BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1166
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 1166 (Nielsen) - As Introduced: February 27, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), when sitting
en banc to decide a tie vote in deciding parole, to review the
record of the parole hearing rather than hold another hearing.
Upon en banc review, the BPH shall vote to either grant or deny
parole and render a statement of decision.
(En banc, meaning "on a bench," is used to refer to a case where
all judges hear the case rather than a panel.)
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible GF costs/savings as this bill reflects current
practice.
If, however, a court were to rule that statute requires a
hearing, rather than a review, this bill would result in
moderate savings, potentially in excess of $100,000, by
clarifying that en banc meetings to break a tie vote regarding
the establishment of a parole date, are actually reviews , rather
than hearings , thus avoiding specific - and duplicative -
processes that must be provided, such as inmate attendance at
the hearing, inmate reviews of files, written and oral
questioning by the inmate.
COMMENT
1)Rationale. According to the author (a former chair of the
Board of Prison Terms, which is now the BPH), and the sponsor,
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), when
SB 737 (Romero, Statutes of 2005) reorganized CDCR, it
AB 1166
Page 2
inaccurately labeled the en banc review of a tie vote in a
parole hearing as a hearing, rather than a review. Because the
en banc review is, in intent and practice, a review of a
hearing that has already occurred, which resulted in a tie
vote, calling the review a hearing is problematic, as a
hearing implies specific processes. At an en banc review to
decide a tie vote, however, the hearing has already occurred,
with all appropriate processes provided the inmate.
The author and CDCR maintain it is necessary to clarify that
an en banc review of a tie vote is not a full hearing as
defined by the Penal Code, to protect the state from legal
exposure to costly and duplicative proceedings.
The BPH currently conducts en banc reviews of parole hearings
that result in a tie vote. Several court decisions, however,
have opined that unintended changes made by SB 737 create a
requirement for full en banc hearings in those cases, which
presumably include a series of processes established for
parole hearings in Penal Code Section 3041.5 that are not
applicable to reviews.
2)This bill requires a vote of the Legislature , as it amends
Proposition 9, which as passed by the voters in November 2008,
made several changes to parole processes, including the
changes made several years earlier in SB 737. Proposition 9
specified that any statutory changes to Proposition 9 require
a 3/5 vote of the Legislature.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081