BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
399 (Yee)
Hearing Date: 05/18/2009 Amended: 05/11/2009
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Public Safety
5-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 399 authorizes an inmate who was a juvenile at
the time of committing an offense for which the inmate was
sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) to
submit a petition to the court for recall and resentencing. This
bill is retroactive, and staggers the filing dates for inmates
who are already be eligible to petition the court. This bill
also establishes certain criteria to be considered when a court
decides whether to conduct a hearing on the petition and whether
to grant the petition.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
Resentencing hearings $11 $13
$4 General*
Case-processing/admin Unknown, potentially
substantial General*
Petitioner transportation Minor and absorbable
General
*Trial Courts Trust Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill may meet the criteria for referral to
the Suspense File.
The full cost of this bill is unknown because it relies on the
decisions and actions of various parties involved. There are
certain fixed costs likely to be under the limit for referral to
the Suspense File, and there are potentially significant court
costs that are difficult to quantify due to both limited data
and reliance on the actions of individuals. There is also a
possibility of long term General Fund savings, if any of the
petitioners receive reduced sentences. There is also the
possibility of General Fund savings if eligible individuals
petition under the provisions of this bill instead of submitting
a Habeas Corpus petition.
This bill authorizes the approximately 250 inmates serving LWOP
in California who were juveniles at the time they committed the
crime for which they are serving LWOP to petition the court for
a resentencing hearing. According to CDCR, there are 34 eligible
inmates statewide who were sentenced before 1995. This bill
staggers petition eligibility, resulting in approximately 11
eligible to file petitions in fiscal year 2009-10, 13 eligible
in 2010-11, and 4 in eligible in 2011-12 across the state. Of
the remaining 6 eligible, 4 could file petitions in 2012-13, and
2 in 2013-14. It cannot be known with certainty how many
eligible inmates will file petitions in the fiscal year in which
they first become eligible, since the burden is on the inmates
to prepare appeal documents and petition
Page 2
SB 399 (Yee)
the court. Upon receiving the petition, the court would have 90
days to decide whether to hold a resentencing hearing and issue
written findings.
The Judicial Council has raised concerns that the number of
petitions actually filed and that the court must respond to
could be far more than projected, because while the bill makes
clear who is eligible, anyone could claim to be eligible. While
it is true that anyone could petition the court, this bill does
not require the court to respond to every petition. This bill
only requires the court to evaluate and respond to those
eligible by the provisions of this bill. There will, however, be
increased court workload by requiring the court to respond to an
eligible petition in 90 days. The exact cost cannot be
determined because it relies on the number of petitions filed
and the degree of concentration in a single county.
The court will also incur expenses to notify the victims or
victims' family members regarding the resentencing hearing, as
they have the right to participate. The court may not have
contact information readily available, and this would likely
lead to ongoing administrative costs.
Staff notes, however that under current law any inmate can
submit a petition to the court. This bill simplifies the process
for a small group of specified inmates to petition the court,
which may result in individuals submitting petitions that might
not have otherwise done so. However, there are no restrictions
on Habeas Corpus petitions, which are used by inmates to
challenge their conviction, sentence, or both. For those who
would have submitted Habeas Corpus petitions anyway, this bill
would likely offer a less expensive alternative, because it
involves only a resentencing hearing, and no potential for a new
trial.
If an inmate files a Habeas Corpus petition, the court will
review it and determine whether it has merit and a prosecutor
should respond. If so determined, and after receiving the
prosecutor's brief, the court can order an evidentiary hearing,
frequently involving the defense attorney from the original
trial, witnesses, and anyone else the court deems necessary of
valuable to the proceeding. The court then decides whether or
not to grant the petition and, if granted, either orders a new
trial or resentencing. This process is expensive and
time-consuming.
It cannot be known how many of the 250 inmates serving LWOP for
crimes committed as juveniles will file Habeas Corpus petitions,
but that number may increase due to a recent California 4th
Circuit Court of Appeals decision, In re Nunez (Apr. 30, 2009,
G040377) _ Cal.App.4th _ [2009 Cal.App.LEXIS 647].
On April 30, 2009 (in the time since this bill passed out of the
Committee on Public Safety) the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned the sentence of one of these inmates on 8th amendment
grounds. The decision was based on the very specific and
strange facts of the case, and focused on the particularly young
age of the defendant (he was 14 at the time the crime was
committed), but in it the court also writes, "We agree that
under our state Constitution the LWOP sentence imposed on
petitioner is void
Page 3
SB 399 (Yee)
both in the abstract for society's most youthful offenders and
as applied to petitioner in particular." At this time, it is
unclear whether the case will be appealed to the California
Supreme Court, and if the decision will stand. However, this
decision may
encourage other LWOP inmates whose crimes were committed when
they were juveniles to file Habeas Corpus petitions claiming
their sentences also constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
According to the Judicial Council, resentencing hearings take
approximately two hours, and each hearing costs a superior court
around $1,000. Judicial Council also indicates that this bill
would increase courts' workload, contribute to existing
backlogs, and exacerbate the need for additional courtrooms and
judicial officers. The exact amount and cost of increased
workload, and backlog exacerbation could not be determined
because it depends on the number of petitions filed and hearings
held. There will be fewer than 13 hearings per year in the first
two years, across the state, but it is unclear which specific
superior courts would receive the petitions allowed in this
bill.
There is also a potential for future savings if any petitioner
receives a reduced sentence. If a juvenile were sentenced to
LWOP at age 16, he would likely live in prison for more than 50
years, at a cost of $35,587 annually. If one such sentence were
reduced to 25 years, there would be an average cost savings of
$889,675, without taking into account rising medical costs as an
inmate ages.