BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1284
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 17, 2014
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 1284 (Galgiani) - As Amended: April 28, 2014
SUMMARY : Exempts from compassionate release and medical parole
eligibility a prisoner who was convicted of first degree murder
of a peace officer, as provided. Specifically, this bill :
1)States that the victim peace officer must have been killed
while engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and the
prisoner knew, or reasonably should have known, that the
victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his
or her duties; or the victim peace officer, or former peace
officer, was intentionally murdered in retaliation for the
performance of his or her official duties.
2)Provides that if the court determines that the application of
the provisions of this bill violates the ex post facto clauses
of the United States Constitution or the California
Constitution, the court shall only enforce its provisions
prospectively.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that if the Secretary of the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH), or both determine that a prisoner has six
months or less to live; that the conditions under which the
prisoner would be released do not pose a threat to public
safety and that the prisoner is permanently medically
incapacitated, the Secretary of CDCR or BPH may recommend to
the court that the prisoner's sentence be recalled
(compassionate release). (Pen. Code, � 1170, subd. (e)(1) &
(2).)
2)Exempts from compassionate release a prisoner sentenced to
death or a term of life without the possibility of parole.
(Pen. Code, � 1170, subd. (e)(2)(C).)
SB 1284
Page 2
3)Requires any recommendation for recall submitted to the court
by the CDCR Secretary or BPH to include one or more medical
evaluations, a postrelease plan, and findings of the
prisoner's eligibility. (Pen. Code, � 1170, subd. (e)(7).)
4)Requires the court to hold a hearing within 10 days of receipt
of a positive recommendation by BPH or the secretary of CDCR
for a prisoner's sentence to be recalled. (Pen. Code, � 1170,
subd. (e)(3).)
5)States if the court grants the recall and resentencing
application, the prisoner shall be released within 48 hours of
receipt of the court order, unless a longer time period is
agreed to by the inmate. (Pen. Code, � 1170, subd. (e)(9).)
6)Establishes the medical parole program whereby any prisoner
who the head physician of the institution where the prisoner
is located determines is permanently medically incapacitated
with a medical condition that renders him or her permanently
unable to perform activities of basic daily living, and
results in the prisoner requiring 24-hour care, and that
incapacitation did not exist at the time of sentencing, shall
be granted medical parole if BPH determines that the
conditions under which the prisoner would be released would
not reasonably pose a threat to public safety. (Pen. Code, �
3550, subd. (a).)
7)States that medical parole shall not apply to any prisoner
sentenced to death or life in prison without possibility of
parole (LWOP) or to any inmate who is serving a sentence for
which medical parole is prohibited by any initiative statute.
(Pen. Code, � 3550, subd. (b).)
8)States that when a physician employed by CDCR who is the
primary care provider for an inmate identifies an inmate that
he or she believes meets the medical criteria for medical
parole, the primary care physician shall recommend to the head
physician of the institution where the prisoner is located
that the prisoner be referred to the BPH for consideration for
medical parole. Within 30 days of receiving that
recommendation, if the head physician of the institution
concurs in the recommendation of the primary care physician,
he or she shall refer the matter to BPH using a standardized
form and format developed by the department, and if the head
physician of the institution does not concur in the
SB 1284
Page 3
recommendation, he or she shall provide the primary care
physician with a written explanation of the reasons for
denying the referral. (Pen. Code, � 3550, subd. (c).)
9)Allows the prisoner or his or her family member or designee to
independently request consideration for medical parole by
contacting the head physician at the prison or CDCR. Within
30 days of receiving the request, the head physician of the
institution shall, in consultation with the prisoner's primary
care physician, make a determination regarding whether the
prisoner meets the criteria for medical parole as specified
and, if the head physician of the institution determines that
the prisoner satisfies the criteria, he or she shall refer the
matter to BPH using a standardized form and format developed
by CDCR. If the head physician of the institution does not
concur in the recommendation, he or she shall provide the
prisoner or his or her family member or designee with a
written explanation of the reasons for denying the
application. (Pen. Code, � 3550, subd. (d).)
10)Requires CDCR to complete parole plans for inmates referred
to BPH for medical parole consideration. The parole plans
shall include, but not be limited to, the inmate's plan for
residency and medical care. (Pen. Code, � 3550, subd. (e).)
