BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1084
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 21, 2016
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
SB
1084 (Hancock) - As Amended May 11, 2016
SUMMARY: Makes technical clarifying changes to existing
provisions of law that 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
(LWOP) to submit a petition for recall and resentencing.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Clarifies that if the court finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that one or more of the statements in the petition is
SB 1084
Page 2
true, the court shall recall the sentence and commitment
previously ordered and hold a hearing to resentence the
defendant.
2)States that the defendant may submit another petition if it
the sentence is not recalled or the defendant is resentenced
to LWOP.
3)Clarifies that the exclusionary factors must have been pled
and proved.
4)Specifies that nothing in this bill is intended to diminish or
abrogate any rights or remedies otherwise available to the
defendant.
5)Makes other technical changes.
EXISTING LAW:
1)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 to the sentencing court a petition
for recall and resentencing after he or she has served at
least 15 years of his or her sentence. (Pen. Code, § 1170,
subd. (d)(2)(A)(i).)
2)Requires the petition to include the defendant's statement
that he or she was under 18 years of age at the time of the
crime and was sentenced to LWOP, the defendant's statement
SB 1084
Page 3
describing his or her remorse and work towards rehabilitation,
and the defendant's statement that one of the following is
true:
a) The defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder or
aiding and abetting murder provisions of law;
b) The defendant does not have juvenile felony
adjudications for assault or other felony crimes with
significant potential for personal harm to victims prior to
the offense for which the sentence is considered for
recall;
c) The defendant committed the offense with at least one
adult codefendant; or,
d) The defendant has performed acts that tend to indicate
rehabilitation or the potential for rehabilitation,
including, but not limited to, availing himself or herself
of rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs, if
those programs have been available at his or her
classification level and facility, using self-study for
self-improvement, or showing evidence of remorse. (Pen.
Code, § 1170, subd. (d)(2)(B).)
3)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
sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the
defendant, provided that the new sentence, if any, is not
greater than the initial sentence. Victims, or victim family
SB 1084
Page 4
members if the victim is deceased, shall retain the rights to
participate in the hearing. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd.
(d)(2)(E).)
4)Provides that if a sentence is not recalled, the defendant may
submit another petition for recall and resentencing again
after having served 20 years, then 24 years, and a final
petition may be submitted during the 25th year of defendant's
sentence. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (d)(2)(H).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "SB 1084 makes
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. The bill
clarifies language that has caused some confusion in the
courts in the following ways:
Clarifies that the person convicted for a crime
committed while under the age of 18 and sentenced to LWOP
can submit a petition after he or she has been incarcerated
at least 15 years.
Provides 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.
SB 1084
Page 5
Clarifies that the defendant may submit another petition
if the sentence is not recalled or the defendant is
resentenced to LWOP.
Clarifies that nothing in the provisions dealing with
the ability of a person to seek a resentencing is intended
to diminish any rights or remedies otherwise available.
Makes other technical amendments."
1)LWOP: Review of Case Law: In 2005, the United States Supreme
Court ruled that persons who were under the age of 18 at the
time of the offense are ineligible for the death penalty.
(Roper vs. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551.) Penal Code Section
190.5 codified the holding of Roper and stated the penalty for
a person 16 to 18 years of age convicted of first-degree
murder with special circumstances is either LWOP or
25-years-to-life. (Penal Code Section 190.5(b).)
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is
unconstitutional to sentence a youth who did not commit
homicide to LWOP. (See Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48.)
The Court discussed the fundamental differences between a
juvenile and adult offender and reasserted its findings from
the Roper case, supra, 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,
560 U.S. at 70.] 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 incarceration for the duration of their lives. The Eighth
Amendment does not foreclose the possibility that persons
SB 1084
Page 6
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 75.)
Roper and Graham establish that children are constitutionally
different from adults for sentencing purposes and emphasized
that the distinctive attributes of youth diminish the
penological justifications for imposing the harshest sentences
on juvenile offenders, even when they commit terrible crimes.
In 2012, SB 9 (Yee), Chapter 828, Statutes of 2012, was signed
into law to address cases where a juvenile was sentenced to
LWOP by providing a mechanism for recall and resentencing.
Pursuant to SB 9, a person who was under 18 years of age at
the time of committing an offense for which the person was
sentenced to LWOP could, after serving at least 15 years in
prison, petition the court for re-sentencing. If a
re-sentencing hearing is granted, the court would have the
discretion whether to re-sentence the petitioner to a lower
sentence or let the life without parole sentence remain. If
granted a lower sentence, the petitioner must still serve the
minimum sentence and obtain approval of the parole board and
the Governor prior to parole.
This bill makes technical clarifying amendments to the law
enacted by SB 9.
2)Argument in Support: According to Human Rights Watch, the
sponsor of this bill, "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 this bill will
clarify the language of the law and ensure consistency in
SB 1084
Page 7
practice across the state."
3)Argument in Opposition: None submitted.
4)Prior Legislation:
a) 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.
b) SB 399 (Yee), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session, was
substantially similar to this bill. SB 399 failed passage
on Assembly Floor.
c) 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.
d) 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:
SB 1084
Page 8
Support
Human Rights Watch (Sponsor)
California Public Defenders Association
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by:Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744