BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1070 Hearing Date: April 19, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hancock |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 16, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Youth Offender Parole Hearings
HISTORY
Source: Human Rights Watch
Prior Legislation:SB 261 (Hancock) - Chapter 471, Stats. 2015
SB 260 (Hancock) - Chapter 312, Stats. 2013
Support: Unknown
Opposition:California District Attorneys Association (unless
amended)
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to make technical changes to the
provisions governing youth offender parole.
Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a
youth offender parole hearing for offenders sentenced to state
prison who committed specified crimes when they were less than
23 years of age. (Penal Code §3051 and 4801)
This bill replaces the word juvenile with youth in these
sections.
SB 1070 (Hancock ) Page
2 of ?
Existing law, for the purposes of a youth parole hearing,
defines "controlling offense" as the offense or enhancement for
which any sentencing court imposed the longest term of
imprisonment. (Penal Code § 3051(a)(2)(B))
This bill instead deletes enhancement from the above definition
of "controlling offense."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 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 (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
SB 1070 (Hancock ) Page
3 of ?
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
This bill makes a technical change to SB 260 / 261
(Hancock 2015) to make the law consistent. SB 260/261
requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a
youth offender parole hearing for offenders sentenced
to state prison who committed those specified crimes
when they were less than 23 years of age.
Thus, this bill changes the word "juvenile" to "youth."
This bill also removes "enhancement" from the
SB 1070 (Hancock ) Page
4 of ?
definition of a "controlling offense."
2. Technical changes
This bill makes technical changes.
According to Human Rights Watch:
In 2013, California enacted SB 260, creating a
specialized "Youth Offender Parole" process for people
who were under the age of 18 at the time of their
crimes, but tried as adults and sentenced to lengthy
adult prison terms. In 2015, the state enacted SB 261,
extending the SB 260/Youth Offender Parole process to
people who were 22 years old or younger at the time of
their crimes. Whereas the law previously only applied
to juveniles, it now applies to juveniles and youth up
through age 22. Because the law no longer solely
applies to juveniles, the word "juvenile" should be
changed to "youth." This will eliminate potential
confusion for the Board of Parole Hearings, youth
offenders, and the public.
3. Proposed amendments:
The author will offer these amendments in Committee:
The following amendment addresses the concern raised by CDAA:
Page 2 line 7 reinsert the deleted words "or
enhancement"
The following amendments are technical:
Page 2 amend lines 10 through 29 as follows:
(1) Unless previously released pursuant to other statutory
provisions or court orders , A an person inmate who was convicted
of a controlling offense that was committed before the person
inmate had attained 23 years of age and for which the sentence
is a determinate sentence shall be eligible for release on
parole at a youth offender parole hearing by the board during
following completion of his or her 15th year of incarceration,
upon being granted parole by the board pursuant to paragraph (1)
of subdivision (b) of section 3041 at a youth offender parole
SB 1070 (Hancock ) Page
5 of ?
hearing unless previously released pursuant to other statutory
provisions .
(2) Unless previously released or entitled to an earlier
parole consideration hearing pursuant to other statutory
provisions or court orders, A an person inmate who was
convicted of a controlling offense that was committed
before the person inmate had attained 23 years of age and
for which the sentence is a life term of less than 25 years
to life shall be eligible for release on parole by the
board during following completion of his or her 20th year
of incarceration upon being granted parole by the board
pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of section
3041 at a youth offender parole hearing at a youth offender
parole hearing, unless previously released or entitled to
an earlier parole consideration hearing pursuant to other
statutory provisions .
(3) Unless previously released or entitled to an earlier
parole consideration hearing pursuant to other statutory
provisions or court orders , A an person inmate who was
convicted of a controlling offense that was committed
before the person inmate had attained 23 years of age and
for which the sentence is a life term of 25 years to life
shall be eligible for release on parole by the board during
following completion of his or her 25th year of
incarceration upon being granted parole by the board
pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of section
3041 at a youth offender parole hearing at a youth offender
parole hearing, unless previously released or entitled to
an earlier parole consideration hearing pursuant to other
statutory provisions .
The following amendment will make it clear that the Parole
Board does not have to have a hearing for a determinately
sentenced inmate who would be released soon anyway:
Page 2 between lines 29 and 30 insert:
(4) This section shall not apply to an inmate serving a
determinate sentence if he or she will be released by operation
of law pursuant to his or her determinate term less than 180
days from his scheduled hearing date.
-- END -
SB 1070 (Hancock ) Page
6 of ?