BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1166|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1166
Author: Nielsen (R)
Amended: 7/9/09 in Senate
Vote: 30
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 7/7/09
AYES: Leno, Benoit, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,
Wright
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 5/14/09 (Consent) - See last page
for vote
SUBJECT : Parole hearings for life prisoners
SOURCE : Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
DIGEST : This bill provides that where there is a tie
vote in a parole consideration hearing, the resulting en
banc proceeding by the entire Board of Parole Hearings
shall only consider the record of the hearing that produced
the tie vote, rather than hold a new hearing at which the
inmate would have due process rights.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that, one year prior to
the minimum eligible parole release date of an inmate
serving an indeterminate sentence, a panel of two or more
commissioners or deputy commissioners of the Board of
Parole Hearings (BHP) shall meet with the inmate and set a
CONTINUED
AB 1166
Page
2
parole release date, as specified. Existing law provides
that in the event of a tie vote, the matter shall be
referred to the BHP for an en banc hearing, as specified.
This bill authorizes the BHP, when sitting en banc to
review a tie vote of a parole hearing panel to review only
the record of the parole hearing rather than holding
another hearing. The bill specifies that an en banc review
shall be conducted in compliance with the following:
1.The commissioners conducting the review shall consider
the entire record of the hearing that resulted in the tie
vote.
2.The review shall be limited to the record of the hearing.
The record shall consist of the transcript or audiotape
of the hearing, written or electronically recorded
statements actually considered by the panel that produced
the tie vote, and any other material actually considered
by the panel. New evidence or comments shall not be
considered in the en banc proceeding.
3.The BHP shall separately state reasons for its decision
to grant or deny parole
4.A commissioner who was involved in the tie vote shall be
recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc
review.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/18/09)
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (source)
California District Attorneys Association
Crime Victims United
Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"SB 737 (Romero), Chapter 10, Statutes of 2005, reorganized
what is now the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, and in doing so, inaccurately labeled the
en banc review of a tie vote in a parole hearing as a
AB 1166
Page
3
'hearing' rather than as a 'review.' Because the en banc
review is merely and property a review of the hearing that
has already occurred, and which resulted in a tie vote,
labeling this review as a 'hearing' is problematic, because
the term 'hearing' implies that specific due process rights
must occur, which include having the inmate present.
However, at the time of an en banc review, this 'hearing'
has already occurred, with all appropriate rights afforded
to the inmate. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify that
the en banc review of a tie vote is not a full 'hearing' as
defined by the Penal Code; otherwise we risk a court
decision that would force extraordinarily costly and
duplicative proceedings.
"The Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) currently conducts en
banc reviews of parole hearings that result in a tie vote.
However, several unpublished court decisions have ruled
that unintended changes made by Senate Bill (SB) 737
(Romero), Chapter 10, Statutes of 2005, create a
requirement for a full en banc hearing in those cases
(instead of the intended review), to include many due
process rights established for parole hearings in Penal
Code Section 3041.5, and not applicable in reviews. Under
current practice, however, a full hearing is not granted
when an en banc review of a tie vote takes place, because
this procedure is rightfully considered a review of the
full hearing that resulted in a tie vote, rather than a new
hearing itself. If a published court decision makes the
same interpretation of the changes enacted by SB 737 as the
unpublished decisions have, then BPH will be required to
dramatically alter its en banc review process to conduct
full hearings, which would be extraordinarily costly and
duplicate of due process proceedings which have already
been provided."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill Berryhill,
Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Brownley,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore,
Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuller, Furutani, Galgiani, Gilmore, Hagman, Hall,
Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman,
AB 1166
Page
4
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Silva, Skinner,
Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres,
Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ammiano, Fuentes, Gaines, Garrick,
Saldana, Smyth, Bass
RJG:cm 8/18/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****