BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 261
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2015
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
SB
261 (Hancock) - As Amended June 1, 2015
SUMMARY: 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.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that those with indeterminate sentences who are
eligible for a youth offender parole hearing on the effective
date of this bill shall have their hearing by July 1, 2017.
SB 261
Page 2
2)States that those with determinate sentences who are eligible
for a youth 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 of Parole (BPH) before
July 1, 2017.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes a youth offender parole hearing which is a hearing
by BPH 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. (Pen. Code, § 3051.)
2)Provides the following parole mechanism for a person who was
convicted of a controlling offense that was committed before
the person had attained 18 years of age:
a) If the controlling offense was a determinate sentence
the offender shall be eligible for release after 15 years;
b) If the controlling offense was a life term less than 25
years then the person is eligible for release after 20
years; and,
c) If the controlling offense was a life term of 25 years
to life then the person is eligible for release after 25
years. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subd. (b).)
3)Sets a deadline of July 1, 2015, for BPH to complete all youth
offender parole hearings for individuals who become entitled
to have their parole suitability considered at a youth
offender parole hearing on the effective date of the statute
SB 261
Page 3
that established youth offender parole hearings. (Pen. Code,
§ 3051, subd. (i).)
4)Provides that in reviewing a prisoner's suitability for parole
in a youthful offender parole hearing, the BPH 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).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "Much like the
existing youth offender process, SB 261 holds young people
accountable and responsible for what they did. They must serve
a minimum of 15 to 25 years in prison depending on their
offense, and must demonstrate remorse, maturity, and
rehabilitation to be suitable for parole.
"This reflects science, law, and common sense. Recent
neurological research shows that cognitive brain development
continues well beyond age 18 and into early adulthood. For
boys and young men in particular, this process continues into
the mid-20s. The parts of the brain that are still developing
during this process affect judgment and decision-making, and
are highly relevant to criminal behavior and culpability.
Recent US Supreme Court cases including Roper v. Simmons,
Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama recognize the
neurological difference between youth and adults. The fact
SB 261
Page 4
that youth are still developing makes them especially capable
of personal development and growth.
"The State of California recognizes this as well. State law
provides youth with foster care services until age 21. It
extends Division of Juvenile Justice jurisdiction until age
23. It also provides special opportunities for youth in our
state prison system through age 25.
"To be clear: SB 261 is by no means a 'free ticket' for
release. There is no mandate to a reduced sentence or release
on parole, only the opportunity for a parole hearing after
serving at least 15 to 25 years in state prison. Even after
that period there is no guarantee for a grant of parole. The
Board still has to examine each inmate's suitability for
parole, the criteria for which this bill does not change.
"SB 261 will give young adults in our prisons hope and
incentive to improve their lives."
2)Review of Case Law: Juvenile Sentencing: In 2010, the United
States Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to
sentence a youth who did not commit homicide to a sentence of
life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). (Graham v.
Florida (2010) 130 S.Ct. 2011.) The Court discussed the
fundamental differences between a juvenile and adult offender
and reasserted its earlier findings from Roper v. Simmons
(2005) 543 U.S. 551, that juveniles have lessened culpability
than adults due to those differences. The Court stated that
"life without parole is an especially harsh punishment for a
juvenile," noting that a juvenile offender "will on average
serve more years and a greater percentage of his life in
prison than an adult offender." (Graham, supra, 130 S.Ct. at
2016.) However, the Court stressed that "while the Eighth
Amendment forbids a State from imposing a life without parole
sentence on a juvenile nonhomicide offender, it does not
require the State to release that offender during his natural
life. Those who commit truly horrifying crimes as juveniles
may turn out to be irredeemable, and thus deserving of
SB 261
Page 5
incarceration for the duration of their lives. The Eighth
Amendment does not foreclose the possibility that persons
convicted of nonhomicide crimes committed before adulthood
will remain behind bars for life. It does forbid States from
making the judgment at the outset that those offenders never
will be fit to reenter society." (Id. at pg. 2031.)