11)Provides, notwithstanding any other law, that medical parole
hearings shall be conducted by two-person panels consisting of
at least one commissioner. In the event of a tie vote, the
matter shall be referred to the full board for a decision.
Medical parole hearings may be heard in absentia. (Pen. Code,
� 3550, subd. (f).)
12)Requires BPH, upon receiving a recommendation from the head
physician of the institution where a prisoner is located for
the prisoner to be granted medical parole, to make an
independent judgment regarding whether the conditions under
which the inmate would be released pose a reasonable threat to
public safety, and make written findings related thereto.
(Pen. Code, � 3550, subd. (g).)
13)Authorizes the board or the Division of Adult Parole
Operations to impose any reasonable conditions on prisoners
subject to medical parole supervision, including, but not
limited to, the requirement that the parolee submit to
electronic monitoring. As a further condition of medical
SB 1284
Page 4
parole, the parolee may be required to submit to an
examination by a physician selected by the board for the
purpose of diagnosing the parolee's current medical condition.
In the event such an examination takes place, a report of the
examination and diagnosis shall be submitted to the board by
the examining physician. If the board determines, based on
that medical examination, that the person's medical condition
has improved to the extent that the person no longer qualifies
for medical parole, the board shall return the person to the
custody of the department. (Pen. Code, � 3550, subd. (h).)
14)Requires CDCR, at the time a prisoner is placed on medical
parole supervision, to ensure that the prisoner has applied
for any federal entitlement programs for which the prisoner is
eligible, and has in his or her possession a discharge medical
summary, full medical records, parole medications, and all
property belonging to the prisoner that was under the control
of the department. Any additional records shall be sent to
the prisoner's forwarding address after release to health
care-related parole supervision. (Pen. Code, � 3550, subd.
(i).)
15)Requires CDCR to give notice at least 30 days' notice, or as
soon as feasible, to the county of commitment, and the
proposed county of release if applicable, of any medical
parole hearing or any medical parole release. (Pen. Code, �
3550, subd. (k).)
16)Provides that the penalty for a defendant found guilty of
murder in the first degree, with a finding of one of the
enumerated special circumstances, is death or LWOP. Includes
first degree murder of a peace officer, as specified, as one
of the enumerated special circumstances. (Pen. Code, � 190.2,
subd. (a)(7).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "The honorable
work that our men and women in law enforcement perform on a
daily basis is crucial to ensuring that our neighbors and
families live in safe communities. Senate Bill 1284 is
necessary to guarantee that individuals convicted of these
heinous crimes serve their entire sentences given to them by a
SB 1284
Page 5
jury of their peers."
2)Compassionate Release : To be eligible for compassionate
release, a prisoner must be "terminally ill with an incurable
condition caused by an illness or disease that would produce
death within six months, as determined by a physician employed
by [CDCR]." (Pen. Code, � 1170, subd. (e)(2)(A).) The court
must also make a finding that the conditions under which the
prisoner would be released or receive treatment do not pose a
threat to public safety. (Pen. Code, � 1170, subd.
(e)(2)(B).) Compassionate release may also be available to a
prisoner who is permanently incapacitated by a medical
condition and unable to perform activities of daily living,
requiring 24-hour care. (Pen. Code, � 1170, subd. (e)(2)(C).)
The prisoner is ineligible if he or she is sentenced to death
or a term of LWOP. (Ibid.)
If the secretary of CDCR determines that the prisoner satisfies
the criteria for recall of his or her sentence, the secretary
or BPH may recommend to the court that the sentence be
recalled. At its next lawfully noticed meeting, BPH must
consider this information and make an independent judgment and
related findings before rejecting the request or making a
recommendation to the court. (Pen. Code, � 1170, subd.
(e)(6).) Any recommendation for recall of the inmate's
sentence submitted to the court shall include one or more
medical evaluations, a postrelease plan, and findings
regarding the prisoner's eligibility for release. (Pen. Code,
� 1170, subd. (e)(7).) Within 10 days of receipt of a positive
recommendation, the court must hold a hearing to consider
whether recall is appropriate. (Pen. Code, � 1170, subd.
(e)(3).) If possible, the matter must be heard by the judge
who sentenced the prisoner. (Pen. Code, � 1170, subd. (e)(8).)
