BILL ANALYSIS
SB 399
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 399 (Yee)
As Amended August 20, 2010
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :23-15
PUBLIC SAFETY 4-2 APPROPRIATIONS 9-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Furutani, Hill, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Bradford, Coto, |
| |Skinner | |Davis, |
| | | |De Leon, Gatto, Skinner, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Hagman, Gilmore |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Solorio |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : 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 the possibility of parole (LWOP) to
submit a petition for recall and re-sentencing to the sentencing
court, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that when a defendant who was under 18 years of age
at the time of the commission of the offense for which the
defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for LWOP has served at
least 15 years of that sentence, the defendant may submit to
the sentencing court a petition for recall and re-sentencing.
2)Requires that defendants who have served 15 or more years but
less than 25 years as of January 1, 2011 be permitted to
submit a petition for recall and re-sentencing as follows:
a) Those defendants who entered custody prior to July 1,
1993 may submit a petition in 2011;
b) Those defendants who entered custody on or after July 1,
SB 399
Page 2
1993 but prior to January 1, 1994, may submit a petition in
2012;
c) Those defendants who entered custody on or after January
1, 1994, but prior to July 1, 1994, may submit a petition
in 2013; and,
d) Those defendants who entered custody on or after July 1,
1994, but prior to January 1, 1995, may submit a petition
in 2014.
3)Mandates the petition for hearing shall include the person's
statement that he or she was under the age of 18 years old at
the time of the crime and was sentenced to LWOP, and the one
of the following is true:
a) The defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder or
aiding and abetting murder provisions of law;
b) The defendant does not have juvenile felony
adjudications for assault or other felony crimes with a
significant potential for personal harm to victims prior to
the offense for which the sentence is being considered for
recall;
c) The defendant committed the offense with at least one
adult codefendant; or,
d) The defendant has had no disciplinary actions for
violent activities in the last five years in which the
defendant was determined to be the aggressor.
4)Requires that the defendant serve the original petition with
the sentencing court and a copy of the petition shall be
served on the agency that prosecuted the case.
SB 399
Page 3
5)Provides that if any of the information required to petition
the court for a hearing is missing from the petition, or if
proof of service on the prosecuting agency is not provided,
the court shall return the petition to the person and advise
him or her that the matter cannot be considered without the
missing information. The defendant may re-submit a petition
with the information or proof of service.
6)States a reply to the petition, if any, shall be filed with
the court within 60 days of the date on which the prosecuting
agency is served with the motion, unless a continuance is
granted for good cause.
7)Provides that if the court finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the statements in the petition are true, or if
no reply to the petition is filed, the court shall hold a
hearing to consider whether to recall the sentence and
commitment previously ordered and to re-sentence the defendant
to a term of 25 year to life. Victims, or victim family
members if the victim is deceased, shall retain the right to
participate in the hearing.
8)Provides factors the court may consider when determining
whether to recall and re-sentence include, but are not limited
to, the following:
a) The defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder or
aiding and abetting murder, as specified;
b) The defendant does not have juvenile felony
adjudications for assault or other felony crimes with a
significant potential for personal harm to victims prior to
the offense for which the sentence is being considered for
recall;
c) Prior to the offense for which the sentence is being
considered for recall, the defendant had insufficient adult
support or supervision and had suffered from psychological
or physical trauma, or significant stress;
SB 399
Page 4
d) The defendant suffers from cognitive limitations due to
mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other
factors that did not constitute a defense, but influenced
the defendant's involvement in the offense;
e) The defendant has performed acts that tend to indicate
remorse and rehabilitation or the potential for
rehabilitation, including, but not limited to, availing
himself or herself of rehabilitative, educational, or
vocational programs, if those programs have been available
at his or her classification level and facility, using
self-study for self-improvement, or taking action that
demonstrates the presence of remorse;
f) The defendant has maintained family ties or connections
with others through letter writing, calls, or visits, or
has eliminated contact with individuals outside of prison
who are currently involved with crime; and,
g) The defendant has had no disciplinary actions for
violent activities in the last five years in which the
defendant was determined to be the aggressor.
h) All petitions shall include a statement describing the
defendant's remorse and work toward rehabilitation
9)States the court shall have the discretion to recall the
sentence and commitment previously ordered and to re-sentence
the defendant in the same manner as if the defendant had not
previously been sentenced, provided that the new sentence, if
any, is not greater than the initial sentence.
10)Mandates the court, in exercising its discretion, must
consider the criteria listed above. Victims, or victim family
members if the victim is deceased, shall be notified of the
re-sentencing hearing and shall retain their rights to
participate in the hearing.
SB 399
Page 5
11)States that if the sentence is not recalled, the defendant
may submit another petition for recall and re-sentencing to
the sentencing court when the defendant has been committed to
the custody of the CDCR for at least 20 years.
