BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 898 Hearing Date: May 10, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Gonzalez |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |January 13, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Parole Suitability: Notice
HISTORY
Source: California Professional Firefighters and CAL FIRE
Local 2881
Prior Legislation:AB 1025 (Thurman), Chapter 483, Statutes of
1981
Support: California Fire Chiefs Association; California Labor
Federation; California Special Districts Association;
California State Association of Counties; California
State Firefighters' Association; Fire Districts
Association of California; LIUNA Local 792; Orange
County Professional Firefighters Association, Local
3631; Peace Officers Research Association of
California
Opposition:Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that when an inmate who
AB 898 (Gonzalez ) Page
2 of ?
was convicted of the murder of a firefighter becomes eligible
for a parole-suitability hearing, the Board of Parole Hearings
must give written notice of the hearing to the department that
had employed the deceased firefighter.
Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to send
written notice to each of the following persons before it meets
to consider the parole suitability or setting of a parole date
of an inmate serving a life sentence:
a) The superior court judge before whom the prisoner was
tried and convicted;
b) The attorney who represented the defendant at trial;
c) The district attorney of the county in which the offense
was committed;
d) The law enforcement agency that investigated the case;
and,
e) If the prisoner was convicted of the murder of a peace
officer, the law enforcement agency which had employed
that officer at the time of the murder. (Penal Code § 3042
(a).)
Existing law provides that these entities must be notified at
least 30 days before the BPH meets to review or consider the
parole suitability or the setting of a parole date. (Penal Code
§ 3042(a).)
Existing law allows the entities who receive notice of the
parole-suitability hearing to submit information to the BPH for
its consideration. (Penal Code § 3042 (f)(3).)
Existing law requires the BPH to review and consider all
information received from the judge and these other persons, and
to consider adjusting the terms or conditions of parole to
reflect the comments or concerns raised by this information.
(Penal Code, § 3042 (f)(3).)
Existing law requires the BPH to provide the victim 90-days'
notice of an upcoming parole-suitability hearing, if he or she
requests that notice be given. (Penal Code § 3043 (a).)
Existing law allows the victim to personally appear at the
suitability hearing or to submit a recorded statement expressing
his or her views. (Penal Code, §§ 3043 (b)(1), and 3043.2
AB 898 (Gonzalez ) Page
3 of ?
(a)(1).)
Existing law states that any person interested in the grant or
denial of parole may submit a statement supporting or opposing
parole and that such statements must be considered by the
hearing panel. (Penal Code § 3043.5.)
Existing law requires the Director of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation to give written notice to the
State Fire Marshal, and all police departments and the sheriff
in the county in which the person was convicted before releasing
an inmate convicted of arson. (Penal Code § 11150.)
This bill provides that if an inmate was convicted of the murder
of a firefighter BPH shall also send the written notice to the
fire department that employed the firefighter at the time of the
murder, if that fire department registers with BPH to receive
that notification and provides the appropriate contact
information.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
AB 898 (Gonzalez ) Page
4 of ?
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative
drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
AB 898 (Gonzalez ) Page
5 of ?
According to the author:
Since 1981, existing law (Penal Code Section 3042) has
appropriately ensured the notification of relevant,
parole-related hearings to a slain peace officer's
former employer. However, a firefighter's former
employer is not included in parole notification process
if he or she lost their life in an arson related fire.
AB 989 will simply add a murdered firefighters former
fire department employer if the department registers
with the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) and provides
the necessary contact information.
Firefighters are a vital part of our public safety
community in California since they constantly risk
their lives in order to ensure the safety of others.
They face similar stress and risk just like their law
enforcement colleagues face while on-duty, which can
result in loss of life.
It is only appropriate in these limited instances, a
former employing fire department be extended the same
notification courtesy as local law enforcement agencies
when dealing with the possible parole of a prisoner
convicted of murdering a firefighter. The parole
notification proposed by AB 898 will provide an
appropriate opportunity for the fire department to
reflect on the actions of the individual and voice
their opinion about a prisoner remaining behind bars or
being released back into their community.
2. Parole-Suitability Hearings
Inmates serving indeterminate "life" sentences that include the
possibility of parole are not automatically entitled to parole,
but are entitled to be considered for parole at a
parole-suitability hearing. The BPH has exclusive authority to
determinate parole suitability, and suitability for parole must
first be found before a parole date is set. (In re Dannenberg
(2005) 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1080.)
The BPH can consider all relevant and reliable information, but
there are suitability factors specified by both statute and
administrative regulations. (15 Cal. Code Regs., § 2402, subd.
AB 898 (Gonzalez ) Page
6 of ?
(b).) These include: the nature of the commitment offense and
inmate's degree of insight into the offense, the inmate's prison
record, recent psychological evaluations, and the inmate's
parole plans. The overriding concern is whether the inmate poses
a current threat to public safety. (In re Dannenberg, supra, 34
Cal.4th at p. 1084.) The BPH has broad discretion in how to
weigh these factors, and its determination that an inmate is
unsuitable will be upheld as long as it is supported by "some
evidence." (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1213.)
3. Notice of Parole-Suitability Hearings
The BPH must send notice of a parole-suitability hearing to the
trial judge, the prosecutor, defense counsel, the investigating
law enforcement agency, and in the case of the murder of a peace
officer, the officer's employer. (Penal Code, § 3042 (a).) These
individuals are entitled to submit a statement expressing their
views on whether the inmate should be paroled. Additionally, the
victim of the crime may request that the BPH notify him or her
of any scheduled parole-suitability hearing. The victim is
entitled to personally appear to express his or her views on the
granting of parole, or may submit a written or recorded
statement instead. (Penal Code, § 3043.) Finally, any person
interested in the grant or denial of parole may submit a
statement supporting or opposing parole. (Penal Code, § 3043.5.)
The board must consider all statements submitted in making its
decision.
While under existing law the employer of a murdered firefighter
may already submit a statement expressing its views on the grant
of parole, the law currently does not require the employer be
notified of the hearing. This bill will ensure that the agency
which employed the deceased firefighter has notice that a
parole-suitability hearing has been scheduled.
-- END -
AB 898 (Gonzalez ) Page
7 of ?