BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1359
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 1359 (Huffman) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the CA Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to house death row inmates (currently
there are 641; design capacity is 636) in any Level IV security
prison, rather than solely at San Quentin, though executions
would continue to take place only at San Quentin. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Requires when a condemned inmate is housed in a Level IV
prison, procedures relating to privileges and classification
provided to condemned inmates at San Quentin must be similarly
instituted. Those classification procedures shall include the
right to review the classification no less than every 90 days
and the opportunity to petition for a return to San Quentin.
2)In addition, attorney-client access procedures provided death
row inmates at San Quentin shall be provided to condemned
inmates housed in any Level IV prison.
3)Requires condemned inmates housed in a Level IV prison to be
returned to San Quentin when appellate counsel is appointed
for an inmate's automatic appeal.
4)Increases the number of condemned inmates CDCR may house at
the California State Prison in Sacramento (New Folsom), as
specified, from 15 to 30. (Currently there are two.)
5)Deletes provisions of law requiring female condemned inmates
to be housed in the Central California Women's Facility
(Chowchilla). (Currently there are 15.)
AB 1359
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Significant one-time and ongoing costs, potentially in the
tens of millions of dollars, depending on how many condemned
inmates are moved to what would in effect be a series of
presumably smaller death rows at Level IV prisons.
For example, in 2003 CDCR estimated it would cost about $30
million in one-time costs to move death row to California
State Prison Sacramento. To the extent CDCR opted to move
death row inmates to multiple facilities, economies of scale
would diminish and costs would increase.
One-time costs include significant retrofitting to accommodate
special law libraries, visiting, attorney access, separate
exercise yards, egress and ingress and multiple security
renovations.
Ongoing costs include increased security staffing and special
transportation to multiple prisons, and to San Quentin when
condemned inmates are assigned their appellate attorneys.
2)The 2003 estimate also identified a $175 million cost to build
a new 1,024-cell prison for Level IV inmates who would be
displaced and relocated. That figure would be closer to $250
million in 2010, largely due to cost increases in materials.
CDCR anticipates a Level IV-bed deficit of about 1,200 by
2012.
3)If the administration opted to abandon the approved and
budgeted condemned inmate complex (CIC) project and pursue the
death row strategy authorized by this bill, there could be
significant one-time savings. Aside from about $20 million in
CIC spending that cannot be recouped, there would be about
$335 million in lease-revenue bonds available to fund the
retrofitting referenced above, and to replace the Level IV
AB 1359
Page 3
capacity lost to death row housing. Moderate ongoing cost
increases, largely for staffing and transportation, would
continue with multiple death rows. The administration,
however, has indicated no interest in halting the CIC project,
and siting/community issues related to relocating death row
may make these savings difficult to achieve.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends that continuing to house all
death row inmates at San Quentin is costly, unsafe and
unnecessary, and maintains that the administration's proposal
to create a new $356 million death row at San Quentin - the
1,152-bed CIC - is a costly boondoggle.
According to the author, "The condemned inmate complex is a
bottomless money pit that will drain hundreds of millions of
dollars from the state's massive and ever-increasing budget
deficit. AB 1359 will help obviate the need for this
ill-conceived and costly Condemned Inmate Complex (CIC) by
allowing CDCR to house condemned inmates at other prisons that
meet specific requirements. With about 11 people sentenced to
death every year and executions on hold since 2006 due to a
federal court order, overcrowding will continue to be a
problem until CDCR has the flexibility to house condemned
inmates at other facilities. AB 1359 also addresses the
disparity between condemned male and condemned female inmates.
While all condemned males are required to be housed at San
Quentin, all condemned females are required to be housed at
the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla. This
bill requires the same housing requirements for all condemned
inmates."
The author is also interested in ultimately using the San
Quentin site for purposes other than a prison. Housing, retail
and transportation usages have been suggested for the site in
the past. Presumably construction of the CIC will not assist
efforts to convert the San Quentin property.