In 2012, the California Supreme Court ruled that sentencing a
juvenile offender for a non-homicide offense to a term of
years with a parole eligibility date that falls outside the
juvenile offender's natural life expectancy constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
(People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 262, 268.) The Court
stated that "the state may not deprive [juveniles] at
sentencing of a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate their
rehabilitation and fitness to reenter society in the future."
(Ibid.) Citing Graham, supra, the Court stated "the
sentencing court must consider all mitigating circumstances
attendant in the juvenile's crime and life, including but not
limited to his or her chronological age at the time of the
crime, whether the juvenile offender was a direct perpetrator
or an aider and abettor, and his or her physical and mental
development, so that it can impose a time when the juvenile
offender will be able to seek parole from the parole board."
(Id. at pp. 268-269.) In Caballero, the defendant was
convicted of three counts of attempted murder and received a
sentence of 110-years-to-life. Relying on the reasoning in
the Graham case, the Court found that while the juvenile did
not receive a sentence of LWOP, trial court's sentence
effectively deprives the defendant of any "realistic
opportunity to obtain release" from prison during his or her
expected lifetime, thus the sentence is a de facto LWOP
sentence and violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment. (Id. at pg. 268.)
The court in Caballero, supra, advised that "[d]efendants who
were sentenced for crimes they committed as juveniles who seek
to modify life without parole or equivalent de facto sentences
already imposed may file petitions for writs of habeas corpus
SB 261
Page 6
in the trial court in order to allow the court to weigh the
mitigating evidence in determining the extent of incarceration
required before parole hearings." (Id. at p. 269.) The Court
did not provide a precise timeframe for setting these future
parole hearings, but stressed that "the sentence must not
violate the defendant's Eighth Amendment rights and must
provide [the defendant with] a 'meaningful opportunity to
obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and
rehabilitation' under Graham's mandate." (Ibid.)
While the court in Caballero pointed out that these inmates may
file petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the trial court,
the court also urged the Legislature to establish a parole
eligibility mechanism for an individual sentenced to a de
facto life term for crimes committed as a juvenile. SB 260
(Hancock), Chapter 312, Statutes of 2013, established a parole
process for inmates who were sentenced to lengthy prison terms
for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18,
rather than requiring the inmate to file a writ of habeas
corpus and appear before the trial court for resentencing.
This bill seeks to expand those eligible for a youth offender
parole hearing to those whose committing offense occurred
before they reached the age of 23. The rationale, as expressed
by the author and supporters of this bill, is that research
shows that cognitive brain development continues well beyond
age 18 and into early adulthood. The parts of the brain that
are still developing during this process affect judgment and
decision-making, and are highly relevant to criminal behavior
and culpability. (See Johnson, et al., Adolescent Maturity and
the Brain: The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience Research
in Adolescent Health Policy, Journal of Adolescent Health
(Sept. 2009); National Institute of Mental Health, The Teen
Brain: Still Under Construction (2011).)
3)Youth Offender Parole Hearings Status Update: According to the
State's most recent status report on measures being taken to
reduce the prison population pursuant to the three-judge
panel's February 10, 2014 order:
SB 261
Page 7
"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 May 31, 2015, the Board held 664 youth offender
hearings, resulting in 189 grants, 410 denials, 63
stipulations to unsuitability, and 2 split votes that required
referral to the full Board for further consideration. An
additional 318 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, all youth offenders
who received a grant 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.)
4)Argument in Support: According to the Anti-Recidivism
Coalition (ARC), a sponsor of this bill, "In 2013, the
Governor signed SB 260 recognizing that young people are
different from adults and deserve a special consideration in
the parole process. This law codified California Penal Code
§3051, providing individuals who were under the age of 18 at
the time of their crime and have served between 15 and 25
years in prison, the opportunity to demonstrate accountability
and rehabilitation to the parole board. This law was based on
the research and evidence that the brain is still developing
into early adulthood, particularly in the regions of the brain
affecting judgment, emotion regulation, decision-making, and
long-term consequences. While pointing out the vulnerabilities
that stem from this developmental stage, SB 260 also points
out the unique opportunity for personal growth and
rehabilitation. SB 261 makes this same recognition, while also
SB 261
Page 8
noting that young adults are still developing neurologically
and emotionally past the age of 18.