If the court grants recall of the prisoner's sentence, the
prisoner must be released within 48 hours of receipt of the
court's order, unless the inmate agrees to a longer time
period. (Pen. Code, � 1170, subd. (e)(9).)
Due to its stringent criteria and lengthy process, the number of
prisoners released on compassionate release is quite low.
From 2007 through the first ten months of 2013, CDCR received
488 requests for compassionate release, of which 99 were
approved. In 2012, 97 applications for compassionate release
were submitted to CDCR for review; 35 were approved and
advanced to the sentencing court; 13 sentences were recalled
SB 1284
Page 6
by judges, clearing the way for release. 27 cases were never
completed due to withdrawal, death, or not meeting the
criteria. (McNichol, Final Requests (Jan. 2014) California
Lawyer, at pp. 18-21.)
3)Medical Parole : In 2010, California's medical parole law was
signed into law. (SB 1399 (Leno), Chapter 405, Statutes of
2010.) The law applies to those inmates who have been
declared by the head physician in the institute where they are
housed, to be permanently medically incapacitated with a
medical condition that renders him or her permanently unable
to perform activities of basic daily living, and results in
the prisoner requiring 24-hour care. BPH must also make a
determination that the conditions under which the prisoner
would be released would not reasonably pose a threat to public
safety.
The Legislature crafted SB 1399 to address some of the
shortcomings of the compassionate release statute (Pen. Code,
� 1170, subd. (e)). (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis
of Sen. Bill No. 1399 (2009-10 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 23,
2014.) Unlike compassionate release which requires the court
to recall the sentence, medical parole creates an alternative
procedure that permits these inmates to be placed on parole
supervision under conditions determined by the parole board,
and allows parole to be revoked if for any reason the
parolee's condition changes and creates a danger to the
public.
The purpose of the medical parole law was to alleviate some of
the financial burden facing CDCR in caring for inmates
suffering from certain medical conditions. According to the
background information provided by the author's office for SB
1399, "SB 1399 will medically parole, the sickest of the sick.
And although this would only apply to a handful of inmates,
these inmates are by far the most costly in the system. The
average cost for an inmate placed in a correctional treatment
center bed is $10,604. When you add the costs of medical
guarding and transportation to that (patients in this setting
normally average one to three outside medical visits with
hospital transportation and two correctional officers at the
hourly rate, plus benefits) the figure rises to $114,395
dollars per inmate. The Federal Receiver has identified 11
inmates as extremely incapacitated and housed within the
prison system in correctional treatment center beds with
SB 1284
Page 7
medical bills averaging over $114,000 each per year.
"An additional 21 inmates are housed at an even higher rate to
the taxpayer in nursing facilities or hospitals outside of the
prison facility. These type of beds average a cost of $3,500
per day. When you add the guarding costs to that (two
correctional officers per shift, three shifts per day,
straight time plus benefits) the number jumps to $5,406 a day.
So the total cost for a single inmate in this type of
treatment setting is nearly $2 million - $1,973,252. This
means that the state has paid a total of $41.4 million a year
for just 21 individuals who would most likely qualify as
medical parole candidates under this legislation due to their
severe medical condition as evidenced by the exorbitant costs
of their medical care.
"Finally, there is one more type of bed, the hospice bed. For
inmates dying in this type of medical setting, the costs of a
physician assistant, registered nurse, office assistant, and
clinical social worker total nearly $2 million per hospice bed
- $1,868,232. CDCR has 17 hospice beds currently within the
system at a price of $31,759,944 - nearly $32 million dollars
a year.
"By eliminating the requirement for 24-hour guard care at health
facilities, a medical parole program could save the state
millions just in custody and transportation costs alone.
According to the State Auditor, between 2003 and 2008, medical
guard time accounted for 24% of the prison system's total
guard overtime. Spending for guard costs has increased by $66
million since 2003. The price for two correctional officers
to guard a single inmate at an outside nursing facility has
been reported to be $2,317 a day. The guard price for the
inmate during a six-month period was $410,000. That's nearly
equal to actual cost of medical care provided to the inmate
during the same timeframe which totaled an additional
$421,000. We can assume that for every inmate we send out
into the community for special treatment, we are nearly
doubling the taxpayer burden for the cost of their
incarceration.
