BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó




           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        SB 382|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520    Fax: (916)      |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                                UNFINISHED BUSINESS 


          Bill No:  SB 382
          Author:   Lara (D)
          Amended:  7/8/15  
          Vote:     21  

           SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:  5-2, 5/12/15
           AYES:  Hancock, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning
           NOES:  Anderson, Stone

           SENATE FLOOR:  24-13, 5/26/15
           AYES:  Allen, Beall, Block, Cannella, De León, Hancock,  
            Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva,  
            Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Pavley, Roth,  
            Wieckowski, Wolk
           NOES:  Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Fuller, Gaines, Huff,  
            Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Runner, Stone, Vidak
           NO VOTE RECORDED:  Galgiani, Hall

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  61-15, 7/16/15 - See last page for vote

           SUBJECT:   Juveniles: jurisdiction: sentencing


          SOURCE:    Author

          DIGEST:  This bill adds guidance to the existing criteria used  
          by judges in determining the fitness of a minor to have his or  
          her case adjudicated in juvenile court.  

          Assembly Amendments make changes to some of the wording in the  
          bill consistent with its provisions as passed by the Senate.

          ANALYSIS: 
          
          Existing law: 








                                                                     SB 382  
                                                                    Page  2




          1)Provides in any case where the juvenile court determines  
            fitness of the minor, the court must examine whether the minor  
            would or would not be amenable to the care, treatment, and  
            training program available through the juvenile court, based  
            upon an evaluation of the following criteria:

             a)   The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the  
               minor;

             b)   Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the  
               expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction;

             c)   The minor's previous delinquent history;

             d)   Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to  
               rehabilitate the minor; and, 

             e)   The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in  
               the petition to have been committed by the minor. 

          2)Authorizes a minor who has had his case prosecuted in adult  
            criminal court, without a prior fitness hearing, to make a  
            motion to receive a disposition under the juvenile court law,  
            based upon each of the following five criteria:

             a)   The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the  
               person;

             b)   Whether the person can be rehabilitated prior to the  
               expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction;

             c)   The person's previous delinquent history;

             d)   Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to  
               rehabilitate the person; and,

             e)   The circumstances and gravity of the offense for which  
               the person has been convicted. 

          This bill:









                                                                     SB 382  
                                                                    Page  3



          1)Adds the following discretionary factors within each of the  
            existing five criteria used to determine whether a minor is a  
            fit and proper subject to be dealt with in the juvenile court  
            system:

             a)   The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the  
               minor.  Specifies that the juvenile court may give weight  
               to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the  
               minor's age, maturity, intellectual capacity, and physical,  
               mental, and emotional health at the time of the alleged  
               offense, the minor's impetuosity or failure to appreciate  
               risks and consequences of criminal behavior, the effect of  
               familial, adult, or peer pressure on the minor's actions,  
               and the effect of the minor's family and community  
               environment and childhood trauma on the minor's criminal  
               sophistication;

             b)   Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the  
               expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction.  Provides  
               that the juvenile court may give weight to any relevant  
               factor, including, but not limited to, the minor's  
               potential to grow and mature;

             c)   The minor's previous delinquent history.  Provides the  
               juvenile court may give weight to any relevant factor,  
               including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the  
               minor's previous delinquent history and the effect of the  
               minor's family and community environment and childhood  
               trauma on the minor's previous delinquent behavior;

             d)   Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to  
               rehabilitate the minor.  Specifies that the juvenile court  
               may give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not  
               limited to, the adequacy of the services previously  
               provided to address the minor's needs; and,

             e)   The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in  
               the petition to have been committed by the minor.   
               Specifies that the juvenile court may give weight to any  
               relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the actual  
               behavior of the person, the mental state of the person, the  
               person's degree of involvement in the crime, the level of  








                                                                     SB 382  
                                                                    Page  4



               harm actually caused by the person, and the person's mental  
               and emotional development.

          2)Revises the five criteria that a juvenile must demonstrate to  
            the court when requesting a juvenile court disposition in his  
            or her case, which was initiated in adult criminal court  
            without a prior finding that the person was not fit for  
            juvenile court, to add the same discretionary factors above.

          Background
          
          The purpose of juvenile court law is to provide for the  
          protection and safety of the public and each minor under the  
          jurisdiction of the court and to preserve and strengthen family  
          ties when possible, as specified.  (WIC § 202 (a).)  "Minors  
          under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a consequence of  
          delinquent conduct shall, in conformity with the interests of  
          public safety and protection, receive care, treatment, and  
          guidance that is consistent with their best interest, that holds  
          them accountable for their behavior, and that is appropriate for  
          their circumstances.  This guidance may include punishment that  
          is consistent with the rehabilitative objectives of this  
          chapter."  (WIC § 202(b).)

