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 ?