"Incarcerated inmates, regardless of their medical condition,
are not eligible to receive any federally funded medical care.
However, these restrictions do not apply to persons on
parole, meaning that SB 1399 would allow the State to receive
SB 1284
Page 8
federal reimbursement for a significant portion of the costs
associated with inmates eligible to be placed on medical
parole.
"Currently, prisoners who are suffering from severe medical
incapacitation are treated in correctional treatment center
beds, outside hospital patient beds, or hospice beds; the
price tag for which starts at nearly $115,000 a year for the
lowest level treatment setting of the three options. Now,
taking that into account, imagine the savings that could be
realized given that the average annual cost of Medi-Cal
fee-for-service skilled nursing care is only about $60,000.
Of course, the cost of skilled nursing varies significantly
depending on the acuity level of patients and it's likely that
terminally ill patients on average would have greater care
needs and thus have a higher average cost; nevertheless, the
Medi-Cal cost share is 50-percent state and 50-percent federal
meaning the state would only pay half one-the costs of caring
for a parolee being treated in the community if he or she
qualified for Medi-Cal. Further, it is conceivable that many
of these inmates will qualify for Medicare which is entirely
funded by the federal government." (Assem. Com. on Public
Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1399, supra, pp. 5-7.)
4)Equal Protection Concerns : The constitutional guarantees of
equal protection prohibit the state from arbitrarily
discriminating against similarly situated persons subject to
its jurisdiction. (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const.,
art. I, � 7.) Under the Equal Protection Clause, a
classification "must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must
rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and
substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that
all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike."
(Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia (1920) 253 U.S. 412, 415.)
SB 1284 distinguishes between inmates who are serving life
sentences for murder of a peace officer versus other inmates
serving life sentences for the purpose of granting medical
parole or compassionate release. If litigated, the court
would likely find that these two classes of inmates are
similarly situated with respect to the purpose or objective of
the medical parole law or compassionate release. If these
inmates are similarly situated, the next question is the level
of scrutiny that is required in reviewing the
constitutionality of the classification.
SB 1284
Page 9
If the classification does not discriminate against a protected
class or infringe upon a fundamental right, the level of
scrutiny that applies is rational basis review. A defendant
does not have fundamental interest in a specific term of
imprisonment (People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 838;
People v. Flores (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 74, 88), thus
rational basis review would apply. This requires the
classification to be rationally related to a legitimate
government purpose.
The issue of what constitutes a "legitimate government purpose"
has been heavily litigated. However, the U.S. Supreme Court
has explained that, "if the constitutional conception of equal
protection of laws means anything, it must at the very least
mean a bare congressional desire to harm a politically
unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate government
purpose." (U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973)
413 U.S. 528, 534 (italics added); see also Romer v. Evans
(1996) 517 U.S. 620.)
Currently, the medical parole law and compassionate release
statutes do not make distinctions based on the victim or the
crime committed, only whether the inmate meets the medical
criteria and whether he or she poses a threat to public
safety. "[I]n the context of a medical parole determination,
[BPH's] focus should be on whether the conditions of the
inmate's release reasonably pose a threat to public safety,
not on the inmate himself." (In re Martinez (2012) 210 Cal.
App. 4th 800, 825.)
If an inmate is not otherwise ineligible for parole, i.e.,
sentenced to death or serving a sentence for life without the
possibility of parole, and the inmate meets the requirements
for medical parole, is there a legitimate government purpose
for creating an exception to prevent the release or parole of
certain inmates when BPH or the court has determined that
those inmates do not pose a threat to public safety? If there
is no legitimate state interest in creating this exception,
and it is found to arbitrarily and unreasonably afford a
privilege to one group of individuals that is denied to
others, the exception will be held to violate the
constitutional guarantee of equal protection. (Silveira v.
Lockyer (9th Cir. 2002) 312 F.3rd 1052, 1091.)
SB 1284
Page 10
5)Parole Suitability : The California Supreme Court has held
that parole suitability cannot be based solely on the nature
of the crime. (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221.)
Parole suitability must be based on an evaluation of several
factors to determine the current dangerousness to the public.
