Senate Bill No. 1310

Introduced by Senator Leno

February 19, 2016

An act to add Section 3055 to the Penal Code, relating to parole.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 1310, as introduced, Leno. Elderly Parole Program.

Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to meet with an inmate during the 6th year prior to the inmate’s minimum eligible parole release date to document the inmate’s activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. Existing law, the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law, as added by Proposition 9 at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, requires the panel, or the board if sitting en banc, to set a release date at the meeting, unless it determines that consideration of the public and victim’s safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration, and that a parole date cannot be fixed at the meeting. Existing law requires the board to schedule the next parole consideration hearing 15, 10, 7, 5, or 3 years after any hearing at which parole is denied. Existing law allows the board to advance a hearing set pursuant to these provisions to an earlier date when a change in circumstances or new information establishes a reasonable likelihood that consideration of the public and victim’s safety does not require an additional period of incarceration.

Existing law, as added by Proposition 184, adopted November 8, 1994, and amended by Proposition 36, adopted November 6, 2012, commonly known as the Three Strikes Law, imposes increased penalties for certain recidivist offenders. In particular, it requires that, in addition to any other enhancement or penalty provisions that may apply, if a defendant has 2 or more prior felony convictions, the term for the current felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of imprisonment in the state prison for life with a minimum term of the greatest of 3 times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction subsequent to the 2 or more prior felony convictions, imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years, or the term determined by the court for the underlying conviction, including any applicable enhancement or punishment provisions. The initiative measure enacting the Three Strikes Law prohibits the Legislature from amending the act except by a statute passed by a 2⁄3 vote or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.

This bill would establish the Elderly Parole Program, for prisoners who are 50 years of age or older, who have served 15 years of their sentence, and who have a reentry plan identifying residential, financial, and social integration plans. When considering the release of an inmate who meets this criteria, the bill would require the board to consider whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the elderly prisoner’s risk for future violence. The bill would also require the Board of Parole Hearings to consider whether a prisoner will qualify for the program when determining the prisoner’s next parole suitability hearing.

Vote: ²⁄₃. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.  

The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:

(a) On February 10, 2014, the three-judge court overseeing the
California prison overcrowding class action case (Coleman v.
Brown (2013) 952 F.Supp.2d 901) issued an order that, among
other things, requires the state to implement an Elderly Parole
Program so that prisoners who are 60 years of age or older and
who have been incarcerated at least 25 years on their current
sentence will be referred to the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH)
to determine suitability for parole. The BPH implemented this
Elderly Parole Program on October 1, 2014.

(b) Under the existing Elderly Parole Program hearings,
prisoners who are 60 years of age or older and who have been
incarcerated 25 years or more on their current sentence serving
either a determinate or indeterminate sentence, and who have not
yet had an initial parole suitability hearing are referred by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
to the BPH and scheduled for an Elderly Parole Program Suitability
hearing.

(c) Under the existing Elderly Parole Program hearings,
prisoners who are 60 years of age or older and who have been
incarcerated 25 years or more on their current term and who have
already been denied parole at the initial suitability hearing are
considered for a new hearing under the Elderly Parole Program.

(d) The BPH currently reviews all three-year denials annually
to determine if a more prompt parole consideration hearing should
be considered. Under the existing Elderly Parole Program, the
BPH includes within that annual review whether any prisoner
meets the elder parole eligibility criteria, and if so whether to
schedule a hearing.

(e) Under the existing Elderly Parole Program, prisoners who
have lengthier denial periods can file petitions with the BPH asking
that their hearing be advanced because they meet the eligibility
criteria for elder parole.

(f) The BPH may deny parole if an elderly prisoner’s release
would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Parole
suitability hearing decisions for elderly parole inmates are reviewed
in the same manner as all other parolees under eligibility
consideration, pursuant to criteria specified by Section 2281 of
Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. However, for all
Elderly Parole Program hearings, the BPH risk assessments
consider whether age, time served, and diminished physical
condition, if any, reduce elderly prisoners’ risk for future violence.

(g) The number of elderly prisoners in California state prisons
will continue to increase exponentially. In 2013, the CDCR
reported a population of prisoners 50 years of age and older as
27,580 and the population of prisoners 55 years of age and older
as 14,856.

(h) Costs associated with geriatric medical needs begin to
accumulate at 50 years of age, given that there is an overwhelming
consensus that the age of 50 constitutes a point when prisoners are
considered elderly. In 2010, the LAO estimated from other state
projections that incarcerating elderly offenders costs two to three
times more than for the general prison population. In 2010, the
average cost of incarcerating an inmate was approximately $51,000.

(i) Older persons have significantly low arrest rates. In 2001,
the federal arrest rate for persons 40 to 44, inclusive, years of age
was 0.73 percent. The rate decreases by about one-half every five
years, dropping to 0.46 percent for persons 45 to 49, inclusive,
years of age and 0.26 percent for persons 50 to 54, inclusive, years
of age. For persons 50 to 59, inclusive, years of age, the arrest rate
plummets to 0.14 percent.

(j) There is a lower risk of recidivism among elderly prisoners,
according to CDCR statistics. In 2013, CDCR reported that only
33.8 percent of persons who were 60 years of age and older,
returned to prison after one year from being released from prison.
Recidivism rates for persons 50 to 54, inclusive, years of age and
55 to 59, inclusive, years of age after one year from being released
from prison were 39.9 and 38.3 percent, respectively.

SEC. 2.  

Section 3055 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

3055.  

(a) The Elderly Parole Program is hereby established,
to be administered by the Board of Parole Hearings.

(b) A prisoner shall be considered for parole under the Elderly
Parole Program if he or she meets all of the following conditions:

(1) The prisoner is 50 years of age or older.

(2) The prisoner has served 15 years of his or her sentence.

(3) The prisoner has a reentry plan identifying residential,
financial, and social integration plans.

(c) When considering the release of a prisoner specified by
subdivision (b) pursuant to Section 3041, the board shall give
special consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished
physical condition, if any, have reduced the elderly prisoner’s risk
for future violence.

(d) When scheduling a parole suitability hearing date pursuant
to subdivision (b) of Section 3041.5 or when considering a request
for an advance hearing pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section
3041.5, the board shall consider whether the prisoner meets or will
meet the criteria specified in subdivision (b).