Agenda Item No.
CITY OF YUCAIP,A.
AGENDA. REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe Pradetto, Director of Govenament airs/Public Information Officer Shane Massoud, Management Analyst
FOR: City Council Meeting of May S, 2023
SUBJECT: Legislative Action: Oppose Senate Bill 94
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council oppose Senate Bill 94 by Senator Dave Cortese (D-Santa Clara), which would allow certain individuals serving death sentences or life without parole the opportunity to petition their criminal sentencing for judicial review and potential resentencing, and authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition.
BACKGROUND:
Over the last decade, the State Legislature has continued to prioritize bills and ballot initiatives aimed at transforming California's criminal justice system.
For example, in 2011, the Legislature passed, and the voters approved Assembly Bill 109 (commonly known as "prison realignment"), which shifted to counties the responsibility of monitoring, tracking, and incarcerating lower -level offenders previously bound for state prison. AB 109 altered both sentencing and post -prison supervision for the newly statutorily classified "non -serious, non-violent, non -sex" offenders.
In 2014, Proposition 47, also known as the "The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act," was passed and downgraded a range of drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors.
Also, in 2016, Proposition 57 was passed, which allowed for early parole opportunities and/or prison sentence reductions for certain convicted offenders.
DISCUSSION -
Senate Bill 94 (SB), if passed, would allow for an individual sentenced to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole the opportunity to petition for judicial review if the offense occurred before June 5, 1990, the individual has served at least 20 years in custody, and the individual has been convicted of a special circumstance. 0 If a person qualifies, the court may modify and reduce the petitioner's sentence according to applicable law.
The above referenced criminal justice reforms were all approved by the voters. Although strong arguments exist questioning their efficacy, they represent the will of the people.
SB 94 undermines the will of the people. In 1990, the voters passed Proposition 115 (Prop.) which prohibits the dismissal of special circumstances in criminal sentencing.
SB 94 seeks to provide dismissal of special circumstances to criminal sentences not covered by Prop. 115. While this is technically legal, it is in direct conflict with the will of the voters. Rather than govern through technicality, Sacramento should bring this issue back to the voters to see it they agree,
As our local criminal courts lack sufficient resources to keep up with present caseloads, this bill would exacerbate the problem.
The California Association of Highway patrolmen, the California District Attorneys .Association, the California State Sheriffs' Association, and Crime Victims United of California oppose this bill.
Senate Bill 94 passed out of the Senate Public Safety Coiru-nittee on April 11. The hill has been placed on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee to analyze fiscal impacts.
Attachments:
1. Letter of Opposition for Senate Bill 94
2. Senate Bill 94
Approved By:`�`
J'
Attachment 1
May 8, 2023
Honorable Dave Cortese
Capitol Office
10210 Street, Suite 5630
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Cortese,
On behalf of the City of Yucaipa, I write in opposition to Senate Bill 94 (SB 94).
SB 94 is the Legislature's latest attempt to further transform California's criminal justice system.
As you are aware, this bill would allow for an individual sentenced to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole the opportunity to petition for judicial review if the offense occurred before June 5, 1990, the individual has served at least 20 years in custody, and the individual has been convicted of a special circumstance. SB 94 gives an individual convicted of a serious violent offense the opportunity to reduce their sentence.
Senate Bill 94, if passed, will have significant ramifications that will threaten the safety of our city and communities across the state,
For these reasons, the City of Yucaipa is opposed to your bill.
Sincerely,
Justin Seaver, Mayor
JB:sm
cc: Nicki Taylor, Office of Senator Ochoa Bogh, [email protected] Jason Gonsalves, Joe A. Gonsalves & Son, Jason arc7gonsalvi.com Laura 'Varela, League of California Cities, lvarelaocalcities.org City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd, Yucaipa, CA 92399
909-797j3489
Attachment 2
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 23, 2023
SENATE BILL
No. 94
Introduced by Senator Cortese
(Principal coauthor: Senator Becker)
(Coauthors: Senators Skinner and Wiener)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members .Jackson and Weber)
January 18, 2023
An act to add Section 1172.5 to the Penal Code, relating to sentencing.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 94, as amended, Cortese. Recall and resentencing: special circumstances.
Existing law provides for various specified special circumstances, including murder committed for financial gain or committed during the commission or attempted commission of certain felonies, which, if found true as specified, require a defendant found guilty of murder in the first degree to be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole. Existing law, added by Proposition 115 of the June 5, 1990, statewide primary election, prohibits a judge from striking or dismissing any special circumstance that is admitted by plea or found true by a jury or court, as specified. Existing law generally authorizes a court to dismiss an action or to strike or dismiss an enhancement in the furtherance of justice, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.
This bill would authorize an individual sentenced to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a conviction in which one or more special circumstances were found to be true to petition for recall and resentencing if the offense occurred before June 5, 1990, and the individual has served at least 20 years in custody. The bill would 98 w6
SB 94 — 2 —
authorize the court to modify the petitioner's sentence to impose a lesser sentence and apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion, or to vacate the petitioner's conviction and impose judgment on a lesser included offense, as specified. The bill would require a court to consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the petitioner to prove that specified mitigating circumstances are present. The bill would provide that proof of the presence of one or more specified mitigating circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing a special circumstance, unless the court finds that petitioner is currently an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined.