(Ibid.) While the nature of the crime is a consideration in
parole suitability, the medical parole law does not consider
the nature of the crime, only whether the person is eligible
for parole (i.e., prisoner is not sentenced to death or term
of LWOP), whether the prisoner is eligible due to his or her
medical condition; and whether his or her parole would pose a
reasonable public safety risk.
SB 1284 excludes prisoners from medical parole based solely on
the nature of the crime. This is contrary to the purpose of
the medical parole law and contrary to the law on parole
suitability in general. It also creates a new precedent of
excluding certain prisoners from medical parole based solely
on the nature of the offense. This could lead to new
categories of exclusion in the future which would further
erode the medical parole law.
6)Ex Post Facto Concerns : Both the United States Constitution
and the California Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws.
(U.S. Const. art. I, Section 10; Cal. Const. art. I, Section
9.) "[T]wo critical elements must be present for a criminal
or penal law to be ex post facto: it must be retrospective,
that is, it must apply to events occurring before its
enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by
it." (Weaver v. Graham (1981) 450 U.S. 24, 29.) The purpose
of the prohibition against ex post facto laws is to ensure due
process through fair notice of the conduct that constitutes a
crime and the punishment that may be imposed for a crime. (In
re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 638.)
Although courts have held that certain changes to parole violate
the ex post facto rule (see In re Thomson (1980) 104 C.A.3d
950, 954; In re Bray (1979) 97 C.A.3d 506, 510 [increase in
length of parole term violates ex post facto]), procedural
changes in the parole system are generally not ex post facto
violations (see California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales
(1995) 514 U.S. 499 [changes to parole procedures allowing a
state parole board to decrease the frequency of parole
suitability hearings under certain circumstances does not
violate the Ex Post Facto Clause]). Whether a change in
SB 1284
Page 11
parole procedures violates ex post facto principles requires
consideration of whether there is a significant risk the
change will prolong a prisoner's incarceration. (In re Vicks
(2013) 56 Cal.4th 274, 300.)
In Morales, supra, the United States Supreme Court considered
California's 1981 increase in the potential deferral period
between parole suitability hearings. Specifically, the
amended statute authorized the Board to defer subsequent
suitability hearings for up to three years if the prisoner has
been convicted of more than one offense which involves the
taking of a life and if the Board finds that it is not
reasonable to expect that parole would be granted at a hearing
during the following years and states the bases for the
finding. (Morales, supra, 514 U.S. at p. 503.) After
evaluating whether the change would violate ex post facto
principles, the Supreme Court concluded that the Board's new
authority to defer hearings created only a speculative
possibility of increasing a prisoner's punishment because:
(1) the amendment applied only to a class of prisoners for
whom the likelihood of release on parole is remote; and, (2)
only after the Board had concluded at the initial parole
hearing that the prisoner was not suitable for parole and it
was not reasonable to expect that the prisoner would be
suitable for parole in a year would the timing of a prisoner's
hearings be affected. (Id. at pp. 510-511.)
Similarly, in Vicks, supra, the California Supreme Court
considered whether the increase in the period of time between
parole hearings established by Marsy's Law violated the Ex
Post Facto Clause by creating a significant risk of prolonged
incarceration. Marsy's Law (enacted by Proposition 9,
approved by California voters in 2008) increased the time
between parole hearings. The default period between hearings
became 15 years, absent a finding by BPH that there is a
reasonable likelihood the prisoner would be suitable for
parole at an earlier hearing. In evaluating Vicks' ex post
facto challenge, the Court compared his case to Weaver, supra,
where the United States Supreme Court found an ex post facto
violation where there was a reduction in the rate at which the
prisoner accumulated credit for good behavior in prison
because the reduction was a lost opportunity for release.
(Weaver, supra, 450 U.S. 24 at pp. 35-36.) In contrast to the
change considered in Weaver, Marsy's Law did not alter the
criteria for obtaining release. The court found that Vicks
SB 1284
Page 12
had not lost an opportunity for earlier release because there
is no reasonable likelihood that he would be suitable for
parole earlier than the hearing date he was assigned, which
was five years. (Vicks, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 312.)