12)Requires that the defendant may file another petition
alleging a substantial change in circumstances after having
served 24 years, but prior to having completed 25 years of
imprisonment. The judge shall have the discretion as to
whether to permit a final hearting at that time.
13)Provides that in addition to the criteria specified above,
the court may consider any other criteria that the court deems
relevant to its decision, so long as the court identifies them
on the record, provides a statement of reasons for adopting
them, and states why the defendant does or does not satisfy
the criteria.
14)States that the provisions of this bill shall apply
retroactively and double-joints this bill to AB 2263 (Yamada),
currently pending on the Senate Floor.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Minor absorbable annual General Fund (GF) costs to the state
trial courts, likely less than $25,000 per year, to review and
respond to re-sentencing petitions, and to hold re-sentencing
hearings for petitions deemed eligible. This assumes an
average of about 15 petitions per year, and an average of
about five hearings, at a cost of about $2,000 per hearing.
These costs should be offset to a degree by an accompanying
reduction in writs of Habeas Corpus, by which inmates
challenge their convictions and /or sentences.
2)Potentially moderate annual out-year GF savings to the extent
inmates are re-sentenced from LWOP to life with the
possibility of parole. For example, if three inmates per year
are re-sentenced and end up serving 30 years rather than 50
SB 399
Page 6
years, with the first re-sentenced inmates leaving prison in
2026, the annual savings of about $135,000 (per capita costs)
will increase annually, reaching about $2.7 million in 2046.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "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: 45% of
the youth sentenced to life in prison did not perform the murder
they were convicted of. 59% of youth sentenced to LWOP are
first-time offenders.
"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. This reveals many
of the weakness in our legal system, in which a youth will plead
innocent to the murder charge (because he or she did not in fact
kill anyone) - and then be convicted of the murder under the
'felony-murder' or 'aiding and abetting' laws, while the adult
codefendant who performed the murder and plea bargained gets off
with a lesser sentence. Statistics: 70% of the youth acted
under the influence of adults. In 56% of these cases, the youth
received a higher sentence than the adult/s.
"Youth are different from adults and should be evaluated
differently than adults, but the legal process often does not
take this into account. Recent developments in brain science
have proven that youth are far more influenced by group behavior
than the same individuals will be as adults. It is now widely
established that the adolescent brain has not yet fully
developed the ability to comprehend consequences and control
impulses. Teens tend to act in concert with and be influenced
by others, and do things in the presence of peers they would
never do alone. Unsurprisingly, over 75% of the youth sentenced
to LWOP acted within a group at the time of their crime.
"The sentence has no deterrent effect on crime and 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. The
U.S. is the only country in the world that sentences kids to
LWOP. Many U.S. states have already banned the use of the life
without parole sentence for youth.
"SB 399 allows people who were sentenced as juveniles to LWOP,
SB 399
Page 7
after they have served at least 10 years of their sentence, to
submit a petition to the courts to request a sentence review
hearing. To be accepted by the court, the petition would have
to demonstrate that the defendant has met specified criteria
relating to the circumstances of the crime and the
rehabilitation that may have occurred as the youth grew into an
adult in prison. If the prisoner's record meets a high
threshold, the court could grant a re-sentencing hearing, at
which the person could make their case to be re-sentenced to
25-years-to-life.
"There are about 250 people serving LWOP who were sentenced as
youth in California. This bill will affect people such as
Anthony C., who was 16 and had never before been in trouble with
the law. Anthony belonged to a 'tagging crew; that paints
graffiti. One day, Anthony and his friend James went down to a
wash (a cement-sided stream bed) to graffiti. James revealed to
Anthony that he had a gun in his backpack and when another group
of kids came down to the wash, James decided to rob them. James
pulled out the gun, and the victim told him, 'If you don't kill
me, I'll kill you.' At that point, Anthony thought the bluff
had been called, and turned to pick up his bike. James shot the
other kid.
"The police told Anthony's parents that he did not need a
lawyer. He was interviewed by the police and released, but
later re-arrested on robbery and murder charges. Anthony was
offered a 16-years-to-life sentence before trial if he pled, but
he refused, believing he was innocent. Anthony was found guilty
of first-degree murder and sentenced to LWOP. Charged with
aiding and abetting, he was held responsible for the actions of
James.
"Recognizing that teenagers are not fully matured at the time of
their sentencing, and recognizing that our legal process can
result in unjust sentences, this Act creates specific criteria
and a court review process that would result in the possibility
of a lesser sentence for those offenders whose crimes were less
and who have proven themselves to have changed as adults."
Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this
bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
SB 399
Page 8
319-3744
FN: 0006597