BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 399|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 399
Author: Yee (D)
Amended: 5/28/09
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 4/14/09
AYES: Leno, Cedillo, Hancock, Steinberg, Wright
NOES: Benoit, Huff
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-5, 5/28/09
AYES: Kehoe, Corbett, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Leno, Oropeza,
Yee
NOES: Cox, Denham, Runner, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
SUBJECT : Juvenile justice: sentencing
SOURCE : Human Rights Watch
National Center of Youth Law
DIGEST : This bill 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 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.
CONTINUED
SB 399
Page
2
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that the Secretary of the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or the Board
of Parole Hearings or both may, for specified reasons,
recommend to the court that a prisoner's sentence be
recalled, and that a court may recall a prisoner's
sentence.
This bill authorizes a prisoner who was under 18 years of
age at the time of committing an offense for which the
prisoner was sentenced to life without parole to submit a
petition for recall and resentencing to the sentencing
court, as specified. The bill establishes certain criteria
to be considered when a court decides whether to conduct a
hearing on the petition for recall and resentencing and
whether to grant the petition. The bill requires the court
to make findings within 90 days of submission of the
petition, and to hold a hearing if the court finds that the
criteria are met, as specified. The bill applies
retroactively, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Fund
Resentencing hearings $11 $13 $4
General*
Case-processing/admin Unknown, likely minor
General*
Petitioner transportation Minor and absorbable
General
Avoided Habeas Corpus (Unknown, potentially
significant) General*
SB 399
Page
3
Petitions savings
*Trial Courts Trust Fund
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/29/09)
Human Rights Watch (co-source)
National Center for Youth Law (co-source)
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
American Civil Liberties Union
American Psychiatric Association
Books Not Bars/Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Archdiocese of Los Angeles
Bar Association of San Francisco
California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
California Church IMPACT
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Mental Health Directors Association
California Psychiatric Association
California Public Defenders Association
California-Nevada Conference of the United Methodist Church
Center for Juvenile Law and Policy
Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice
Chance Films
Child Welfare League of America
Children's Defense Fund
City of La Puente
Diocese of Sacramento Catholic Social Justice office
Disability Rights California
Everychild Foundation (Los Angeles)
Faith Communities for Families and Children (Los Angeles
County;
California juvenile justice system)
Free Battered Women
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Homeboy Industries (Los Angeles)
Human Rights Watch (sponsor)
John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes
Juvenile Law Center
Law Offices of the Alternate Public Defender For Los
Angeles County
Legal Services for Children
SB 399
Page
4
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law & Policy
Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) California
National Center for Youth Law (co-sponsor)
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
Office of Restorative Justice
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Public Counsel
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
The United Methodist Church, California-Nevada Conference
University of San Diego School of Law, Children's Advocacy
Institute
University of San Francisco
University of San Francisco School of Law, Center for Law
and Global
Justice
University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, The
Post-
Conviction Justice Project
Youth Justice Coalition (L.A. County)
Youth Law Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/29/09)
California District Attorneys Association
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
Crime Victims Action Alliance
Crime Victims United
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office states in
part, the "life without parole" sentence for youth is not
applied fairly: The sentence is reserved for the worst,
most heinous criminals, but is often given to kids who
didn't even kill anyone. Statistics: 59 percent of youth
sentenced to life without parole are first-time offenders:
they have no criminal history. 45 percent of the youth
sentenced to life in prison did not perform the murder they
were convicted of. Many youth sentenced to LWOP acted with
adults at the time of their crimes; however, in many cases
the youth was sentenced to a worse penalty than the adult
codefendant(s), even when the youth's crimes were the same
SB 399
Page
5
or lesser than the adult's. Statistics: 70 percent of the
youth acted under the influence of adults. In 56 percent
of these cases, the youth received a higher sentence than
the adult(s), even when the youth's crimes were equal or
less. Unsurprisingly, over 75 percent of the youth
sentenced to life-without-parole acted within a group at
the time of their crime.
When life-without-parole was adopted as a possible sentence
for minors in 1990, much less was known about brain science
than we now know. It is now widely established that the
adolescent brain has not yet fully developed the ability to
comprehend consequences and control impulses.
The life-without-parole sentence is not applied fairly
between ethnic groups: Latinos and blacks are given the
sentence at a much higher rate than whites, even after
differing crime rates between the groups are factored in,
again revealing weaknesses in our existing sentencing
system.
The U.S. is the only country in the world that
sentences kids to life-without-parole.
Many U.S. states have already banned the use of the
life-without-parole sentence for youth.
The sentence has no deterrent effect on crime.
(T)his Act creates specific criteria and an intense,
three-part review process that results in the possibility
of a lesser sentence for those offenders whose crimes were
less than their sentence might have warranted and who have
proven themselves to have changed as adults.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue that existing
law concerning sentencing minors who have been convicted of
extremely serious offenses is adequate, and that the
provisions of this bill are flawed. The California
District Attorneys Association submits:
Existing law properly recognizes the fact that there
are juveniles who commit special circumstances murder
and that LWOP is an appropriate sentence in many, if
SB 399
Page
6
not most, of those cases. At the same time, the
statute acknowledges the possibility of a rare
exception and grants judicial discretion to impose a
lesser sentence of 25 years to life. We agree with the
propriety of existing law in this regard and therefore
oppose any effort, whether overt or veiled, to
substantially weaken the statutory response to special
circumstances murder committed by specified juveniles.
(T)he bill lists a number of criteria, three or more of
which must be satisfied by an inmate in order for him
or her to enjoy the benefit of a potentially decreased
sentences. These criteria set the bar so low that an
inmate who (1) prior to the crime, had insufficient
adult support or supervision and had suffered from
significant stress, (2) availed himself or herself of
education or vocational programs while incarcerated,
and (3) maintained family connections through phone
calls or visits, would be entitled to a mandatory court
hearing in which the sentencing court would consider
reducing the inmate's sentence. While the bill
includes other more pertinent criteria such as the
nature of the crime and the criminal history of the
offender, there is no requirement that those criteria
actually be satisfied in order to trigger the hearing.
The plain language seems to allow (the initial review) at
any point in the inmate's sentence until he or she has
served nine years and nine months.
RJG:do 5/29/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****