In both Morales and Vicks, BPH retained discretion to expedite
the parole hearing sooner than the established deferral times
if there was a reasonable likelihood that the prisoner would
be suitable for parole prior to the date of the established
hearing. Unlike Morales and Vicks, SB 1284 removes discretion
from BPH and the court by stating that a prisoner who is
convicted of a specified crime is ineligible for medical
parole. SB 1284 will increase a prisoner's incarceration by
altering the criteria for release so a prisoner who is
currently eligible for medical parole or compassionate release
would no longer be eligible if SB 1284 becomes law. Thus,
similar to Weaver, this change can be viewed as a lost
opportunity for a prisoner who may be eligible for medical
parole or compassionate release prior to passage of this bill.
This bill contains a provision that specifies that the bill
will only be applied prospectively if the courts find that its
provisions violate the ex post facto clauses of the United
States Constitution or the California Constitution. This
provision is unnecessary and does not have an effect on the
bill's constitutionality. Under the rules of statutory
construction, "[if] a statute is susceptible of two
constructions, one of which will render it constitutional and
the other unconstitutional in whole or in part, or raise
serious and doubtful constitutional questions, the court will
adopt the construction which, without doing violence to the
reasonable meaning of the language used, will render it valid
in its entirety, or free from doubt as to its
constitutionality, even though the other construction is
equally reasonable. The basis of this rule is the presumption
that the Legislature intended, not to violate the
Constitution, but to enact a valid statute within the scope of
its constitutional powers." (People v. Douglas (2013) 220 Cal.
App. 4th 1068, 1077, citing People v. Superior Court (Romero)
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 509.)
The effect of this bill, should the court find that applying
its provisions retroactively violates the ex post facto
clauses of the United States Constitution or the California
SB 1284
Page 13
Constitution, is unclear. Murder of a peace officer in the
first degree carries a penalty of death or a term of LWOP.
(Pen. Code, � 190.2, subd. (a)(7).) Under the current medical
parole and compassionate release statutes, prisoners sentenced
to death or LWOP are not eligible.
7)Ongoing Concerns Over Prison Overcrowding : In January 2010, a
three-judge panel issued a ruling ordering the State of
California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design
capacity because overcrowding was the primary reason that CDCR
was unable to provide inmates with constitutionally adequate
healthcare. (Coleman/Plata vs. Schwarzenegger (2010) No. Civ
S-90-0520 LKK JFM P/NO. C01-1351 THE.) The United States
Supreme Court upheld the decision, declaring that "without a
reduction in overcrowding, there will be no efficacious remedy
for the unconstitutional care of the sick and mentally ill"
inmates in California's prisons. (Brown v. Plata (2011) 131
S.Ct. 1910, 1939.)
The original deadline to reach the required prison population
reduction was June 2013. In January 2013, the State moved to
vacate or to modify the population reduction order, arguing
that the reductions made were sufficient. But in April 2013,
the three judge panel denied the Governor's motion to vacate
or modify the court's population reduction order. The court
ordered the state to take all necessary steps to reduce the
prison population to 137.5% by December 31, 2013.
In September 2013, the State submitted a report to the court
advising that the current overcrowding level was 147.1% of
design capacity. The State asked the court for a three-year
extension to comply with the deadline to reduce crowding to
the mandated level. The State also stated that if no
extension was granted, it would comply with the cap by moving
prisoners to private prisons and county jails. Meanwhile,
state officials also filed an appeal to the United States
Supreme Court. In December 2013, the United States Supreme
Court refused to consider the State's appeal.
In February 2014, the three-judge panel issued its final order.
It granted the state a two-year extension to achieve the
ordered reduction in the prison population to 137.5% design
capacity. The State must meet the following interim and final
population reduction benchmarks: 143% of design bed capacity
by June 30, 2014; 141.5% of design bed capacity by February
SB 1284
Page 14
28, 2015; and 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28,
2016. During that time, CDCR is prohibited from increasing
the number of inmates housed in out-of-state facilities.
Additionally, the court created the position of a "Compliance
Officer" with the authority to release prisoners if the State
fails to reach one of the benchmarks, with the number of
prisoners released being the number necessary to bring
defendants into compliance with the missed benchmark. Thus,
prison capacity remains a serious concern.