2)Support. According to the Marin County Board of Supervisors,
AB 1359
Page 4
"San Quentin is presently experiencing severe overcrowding,
particularly among death row inmates. Even if the proposed
new CIC is ultimately built as proposed, a California State
Auditor's analysis indicates that the new facility will reach
its capacity by 2014 - just three years after it is projected
to open. With approximately 30 people sentenced to death
every year, and executions on hold to court order,
overcrowding will continue to be a problem until the CDCR has
flexibility to move condemned inmates to additional
facilities. Your bill would give the CDCR the flexibility to
house condemned inmates at any prison facility equipped with
Level IV housing security, while still requiring the same
level of access to legal representation, medical and mental
health treatment, and visitation with family."
3)Current Law requires death row male inmates to be housed at
San Quentin State Prison (except that up to 15 inmates, for
specified reasons related to in-prison violent behavior, may
be housed at California State Prison Sacramento) and condemned
women to be housed at the Central California Women's Facility
near Stockton. All executions occur at San Quentin.
4)Opposition to moving condemned inmates out of San Quentin
generally centers on availability and proximity to legal
services and family visiting and on community opposition. For
example, according to the ACLU, "We are opposed to moving
death row inmates from San Quentin. Death row inmates moved
elsewhere in the state prison system will have less access to
legal counsel, many of whom live in the Bay Area. Death
penalty cases are incredibly complex and require in depth
investigation into the life history and mental health of the
defendant. This requires much more frequent contact between
the attorney and the client and the ability to discuss
sensitive topics such as child sexual abuse. Other more
remote prisons do not provide similar access and will, among
other things, increase the costs of representation by
increasing the travel expenses for attorneys and experts."
5)Siting issues present a significant problem to relocating
death row. Many communities are likely to respond unfavorably
to having condemned inmates nearer their homes, as was the
case when discussions involving moving death row to New Folsom
ensued.
AB 1359
Page 5
6)Current Level IV Facilities. The first six prisons listed
house Level IV inmates in the 180-degree housing unit, which
is the most secure general population housing unit and
therefore the most likely to be used for condemned inmates:
Pelican Bay State Prison (Crescent City) High Desert State
Prison (Susanville) California State Prison (CSP)-Sacramento
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran Salinas Valley
State Prison (Soledad) California Correctional Institution
(Tehachapi).
The following five prisons also house Level IV inmates: Mule
Creek State Prison (Ione) Calipatria State Prison CSP-Corcoran
CSP-Los Angeles (Lancaster) Pleasant Valley Prison (Coalinga).
7)Prior Legislation .
a) AB 1743 (Huffman), 2007, required the Bureau of State
Audits to conduct an evaluation of condemned inmate
facility alternatives, and prohibited CDCR from going ahead
with its approved condemned inmate complex at San Quentin
State Prison until specified conditions are met. AB 1743
was vetoed, the governor stating,
"This bill would delay the provision of adequate housing,
program, support and treatment space for the condemned
inmates housed at San Quentin State Prison, which may
create an unnecessary $20 million General Fund cost.
"When the current project was funded in 2003 the
relevant fiscal, public safety, correctional officer and
inmate safety, legal rights, and civil liberty
considerations were discussed during the budget
deliberation process and it was determined that San Quentin
State Prison is the most appropriate place to house the
condemned inmates. The only substantial change since that
time is increased construction costs because of inflation
in the construction industry. Every month this project is
delayed results in approximately $1 million of increased
construction costs because of inflation pressures. Further
delaying the project will only exacerbate this problem."
AB 1359
Page 6
b) SB 28 (Denham), 2009, decommissions and redevelops San
Quentin. SB 28 was held in Senate Public Safety.
c) SB 228 (Denham), 2007, was identical to SB 28 and failed
passage in Senate Public Safety.
d) AB 1715 (Nation), 2005, authorized condemned inmates to
be housed in any Level IV prison. AB 1715 failed passage in
Senate Public Safety.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081