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