As part of the state's compliance plan to reduce the prison
population to meet the population benchmarks set by the court,
the Governor proposed expanding eligibility for medical
parole. (LAO, 2014-2015 Budget: Administration's Response to
Prison Overcrowding Order (Feb. 28, 2014), p. 6.) SB 1284
would exempt a person from medical parole or compassionate
release who is otherwise eligible due to his or her medical
condition and a finding by BPH or the court that the person
does not pose a public safety risk. Considering the ongoing
efforts to reduce prison populations within the court-ordered
timeline, is it good policy to pass bills that decrease
eligibility for programs that the state intends to expand in
order to comply with the court's order?
8)Argument in Support : According to the California Narcotics
Officers' Association , the sponsor of this bill, "The clear
intent of [medical parole] was to assure that persons who had
committed the most serious crimes would not be eligible for
Medical Parole. The challenge is that there was a period in
the 1970s when California neither had a death penalty nor a
sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
What this meant is that persons who committed first degree
murder of peace officers in the line of duty during that
period - a crime that would result in a sentence of death or
life without parole at any other time in California history -
were eligible for Medical Parole or Compassionate Release.
"This is not a theoretical problem. In late 2011, Gerald
Youngberg, convicted during the 1970's of the execution style
murders of Highway Patrol Officer Larry Wetterling and San
Bernardino County Sheriff's Lieutenant Al Stewart, (who is a
former President of the California Narcotic Officers
Association), as well as service station attendant Robert
Jenkins, in a crime described as 'evil in all its banality'
was approved for Medical Parole. Fortunately. The national
SB 1284
Page 15
outcry against this potential miscarriage of justice
contributed to Gerald Youngberg's Medical Parole approval
being rescinded."
9)Argument in Opposition : According to the American Civil
Liberties Union of California , "The intent of medical parole
is release of inmates who require twenty-four hour care at
huge expense to the State. An inmate living in a persistent
vegetative state or otherwise medically incapacitated is not
likely to pose a threat to public safety, yet the State is
responsible for around-the-clock in-custody care at a cost of
thousands of dollars per week.
"Moreover, the likelihood that a person sentenced to prison for
the killing of a peace officer will be granted medical parole
- is by no means certain. It simply allows an inmate to
petition the Board of Parole Hearings for release. Given that
the intent of medical parole was to reduce the financial
strain of caring for medically incapacitated inmates, the
Legislature should not start excepting out specified offenses
for which an inmate is not eligible, despite being medically
incapacitated. If an inmate meets the requirements specified
in the law, he or she should be eligible for release."
10)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 353 (Brown) would have exempted from medical parole
eligibility a prisoner who was convicted of the murder of a
peace officer, as provided. AB 353 was pulled by the
author and never heard by this Committee.
b) SB 1399 (Leno), Chapter 405, Statutes of 2010,
established California's medical parole law.
c) AB 1539 (Krekorian), Chapter 740, Statutes of 2007,
established criteria and procedure for which a state
prisoner may have his or her sentence recalled and be
re-sentenced if he or she is diagnosed with a disease that
would produce death within six months or is permanently
medically incapacitated and whose release is deemed not to
threaten public safety.
d) SB 1547 (Romero), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session,
would have required CDCR to establish programs that would
parole geriatric and medically incapacitated inmates who no
SB 1284
Page 16
longer pose a threat to the public safety. SB 1547 failed
passage on the Assembly floor.
e) AB 1946 (Steinberg), of the 2003-04 Legislative Session,
would have provided that terminally ill or medically
incapacitated prisoners, as specified, are eligible to
apply to have their sentences recalled and to be
re-sentenced; and made legislative findings that programs
should be available for inmates that are designed to
prepare nonviolent felony offenders for successful reentry
into the community. AB 1946 was vetoed by the Governor.
f) AB 29 (Villaraigosa), Chapter 751, Statutes of 1997,
established a procedure whereby a court may have the
discretion to re-sentence or recall a sentence if a
prisoner is terminally ill with an incurable condition
caused by an illness or disease that would produce death
within six months.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Narcotics Officers' Association (Co-Sponsor)
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
(Co-Sponsor)
Long Beach Police Officers Association (Co-Sponsor)
California Fraternal Order of Police (Co-Sponsor)
Sacramento Deputy Sheriffs Association (Co-Sponsor)
Santa Ana Police Officers Association (Co-Sponsor)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California State Sheriffs' Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Los Angeles Probation Officers' Union, AFSCME, Local 685
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
SB 1284
Page 17
Analysis Prepared by : Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744