BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
0
2
SB 1025 ( Ha rman) 5
As Amended April 14, 2010
Hearing date: April 20, 2010
Government Code
MK:dl
COURTS: HABEAS CORPUS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 636 (Harman) - failed Senate Public Safety
2008
SB 1558 (Morrow) - not heard Senate Public
Safety 2006
SB 378 (Morrow) - failed Senate Public
Safety 2005
SB 513 (Lockyer) - Ch. 869, Stats. 1997
SB 1088 (Lockyer) - from Conference
1997, content
placed in
SB 513 (Lockyer) - on 9-10-97
SB 911 (Calderon) - held in Senate
Approps. 1997
AB 1471 (Pacheco) - held in Assembly
Approps. 1997
SB 1533 (Calderon) - failed in Senate
Criminal
Procedure 1996
AB 195 (Morrow) - Ch. 1086, Stats. 1996
AB 2008 (K. Murray) - vetoed 1996
AB 1508 (Bowler) - held in Assembly
(More)
SB 1025 (Harman)
PageB
Public Safety
1993
AB 2196 (Bentley) - failed in Assembly
Public
Safety 1991
Support: Crime Victims United of California; California Judges
Association (if Amended)
Opposition:Friends Committee on Legislation; American Civil
Liberties Union
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW REQUIRE THE SUPREME COURT TO DEVELOP NECESSARY RULES
AND PROCEDURES FOR INITIATING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT HABEAS CORPUS
PETITIONS IN DEATH PENALTY CASES?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to have habeas petitions in death
penalty cases brought in the superior court.
Existing law establishes in the Judicial Branch, the Habeas
Corpus Resource Center. (Government Code 68660 et. seq.)
This bill provides that the Supreme Court shall develop
necessary rules and procedures for initiating habeas corpus
proceedings in the superior court arising out of a judgment of
death, including, but not limited to, establishing timeframes
and standards for ordering a hearing, providing for appointment
and compensation of counsel, and detailing appellate procedures.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
(More)
SB 1025 (Harman)
PageC
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
(More)
SB 1025 (Harman)
PageD
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
adequate medical and mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
---------------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (August 4, 2009) .
(More)
SB 1025 (Harman)
PageE
According to the author:
SB 1025 will develop procedures for habeas petitions to
begin in superior courts, where claims can be processed
quickly and efficiently by a tribunal more appropriately
suited to investigate habeas claims. Because habeas
appeals involve extensive fact-finding and investigative
duties that appellate courts are ill-equipped to handle,
this proposal would both streamline the appellate
process and ensure that habeas claims are efficiently
and accurately resolved. SB 1025 begins a process that
will ultimately reduce the gridlock on California's
death row and help expedite the process of justice for
both victims and inmates.
2. Habeas Petitions in the Superior Court
A person sentenced to death has a right to an automatic appeal
and also has the right to counsel in a habeas corpus case.
Habeas Corpus generally looks at things that are outside the
record of the case and can involve a great amount of
investigation. The California Commission on the Fair
Administration of Justice (CCFAJ) found that on average, habeas
counsel is appointed 8-10 years after the imposition of
sentence.<2> Habeas petitions in death penalty cases are
currently brought in the Supreme Court; this bill would require
the Supreme Court to develop rules and procedures for initiating
them in the superior court. CCFAJ did recommend that rules and
policies allowing habeas petitions in death penalty cases to be
filed at the Superior Court to encourage more factual hearings
and findings, but only after other recommendations regarding
putting resources into the Habeas Corpus Resource Center,
private defense attorneys, trial level attorneys and the
Attorney General's Office were adopted.<3>
---------------------------
<2> The California Commission on the Fair Administration of
Justice Report and Recommendations on the Administration of the
Death Penalty in California, June 30, 2008) p. 50
<3> CCFAJ, id at 13.
(More)
SB 1025 (Harman)
PageF
3. Impact on Trial Courts
While the author asserts that Supreme Court as an appellate body
is "ill-equipped to perform extensive investigative
responsibilities of habeas inquiry" and that "trial courts are
natural evidentiary bodies," moving habeas petitions in death
penalty cases to the over-extended trial courts is not a simple
proposition. The superior courts already face closing down one
day a month for furloughs and often have a backlog of civil and
criminal cases. The Friends Committee on Legislation opposes
this bill stating:
(More)
There is no greater exercise of state power than the
taking of a human life, and the California Constitution
requires several safeguards to ensure that this
authority is exercised judiciously. Death penalty
proceeding require specialized knowledge, and the
California Supreme Court has staff that review only
capital cases. Trial courts have huge case backlogs and
are closed one day per month due to the state's budget
crisis. We do not think the case of justice is served by
further adding to their workload.
Additional staff would be needed to staff a trial court that is
hearing a habeas petition because of the complex nature of the
petitions. Los Angeles County Superior Court is in the process
of laying off workers so it is unclear where the money for such
staff would come from. <4>
4. Shortage of Habeas Counsel
At the time of its report, CCFAJ stated that there were
currently 291 California death row inmates without counsel. <5>
CCFAJ recommended the expansion of the Habeas Corpus Resource
center as well as adequate funding for private qualified habeas
counsel. Habeas petitions in death penalty cases are difficult
cases and it can be hard to find attorneys to do them.
Requiring attorneys from the Habeas Corpus Resource Center or
private attorneys to travel to local trial courts to wait and
see if a courtroom is available or to file their motions or to
seek time extensions or deal with other procedural questions
would not be an efficient use of time. Having to do a habeas
counsel in front of an unfamiliar trial judge may also turn some
attorneys away from taking a habeas case.
5. Opposition
The ACLU argues that this bill will not help the delays in the
---------------------------
<4> Kennedy, Gerrick D. "L.A. County Superior Court to Lay Off
329 Staffers; Hundreds More to Follow"; LA Times; March 8, 2010.
<5>CCFAJ, id. at 50
(More)
SB 1025 (Harman)
PageH
system but would only make them worse:
It is simply untenable to add to the burden of trial
courts by requiring them to take on habeas petitions in
death penalty cases as well. SB 1025 would take the
lengthiest, most complicated, most resource intensive
parts of the death penalty appeals process and hand them
to the most overwhelmed, under-resourced courts in
California's judicial system. The briefings in a death
penalty habeas petition are frequently over 500 pages
long, requiring extensive expertise in a narrow area of
law. In order to handle these cases properly, the
California Supreme Court has hired a dedicated staff of
clerks who review only death penalty cases. The state
simply does not have the funds to provide the same
support to trial court judges.
The result of moving habeas petitions in death penalty
cases to the superior courts would only be greater
delays in death penalty and non-death penalty cases
alike. Judges who lack experience with habeas petitions
and the resources necessary to properly review death
penalty cases may take even more time to decide these
cases than the Supreme Court needs now, or may simply
make mistakes.
***************