
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Life Support Alliance
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership
National Council on Crime & Delinquency
Newt Gingrich, former U.S. House Speaker
PolicyLink
Prison Law Office
Project Kinship
Public Counsel
Puente Project Chabot College
Revolutionary Releasing
San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón
Youth ALIVE!
Youth Law Center
Numerous individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/1/15)
California District Attorneys Association
California Police Chiefs Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Former U.S. Speaker of the House of
Representatives Newt Gingrich echoes the argument of the author
and sponsors that these offenders have a capacity for growth
both in his letter in support and in an editorial in the
Huffington Post on April 13, 2015. He states:
It's only fair to recognize the difference between
young- and full-grown adults in sentencing, just as we
draw a distinction between juveniles and adults.
People who commit offenses before their capacities are
fully formed deserve a second chance -- an opportunity
for a parole hearing if they mature, rehabilitate, and
pay serious restitution to their victims and to the
community.
SB 261 is compassionate, fair, and backed up by the
SB 261
Page 7
latest scientific understanding of brain development.
But it is also by no means lenient. To be eligible
for a hearing, the bill would require that a young
person must have served at least 15 years of his or
her sentence, and even longer for more serious crimes.
This is no small amount of time for young adult -- it
means spending a period of potentially more than half
their lives at sentencing behind bars.
If young adults demonstrate real personal growth,
rehabilitation, and remorse, they should have the
opportunity to be eligible for a parole hearing after
spending a very long period of time in prison. The
California legislature should pass SB 261 to give them
this opportunity -- and other states across the
country should look to it as a model for making the
criminal-justice system more fair, as well as more
efficient.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California District Attorneys
Association opposes this bill stating:
The California Supreme Court ruled in People v.
Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 282 that a juvenile
offender sentenced to a de facto term of life
imprisonment must be afforded a "meaningful
opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated
maturity and rehabilitation." The Court additionally
urged the Legislature to "enact legislation
establishing a parole eligibility mechanism that
provides a defendant serving a de facto life sentence
without possibility of parole for non-homicide crimes
that he or she committed as a juvenile with the
opportunity to obtain release on a showing of
rehabilitation and maturity."
The key phrase in that opinion is "committed as a
juvenile." All of the major existing case law on
juveniles who receive long sentences (Miller v.
Alabama, 567 U.S. ____ (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560
U.S. ____ (2010); and Caballero itself) involves
SB 261
Page 8
individuals who were under 18 at the time of their
offense, and received a lengthy prison sentence. We
are unaware of any case law under which courts have
considered someone a juvenile for an offense committed
after they turned 18, but before they reached 23 years
of age.
We believe that it is wholly inappropriate to expand
this expedited parole process to include individuals
who were adults when they committed their offenses.
This bill isn't aimed at instances where a juvenile
offender is charged as an adult - that was taken care
of in SB 260. Instead, these are adults prosecuted in
adult court, for very serious offenses that result in
lengthy state prison commitments.
Prepared by:Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /
6/1/15 17:12:04
**** END ****