          California law generally provides that persons under the age of  
          18 who are alleged to have committed a crime are within the  
          jurisdiction of the juvenile court.   However, California law  
          contains three discrete mechanisms for remanding minors to adult  
          criminal court:

          1)Statutory or legislative waiver requires that minors 14 years  
            of age or older who are alleged to have committed specified  
            murder and sex offenses be prosecuted in adult criminal court  
            (WIC § 602(a)); 

          2)Prosecutorial waiver gives prosecutors the discretion to file  
            cases against minors 14 and older, depending upon their age,  
            alleged offense and offense history, in juvenile or adult  
            criminal court (WIC § 707(d)); and

          3)Judicial waiver gives courts the discretion to evaluate  
            whether a minor is unfit for juvenile court based on specified  








                                                                     SB 382  
                                                                    Page  5



            criteria.  (WIC § 707 (a), (b) and (c).)  

          The fitness criteria set forth in statute are the basis by which  
          the juvenile court evaluates whether a minor is amenable to the  
          care, treatment and training available through the juvenile  
          court.  A minor is not required to establish innocence in order  
          to show amenability to the juvenile court system, and the fact  
          that a minor did commit the charged offense does not  
          automatically require a finding of unfitness.  (People v.  
          Superior Court (Jones) 18 Cal.4th 667, 682 (1998).)  A finding  
          of amenability must be based on evidence and supported by  
          findings addressed to each and every one of the criteria.  (Id.  
          at 683.)

          Though the standards for determining a minor's fitness for  
          treatment as a juvenile lack explicit definition . . .  it is  
          clear from the statute that the court must go beyond the  
          circumstances surrounding the offense itself and the minor's  
          possible denial of involvement in such offense.  The court may  
          consider a minor's past record of delinquency, and must take  
          into account his behavior pattern as described in the probation  
          officer's report.  (H. v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 709,  
          714 (citations omitted; emphasis in original.)      

          This bill adds discretionary, non-exclusive considerations for  
          the court to weigh in each of the five existing fitness  
          criteria.  None of the considerations proposed by this bill  
          appear to be inconsistent with the current criteria.        
          
          FISCAL EFFECT:   Appropriation:    No          Fiscal  
          Com.:NoLocal:    No


          SUPPORT:   (Verified8/10/15)


          The Anti-Recidivism Coalition
          Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
          American Civil Liberties Union of California
          Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Justice Strategy Group
          Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus 
          Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles








                                                                     SB 382  
                                                                    Page  6



          California Catholic Conference of Bishops
          California Public Defenders Association
          Californians for Safety and Justice
          Californians United for a Responsible Budget
          Campaign for Youth Justice
          Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
          Children Now
          Children's Defense Fund California
          East Bay Children's Law Offices
          Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
          Friends Committee on Legislation of California
          Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership
          National Center for Youth Law
          National African American Drug Policy Coalition
          National Employment Law Project
          Office of Restorative Justice of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
          Post-Conviction Justice Project - USC Gould School of Law
          Root and Rebound
          Youth Justice Coalition
          Youth Law Center
          Policy Link
          Several individuals


          OPPOSITION:   (Verified 8/10/15)


          None Received


          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:     


          Supporters state in part, "In our experience, there is  
          tremendous need for clarification of the fitness criteria.  For  
          example, the fifth criterion - the gravity and circumstances of  
          the offense - is often misinterpreted to mean that any person  
          alleged to have committed a serious offense must be found unfit.  
           But that is not correct.  In fact, even a young person who has  
          committed a serious offense should be retained in juvenile court  
          if he or she is capable of being rehabilitated, using the other  
          fitness criteria.  There is tremendous need to clarify this in  








                                                                     SB 382  
                                                                    Page  7



          the statutory criteria.


          "Also, since the current fitness criteria were written, there is  
          much more useful guidance on the impact of immaturity and  
          adolescent development on behavior and capacity for change.  A  
          series of Supreme Court cases, culminating in Miller v. Alabama  
          (2012) 567 U.S. ___, ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455, has recognized the  
          importance of considering the hallmarks of youthfulness in  
          making decisions about young people.  This includes issues such  
          as impulsivity, failure to appreciate risks and dangers, and  
          peer pressure.  The Supreme Court cases also highlight the  
          transitory nature of adolescent delinquency - the fact that the  
          vast majority of young people leave delinquency behind as they  
          reach adulthood."




          ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  61-15, 7/16/15
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,  
            Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,  
            Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines,  
            Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,  
            Gonzalez, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,  
            Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low, Mayes, McCarty,  
            Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Perea,  
            Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark  
            Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
          NOES:  Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Dahle, Gallagher,  
            Harper, Jones, Kim, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Patterson,  
            Steinorth, Wagner
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Gordon, Gray, Melendez, Waldron


           Prepared by:Alison Anderson / PUB. S. / 
          8/13/15 13:24:34


                                   ****  END  ****










                                                                     SB 382  
                                                                    Page  8