BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 1031 (de León) - State Claims.
Amended: April 3, 2014 Policy Vote: none
Urgency: Yes Mandate: No
Hearing Date: April 28, 2014
Consultant: Mark McKenzie
Pursuant to the committee's rules, the Suspense File rule does
not apply to the provisions of this bill as claims are
considered valid obligations of the state. Additionally, claims
may have time sensitivity.
Bill Summary: SB 1031, an urgency measure, would appropriate
$776,946.59 from specified funds to the California Victim
Compensation and Government Claims Board (board) for the payment
of 332 state claims. The bill would also appropriate $305,900
from the General Fund to the board for the payment of an
erroneous conviction claim.
Fiscal Impact:
Stale-dated warrants : General Fund appropriations in the
amount of $669,346.53 to pay 299 claims, and special fund
appropriations in the amount of $100,600.06 to pay 33
claims. All of these claims are for reissuance of
stale-dated warrants (expired checks). The individual claim
amounts range from $14.03 to $90,688.06.
Erroneous conviction : General Fund appropriation in the
amount of $305,900 to pay the claim of Mario Rocha, approved
by the board on December 12, 2013.
Background: The State Board of Control was established in 1945.
It was revised and renamed the Victim Compensation and
Government Claims Board by Chapter 1016/2000 (AB 2491, Jackson).
Government Code 13928 requires the board to ensure that all
claims that have been approved by the board, and for which no
legally available appropriation exists, are submitted for
legislative approval at least twice during each calendar year.
In general, the board will approve claims in November and
February. Those claims are reported to the chairs of the
Appropriations Committees who introduce bills appropriating
General Funds and special funds to pay the claims. These bills
SB 1031 (de León)
Page 1
may appropriate funds in amounts to the penny for tens to
hundreds of claims. Government Code 906 provides for the
payment of interest on claims approved by the board for which an
appropriation has been made beginning 30 days after the
effective date of the law by which the appropriation is enacted.
The re-issuance of stale-dated warrants is the most prevalent
claim approved by the board. For stale-dated warrants, the
Controller must confirm that (1) the check was not cashed and
has not been issued and (2) more than three years have elapsed
since the check was issued and the monies have reverted to the
General Fund or to the relevant special fund. For these
warrants an appropriation is needed to reissue the payment.
This category also may include state treasury bonds that have
not been redeemed within ten years of their maturity date (there
are no such claims in this bill), but the majority of warrants
are payroll or tax refund checks.
Existing law (relative to the circumstances of the erroneous
conviction claim in this bill) authorizes a person convicted and
imprisoned for a felony to submit a claim to the board for
pecuniary injury sustained as a result of his or her erroneous
conviction and imprisonment. The claimant is required to
introduce evidence in support of his or her claim at a hearing
before the board, and the Attorney General (AG) may introduce
evidence in opposition. The claimant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the crime was either not
committed at all, or, if committed, was not committed by the
claimant; that the claimant did not contribute to the arrest or
conviction for the crime; and that the claimant sustained
pecuniary injury though the erroneous conviction and
imprisonment. If a claimant meets the burden of proof, the
board shall recommend to the Legislature that an appropriation
of $100 per day of incarceration served in a state prison
subsequent to the claimant's conviction.
Proposed Law: SB 1031 would appropriate $776,946.59 in various
state funds, including $699,346.53 from the General Fund, to the
board for the payment of 332 state claims for reissuance of
stale-dated warrants. The bill would also appropriate $305,900
to the board for payment of the erroneous conviction claim of
Mario Rocha. SB 1031 is an urgency measure.
Related Legislation: AB 1617 (Gatto), a spot bill that is
SB 1031 (de León)
Page 2
currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, will be the
vehicle for the second batch of claims that have yet to be
approved by the board.
Staff Comments: An in-person hearing on the erroneous conviction
claim of Mario Rocha was held on December 17, 2012, and the
record was re-opened at the request of the hearing officer on
April 29, 2013, for the in-person testimony of Mr.Rocha.
