BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                             Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:    SB 1084       Hearing Date:    April 19, 2016    
          
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Hancock                                              |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |February 17, 2016                                    |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|MK                                                   |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                                Subject:  Sentencing



          HISTORY

          Source:   Human Rights Watch

          Prior Legislation:SB 9 (Yee) Chapter 828, Stats. 2012

          Support:  California Public Defenders Association

          Opposition:None known

                     
          PURPOSE

          The purpose of this bill is to make technical non-substantive  
          changes to the provisions allowing a person who was under 18  
          years of age when sentenced to life without parole to submit a  
          petition for resentencing.

          Existing law authorizes a prisoner who was under 18 years of age  
          at the time of committing an offense for which the prisoner was  
          sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to submit a  
          petition for recall and resentencing after he or she has served  
          at least 15 years of his or her sentence. (Penal Code § 1170(d)  
          (2)(A)(i))








          SB 1084  (Hancock )                                        Page  
          2 of ?
          
          
          This bill would instead provide that the defendant could submit  
          the petition for resentencing after he or she has been committed  
          to the custody of the department for at least 15 years.

          Existing law provides that the ability to file a petition for  
          recall does not apply to a defendant who tortured his or her  
          victim. (Penal Code § 1170(d) (2)(ii))

          This bill clarifies that the element of torture had to have been  
          pled and proved.

          Existing law provides that if the court finds by a preponderance  
          of the evidence that the statements in the petition are true the  
          court shall hold a hearing to consider whether to recall the  
          sentences and commitment previously ordered to resentence the  
          defendant. (Penal Code § 1170(d) (2)(E))

          This bill provides instead that if the court finds by a  
          preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the statements  
          specified is true, the court shall recall the sentence and  
          commitment previously ordered and hold a hearing to resentence  
          the defendant. 

          Existing law provides that if a sentence is not recalled, the  
          defendant may submit another petition for recall and  
          resentencing again after having served 20 and 24 years. (Penal  
          Code § 1170(d) (2)(H))

          This bill provides instead that if the sentence is not recalled  
          or the defendant is resentenced to life without the possibility  
          of parole then the defendant may file again after he or she has  
          been committed to the department for 20 or 24 years.

          This bill makes other technical changes.

                    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  








          SB 1084  (Hancock )                                        Page  
          3 of ?
          
          
          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  
          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  








          SB 1084  (Hancock )                                        Page  
          4 of ?
          
          
               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 The Bill

          According to the author:

               This bill has technical, non-substantive changes to SB  
               9 (Yee, 2012). The bill clarifies language that has  
               caused some confusion in the courts in the following  
               ways: 
                     Replacing "served at least 15 years of that  
                 sentence" with "been committed to the custody of the  
                 department for at least 15 years."
                     Adding the phrase "it was pled and proved that."
                     Replacing "the statements in the petition are  
                 true" with "one or more of the statements specified  
                 in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive of subparagraph (B)  
                 is true." 
                     Replacing "recall" with "recalled or the  
                 defendant is resentenced to imprisonment for life  
                 without possibility of parole." 
                     Replacing "served" with "been committed to the  
                 custody of the department."

          2.   SB 9 Cleanup

          SB 9 (Yee) Chapter 828, Statutes 2012  authorized a prisoner who  
          was under 18 years of age at the time of committing an offense  
          for which the prisoner was sentenced to life without the  
          possibility of parole (LWOP) to submit a petition for recall and  
          resentencing to the sentencing court, as specified.  As SB 9 has  
          been implemented there has been some confusion over some of the  
          language in the bill in some courts.  This bill clarifies that  








          SB 1084  (Hancock )                                        Page  
          5 of ?
          
          
          language.

          According to the sponsor Human Rights Watch:


                In 2012, California created a judicial review process  
               for cases in which people under the age of 18 have been  
               sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. It  
               was the first law of its type in the country. Our work  
               on the issue of life without parole for juveniles has  
               led to contact with attorneys representing youth  
               offenders in these hearings. We believe there are areas  
               where the law is unclear as written and leading to  
               different interpretations in different courtrooms. It  
               is our hope that his bill will clarify the language of  
               the law and ensure consistency in practice across the  
               state.
          
          3.   Amendments in Committee

          The author will offer the following additional technical  
          amendments in Committee:

                 Page 6, line 19 and 20 delete "sentence is being  
               considered for recall" and insert "defendant was sentenced  
               to life without the possibility of parole" 

                 Page 6 line 23 and 24 delete  "sentence is being  
               considered for recall" and insert "defendant was sentenced  
               to life without the possibility of parole"

                 Page 7 line 19 delete "recall and resentencing is not  
               granted" and insert "the sentence is not recalled or the  
               defendant is resentenced to imprisonment for life without  
               the possibility of parole"

                 Page 7 after line 29 insert: "(J) Nothing in this  
               section is intended to diminish or abrogate   any rights or  
               remedies otherwise available to the inmate.
           
                                         -- END -











          SB 1084  (Hancock )                                        Page  
          6 of ?