"With the passage of SB 260, motivation to focus on
rehabilitation is incentivized. The ARC communicates with over
500 inmates currently incarcerated and receives calls and
letters daily about the impact of this legislation. One inmate
wrote, 'I never thought this bill was real until I met you
guys. There are always rumors about different bills in here,
but no one ever believes it. This bill has given so many of us
hope for the first time since being here.' Another ARC Member,
currently home on SB 260, also explains the increased safety
caused by this bill, 'you don't understand-this bill spread
hope to people who had lost all. You had guys who were
dropping out of gangs and enrolling into school, because now
they had something to work toward.' SB 260 increases
motivation to focus on rehabilitation and gives individuals a
meaningful chance at parole.
"The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) estimates there are
just over 16,000 people who were between 18-22 years old at
the time of their crimes and
sentenced to prison terms of 15 years or more. This bill has
the potential to affect a
much larger population, while continuing to move toward a
system of rehabilitation.
There is no question that people who commit crimes should be
held accountable, but
punishment should also reflect an individual's capacity for
personal growth and maturity.
To do otherwise disregards the potential for young adults to
change and the dramatic
physical and psychological differences between young people
and older adults."
5)Argument in Opposition: According to the California District
Attorneys Association, "Two years ago, we opposed SB 260
(Chapter 312, Statutes of 2013), which established the youth
SB 261
Page 9
offender parole process for individuals who were under 18
years of age at the time of their controlling offense. We
renew our opposition to this bill, which seeks to expand that
process to anyone under 23 at the time of their offense.
"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 like 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 mechanism that provides a defendant
serving a de facto life sentence without the possibility of
parole for nonhomicide 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
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."
6)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 260 (Hancock), Chapter 312, Statutes of 2013,
established a youth offender parole hearing which is a
hearing by BPH for the purpose of reviewing the parole
suitability of any prisoner who was under 18 years of age
at the time of his/her controlling offense.
b) 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 LWOP to submit a petition for recall and resentencing to
SB 261
Page 10
the sentencing court, and to the prosecuting agency, as
specified.
c) SB 399 (Yee), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session, was
substantially similar to SB 9. SB 399 failed passage on
Assembly Floor.
d) SB 999 (Yee), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session, would
have eliminated the LWOP sentence thus making the sentence
for first-degree murder with special circumstances by a
defendant under 18 years of age 25-years-to-life. SB 999
failed passage on Senate Floor.
e) SB 1223 (Kuehl), of the 2003-04 Legislative Session,
would have authorized a court to review the sentence of a
person convicted as a minor in adult criminal court and
sentenced to state prison after the person has either
served 10 years or attained the age of 25. SB 1223 failed
passage in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Ant-Recidivism Coalition (Sponsor)
SB 261
Page 11
Human Rights Watch (Sponsor)
Friends Committee on Legislation of California (Co-Sponsor)
Youth Justice Coalition (Co-Sponsor)
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
Californians for Safety and Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Children's Defense Fund - California
Drug Policy Alliance
Everychild Foundation
Islamic Shura Council of Southern California
SB 261
Page 12
Justice Not Jails
Kehillat Israel Synagogue
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Life Support Alliance
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership
National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter
National Center for Youth Law
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives
PolicyLink
Prison Law Office
Project Kinship
Public Counsel
Revolutionary Releasing
SB 261
Page 13
Root & Rebound
San Francisco District Attorney's Office
Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
Youth ALIVE!
Youth Law Center
Opposition
California District Attorneys' Association
Crime Victims Action Alliance
San Diego District Attorney's Office
Analysis Prepared by:Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
SB 261
Page 14