According to the proposed decision, Mr. Rocha met the statutory
requirements for compensation because he proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that he did not commit the crimes
with which he was charged.
Background: On February 16, 1996, a party took place at a
Highland Park residence that was attended by 50 to 70 people.
Following a verbal dispute between Raymond Rivera and Richard
Guzman, two Highland Park gang members, and several other guests
at the party, including Martin Aceves and Anthony Moscato, a
gang challenge was issued and a fist fight ensued outside the
residence in the backyard. Gunfire erupted and Mr. Aceves was
shot at close range and killed. Numerous witnesses saw Mr.
Guzman shoot Mr. Aceves. Gunfire also occurred in the driveway
as guests were fleeing, and Mr. Moscato was shot while running
down the driveway, but survived the incident. Witnesses
testified that Mr. Rivera had placed a gun against the ribs of
two guests prior to the fight. One week after the incident,
Mario Rocha, Mr. Rivera, and Mr. Guzman were arrested for the
shooting and charged with murder and attempted murder. It was
alleged that Mr. Rocha, along with Mr. Rivera, were shooting at
guests in the driveway.
All three defendants were tried together and on December 4,
1997, a jury found them all guilty of murder and attempted
murder, and found that each defendant used a firearm in the
commission of the crimes. Three witnesses identified Mr. Rocha
as a shooter in the driveway, while nine other witnesses
testified that he was not the shooter in the driveway. Most of
these and other witnesses testified to hearing four to six
gunshots and none testified to seeing more than two shooters.
Two bullets were recovered from the scene and expert testimony
indicated that they came from two different guns.
Mr. Rocha was sentenced to 29 years-to-life in prison for the
murder charge, with a consecutive prison term of one year and
SB 1031 (de León)
Page 3
four months-to-life for the attempted murder charge. The
conviction and sentence was affirmed by an appellate court on
June 29, 1999. Subsequently, Mr. Rocha filed numerous
challenges, including a claim for ineffective assistance of
counsel, which was initially denied by the Los Angeles Superior
Court. On December 28, 2005, however, the Court of Appeals
reversed the previous decision and granted Mr. Rocha's Writ of
Habeus Corpus based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr.
Rocha was returned from state prison to jail on April 19, 2006,
and released on bail on August 24, 2006 while the Los Angeles
District Attorney's Office (DA) determined whether or not to
retry him. On October 28, 2008, the DA dismissed the charges
against Mr. Rocha, citing the unavailability of witnesses as a
reason for dropping charges. Mr. Rocha then filed a claim with
the board for compensation related to the erroneous conviction
on April 22, 2009.
Findings: The hearing officer's proposed decision concludes that
Mr. Rocha has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that he did not commit the crimes of murder and
attempted murder. The decision was based upon the following:
Forensic evidence shows that only two guns were fired.
No witnesses named three different shooters and there is
no evidence whatsoever that there was a third shooter.
Two documented gang members who brought weapons to the
party were convicted of murder and attempted murder and are
still in prison. (the proposed decision indicates this
point weighs most in determining Mr. Rocha's innocence)
Nine witnesses state that Mr. Rocha was not the shooter
while only one solidly states that he was the shooter,
another witness thinks Mr. Rocha looks like the shooter,
and a third witness originally told law enforcement he did
not see the shooter. The proposed decision notes the
witnesses varying degrees of credibility and confidence
regarding claims that Mr. Rocha was or was not the shooter
in the driveway.
The board approved the claim on a vote of 2-1 on December 12,
2013, determining that Mr. Rocha is entitled to $305,900 in
compensation for incarceration in state prison for 3,059 days.
Although the AG presented evidence opposing Mr. Rocha's claim at
the previous in-person hearing, the AG's final response to the
hearing officer's proposed decision includes the following
statement: "At age 16, Rocha affiliated with gangs, violated the
SB 1031 (de León)
Page 4
express terms of his probation, and sold marijuana. But he
probably did not commit murder or attempted murder. In the
final analysis that is the only issue that matters.
Accordingly, the Attorney General does not intend to challenge
the hearing officer's recommendation."