BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
SB 1363 (Hancock) - Parole.
Amended: April 21, 2014 Policy Vote: Public Safety 4-2
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 12, 2014 Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 1363 would make various changes to the parole
process conducted by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), as
specified.
Fiscal Impact:
Additional direct administrative costs to BPH of about
$775,000 (General Fund) annually to provide counsel, make
transcriptions of consultations, and document reasons "on
the record" for parole denials, including substantial
evidence for denials of inmates serving beyond their base
terms, as adjusted.
Potential resource costs of $185,000 (General Fund) for one
commissioner to cover the workload associated with mandated
calculations of adjusted base terms at consultations.
Potentially significant litigation costs in excess of $1
million (General Fund), based on historical experience from
the previous change to the standard of parole suitability
under In re Lawrence 190 P.3d 535, 539 (Cal. 2008).
Unknown, potentially significant future state cost savings
(General Fund) in shorter incarceration terms to the extent
inmates are granted earlier release dates to parole than
otherwise would have occurred under existing law. To the
extent 10 inmates are paroled one year earlier would result
in cost savings of over $250,000.
Additional one-time and ongoing costs (General Fund) to BPH
to collect and report the specified data to the Legislature.
Background: Under existing law, an inmate can be found suitable
for parole by the BPH but remain incarcerated due to various
enhancements that can be added to a term. Existing law provides
that one year prior to an inmate's minimum eligible parole
release date, a panel of two or more commissioners or deputy
commissioners shall meet with the inmate and shall normally set
SB 1363 (Hancock)
Page 1
a parole release date.
Under existing state regulations, based on facts from the
underlying crime, an inmate can be held for a longer period of
time once they are found suitable for parole. This bill provides
that if an inmate remains incarcerated beyond his or her base
term, a decision by BPH to deny parole shall be supported on the
record by substantial evidence and with respect to the entire
record.
Proposed Law: This bill would make the following changes with
respect to state parole:
Requires the BPH to establish criteria for the setting of
parole release dates, as specified.
Requires an inmate found suitable for parole to be paroled,
subject to review by the Governor.
Requires BPH to state on the record for each of its
decisions to grant or deny parole, to demonstrate that an
individualized consideration of all relevant factors was
provided. In the case of an inmate who has served beyond his
or her base term of incarceration, a decision by BPH to deny
parole must be supported by substantial evidence with
respect to the entire board.
Requires BPH to collect and maintain annual statistics on
the number of inmates serving a term in excess of their base
term, as adjusted by applicable enhancements or credits, and
the percentage of all cases decided each year in which BPH
in a final decision, by a panel or the BPH sitting en banc
has declined to find an inmate suitable for parole, despite
the fact that the inmate has served a sentence beyond the
base term of incarceration, as adjusted.
Requires BPH to submit a report to the Legislature by
January 1, 2016, and annually thereafter, on the information
collected.
Staff Comments: The BPH estimates the following fiscal impact,
as specified below:
Direct Administrative Costs
The bill requires BPH to calculate adjusted base terms at
consultations. Currently, inmates do not have legal counsel for
consultations, nor are consultations recorded and transcribed.
BPH believes if terms are calculated at consultations, inmates
would be entitled to legal counsel, prompting the need to record
SB 1363 (Hancock)
Page 2
and transcribe consultations. In FY 2014-15, BPH projects 824
consultations are to be conducted. Provision of counsel and
transcription costs for the 824 consultations is estimated at
$750,000.
While consultations may be performed by either a commissioner or
a deputy commissioner, because term calculations will be
required at consultations, those calculations must be performed
by a commissioner. The BPH estimates a resource need of one
commissioner to cover this workload at a cost of $185,000.
The bill would also mandate the BPH to demonstrate, on the
record, an individualized consideration of all relevant factors.
The additional time added to each hearing is estimated to result
in new costs of about $25,000.
Litigation Costs
The bill would change the standard for inmates who have served
past their adjusted base term. In order for an inmate to be
denied, the BPH would have to determine there is "substantial
evidence" to deny parole. BPH indicates that any change in the
standard for parole suitability is likely to result in an
increase in litigations costs, potentially in the low millions
of dollars. BPH indicates that when the standard for denying
parole was changed as a result of the decision in In re Lawrence
190 P.3d 535, 539 (Cal. 2008), BPH litigation costs increased
substantially the following year (2009). In In re Lawrence, the
court required the BPH or the Governor to present "some
evidence" indicating that an inmate is currently dangerous to
withstand judicial review of a decision denying parole.
Currently, inmates cannot "appeal" or file writs as a result of
a consultation. Moving term calculations to consultations would
open consultations to the writ process, further increasing
potential BPH litigation costs. For every five percent of
consultations that result in a writ being filed, an additional
$140,000 in litigation costs could be incurred.
BPH believes additional litigation would occur as a result of
the provision requiring that the "BPH stated reasons [for
denial] shall demonstrate, on the record, an individualized
consideration of all relevant factors." Litigation could
potentially be brought to challenge whether BPH successfully
SB 1363 (Hancock)
Page 3
stated on the record an individualized consideration of all
relevant factors. Currently, the standard of review for the BPH
decision is whether there is "some evidence" to support the BPH
decision. The BPH projects it will schedule 4,900 suitability
hearings during FY 2014-15. To the extent five percent of those
decisions result in a writ would result in litigation costs of
over $800,000.
The provisions of this measure could result in potentially
significant future state cost savings (General Fund) in shorter
incarceration terms to the extent inmates are granted earlier
release dates to parole than otherwise would have occurred under
existing law. To the extent 10 inmates are paroled one year
earlier would result in cost savings of over $250,000 annually.
Recommended Amendments: The bill references PC section 3042.2,
which does not exist. Staff recommends the following technical
amendment:
On page 6, in line 5, delete "3042.2" and replace with "3041.2".