The bill would require the court to appoint the State Public Defender or other qualified counsel for an indigent petitioner.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State -mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the 2 following:
3 (a) In the last 10 years, the Legislature has enacted numerous 4 reforms to require judges to consider mitigating factors in 5 sentencing, including: whether the individual to be sentenced is 6 or was a victim of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or 7 human trafficking (AB 124 enacted in 2021); whether the 8 individual experienced childhood trauma, including abuse, neglect, 9 exploitation, or sexual violence (AB 124 enacted in 2021); whether 10 the individual was young, meaning under 26 years of age, at the 11 time of the offense (AB 124 enacted in 2021, SB 260 enacted in 12 2013, SB 261 enacted in 2015); whether the individual was a 13 veteran and the conduct was related to trauma experienced in the 14 military (AB 2098 enacted in 2014, AB 865 enacted in 2018, SB 15 1209 enacted in 2022); whether the individual suffers from 16 cognitive impairment, intellectual disability, or mental illness (AB 17 2512 enacted in 2020, SB 215 enacted in 2018); and whether there 18 was racial bias in the proceedings (AB 2542 enacted in 2021, AB 19 256 enacted in 2022).
20 (b) In the last 10 years, the Legislature has also enacted reforms 21 recognizing that individuals are capable of redemption and 22 requiring judges, when reviewing previously imposed sentences, 23 to consider changed circumstances such as an individual's 98 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 SB 94
rehabilitation while in custody, that the passage of time may significantly change the relevance of factors previously considered in sentencing, and that other changed circumstances may mean that an originally imposed sentence is no longer in the interest of justice (AB 1812 enacted in 2018, AB 2942 enacted in 2018, AB 1540 enacted in 2021, AB 960 enacted in 2022).
(c) It is necessary to correct sentences that would not be imposed today because of legal reforms enacted since an individual's conviction. 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. (d) While individuals sentenced to parole -eligible sentences have an opportunity for some of these mitigating factors and changed circumstances to be considered in the parole process, individuals sentenced to life without parole or death do not. (e) It is the intent of the Legislature that judges be given an opportunity to review sentences of life without parole or death for offenses-pfior to before June 5, 1990, to exercise their discretion in sentencing, considering mitigating factors and changed circumstances as now required in sentencing.
SEC. 2. Section 1172.5 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
1172.5. (a) An individual who has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole for a conviction in which one or more of the special circumstances enumerated in Section 190.2 has been found true, may petition the court to recall the sentence and resentence to a lesser sentence if:
(1) The offense occurred before June 5, 1990.
(2) The individual has served at least 20 years in custody. (b) (1) The petition shall be filed with the court that sentenced the petitioner and served on the district attorney, or on the agency that prosecuted the petitioner. The presiding judge shall designate a judge to rule on the petition. The petition shall include all of the following:
(A) A declaration by the petitioner that the petitioner is eligible for relief pursuant to subdivision (a).
(B) The superior court case number and date of the petitioner's offense and conviction.
98 M
SB 94
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 (C) Whether the petitioner currently has counsel and, if not, whether the petitioner is indigent.
(2) If any of the information required by this subdivision is missing from the petition and cannot be readily ascertained by the court, the court may deny the petition without prejudice to the filing of another petition and advise the petitioner that the matter cannot be considered without the missing information.
(c) The court shall review the petition and determine if it alleges the elements set forth in subdivision (a). If the subject of the petition does not have counsel and is indigent, the court shall appoint the State Public Defender or other qualified counsel to represent the individual. If counsel is newly appointed, they may file a supplementary petition within 60 days. The prosecutor may file and serve a response within 60 days of service of the petition or supplementary petition and the petitioner may file and serve a reply within 30 days after the prosecutor response is served. These deadlines shall be extended for good cause.
(d) (1) Within 60 days after the reply is filed, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether to recall the sentence and resentence the petitioner. This deadline may be extended for good cause.
(2) The resentencing court may, in the interest of justice and regardless of whether the original sentence was imposed after a trial or plea agreement, do the following:
(A) May modify the petitioner's sentence to impose a lesser sentence, and apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion.
(B) May vacate the petitioner's conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense, whether or not that offense was charged in the original pleading, and then resentence the petitioner to a lesser sentence.
(3) The parties may waive a resentencing hearing and stipulate that the petitioner is eligible for recall and resentencing. (4) A petitioner who is resentenced pursuant to this section shall be given credit for time served.
(5) Resentencing under this subdivision shall not result in the imposition of a term longer than the original sentence. (6) The court shall state on the record the reasons for its decision to grant or deny recall and resentencing.
98 w�
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
5 — SB 94
(e) (1) In considering a petition pursuant to this section, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the petitioner to prove that any of the following mitigating circumstances are present:
(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 offense.
(F) The sentence violates Section 745 (the California Racial Justice Act).
(G) The petitioner's age, time served, or diminished physical condition reduces the petitioner's risk for future violence. (2) Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the special circumstance, unless the court finds that the petitioner is currently an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1170,18.
(f) The court shall consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the petitioner while incarcerated, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that the sentence originally imposed is no longer in the interest of justice.
(g) This section does not diminish or abrogate any rights or remedies otherwise available to the subject of the petition. (h) If the judge declines to impose a reduced sentence, a subsequent petition pursuant to this section may be filed if at least two years have passed from the denial of the prior application. (i) The petitioner may appear remotely, and the court may conduct the hearing through the use of remote technology, unless counsel requests their physical presence in court and if not otherwise prohibited by state law.
X
9s
100