Legislative Update
By Raymond Hill
Professor Emeritus, Santa Rosa Junior College
Legal Issues
Recall and resentencing of convicted life without parole (special circumstances murder) offenders (SB 94, Dave Cortese (D) Santa Clara, 1170.02 &1172.5 P.C.).
This legislation would institute a legal process whereby an inmate who has been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole before June 5, 1990, and who has served at least 25 years in prison to petition a Superior Court for hearing to recall their sentence. A judge could resentence the inmate to the lesser term of 25 years to life, and potentially make them eligible for parole. The judge’s decision would then be reviewed by the Board of Parole Hearings.
This legislation cleared the Senate with a vote of 22 out of 40 members (a simple majority was needed). The bill is now before the Assembly Public Safety Committee and has been subject to two hearings. The last day to pass the bill by a simple majority is Sept. 14, 2023. If forwarded to the governor, he can either sign the bill, veto it, or take no action and the bill would automatically become law without his signature.
As noted in the California Peace Officers’ Association Legislative Deep Dive from June 2023, the proponents of the legislation argue that:
According to the bill text, “Judges should have the opportunity to take a second look at these sentences in light of evolving standards of decency and reforms that mandate the consideration of mitigating factors at sentencing such as youth, childhood trauma, victimization, race, military service and mental illness, and in light of changed circumstances, including an individual’s rehabilitation” in the prison system. If after a hearing sentence commutation is denied, the inmate can petition for a new hearing after three years.,
Amongst the factors for a judge “shall consider and afford great weight to” are:
A) The petitioner was a victim of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or human trafficking.
(B) The petitioner experienced childhood trauma, including abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence.
(C) The petitioner is a veteran and the conduct involved in the offense related to trauma experienced in the military.
(D) The petitioner has been diagnosed with cognitive impairment, intellectual disability, or mental illness.
(E) The petitioner was a youth, as defined under subdivision (b) of Section 1016.7 at the time of the offense.
(F) The sentence violates Section 745 (the California Racial Justice Act of 2020).
(G) The petitioner’s age, time served, or diminished physical condition reduces the petitioner’s risk for future violence.
(F) The sentence violates Section 745 (the California Racial Justice Act of 2020).
(G) The petitioner’s age, time served, or diminished physical condition reduces the petitioner’s risk for future violence.
This law would not apply to inmates who have committed murder of a peace officer, where three or more victims were involved in the murder, or a murder committed during the commission of a sex offense as defined.
Author’s Comments
LWOP inmates committed a death-penalty eligible murder with special circumstances and received the alternate sentence.
Tim Ward, Tulare County district attorney and president of the California District Attorneys Association said: “This bill is sham and an affront to the people of California.” He also called it “a travesty to victim’s families” who were told that LWOP means “no leniency.”
During a review in a Superior Court hearing, the victim(s)’ families would have to relive an event that they have potentially accepted after years of going through the steps of grief. They may have to redeliver a victim impact statement given 2½ decades prior. This doesn’t account for the extra workload of our Superior Courts, which are already burdened with violent and recidivist crime cases.
We will keep you updated.
Stay Safe,
RH
