SB224 Expanded Elderly Parole HEARING around the corner: SB224 (50yrs old and Down 15 years or more)

Sen. Carol Liu (Democrat), author of SB 224, (Elderly Parole Hearing) bill enacted last year, recently introduced a follow-up to BPH's (Oct 2014 Elderly Program), called Senate Bill 224 (SB224). The Bill has not passed as to the writing of this BLOG, it was In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS  on April 20, 2015.

 
Summary:
Requires the Board of Parole Hearings  (BPH) to conduct a ELDERLY PAROLE HEARING for offenders sentence to State prison who have reached their Golden Years of 50 years of age (or more) and have been incarcerated 15 years or more. NOTE: This is a great expansion from the older BPH regulation that was established in October 2014 to allow 60 yrs old who had over 25 years of incarceration.


Under the language of SB 224, the new bill will consider ‘hallmarks of Elderly’ (kinda). The Elderly Parole Program will require the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to consider whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the prisoner's risk for future violence.  If you want to retain an Attorney with ELDERLY experience (attorney Letarte over 50 years old herself and has empathy for her clients)  please contact ATTORNEY DIANE LETARTE via her website or
email at Attorney Letarte's office. 

Status:

02/13/2015 INTRODUCED.
02/26/2015 To SENATE Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY.
03/19/2015 From SENATE Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY with author's amendments.
03/19/2015 In SENATE. Read 2nd time & amended. Re-referred to Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY.
04/07/2015 From SENATE Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS.
04/20/2015 In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: To Suspense File.

Bill Text
03/19/2015 - SB 224 (Amended)
02/13/2015 - SB 224 (Introduced)



To get an update please contact:   Sen. Carol Liu  (Democrat- click for email) - 
State Senate  (click on  Sen. website)

Capital Address:
California State Capitol
Room 5097
Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
Phone: (916) 651-4025

District Address:
1000 N. Central Avenue
Suite 240
Glendale, CA 91202
Phone: (818) 409-0400
Fax: (818) 409-1256

SB261 YOUTH HEARING expansion Potential: SB260 / SB261 (18 to 23 at the time of the crime)

Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Petaluma), author of SB 260, (Youth Offender Parole Hearing) bill enacted last year, recently introduced the follow-up to that legislation, called Senate Bill 261 (SB261). The Bill has not passed as to the writing of this BLOG, it was last amended this month on April 7, 2015.

Summary:
Requires the Board of Parole Hearings  (BPH) to conduct a YOUTH OFFENDER PAROLE HEARING (YOPH) for offenders sentence to State prison who committed specified crimes when they were under 23 years of age. DEADLINE: Requires the Board to complete all youth offender hearings for individuals who became entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of this legislation. If passed --> parole hearings for those newly eligible for YOPH consideration, would be those who were between the ages of 18 and 23 at the time of the crime. The Deadline would be that a YOPH  be held prior to July 1, 2017.

Under the language of SB 261, the new YOPH bill, consideration of the ‘hallmarks of youth’ would be extended to those who were under 23 years of age at the time of their crime. If you want to retain an Attorney with YOPH experience please contact ATTORNEY DIANE LETARTE via her website or
email at Attorney Letarte's office.


Bill Status:
02/18/2015 INTRODUCED.
02/26/2015 To SENATE Committee on RULES.
03/24/2015 From SENATE Committee on RULES with author's amendments.
03/24/2015 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on RULES.
04/07/2015 Re-referred to SENATE Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY.


Senate Bill Text (click on link)
03/24/2015 - SB 261 (Amended)
02/18/2015 - SB 261 (Introduced)


To get an update please contact:  Sen. Loni Hancock
(Democrat) - State Senate  (click on  Sen. website)

Capital Address:
California State Capitol
Room 2082
Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
Phone: (916) 651-4009

District Address:
1515 Clay Street
Suite 2202
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 286-1333
Fax: (510) 286-3885

In re Wilson (1/22/2015) trial court must use Miller v. Alabama, (Youth factors) before imposing LWOP sentence

Case Name: In re Wilson , District: 2 DCA , Division: 7 , Case #: B254093
Opinion Date: 1/22/2015 , DAR #: 907

NOTE by Blog author (Attorney Diane Letarte): A Trial Court must consider the Hallmarks of Youth at sentence when the Defendant is under 18 years of age when s/he committed the offense. The new (2015)  In re Wilson case, just emphasizes the fact that when an inmate (or defendant) is/was under the age of 18 years the day of the crime the Sentencing Judge MUST take the mitigating circumstances of his youth and background, when imposing Life Without Possibility of Parole (LWOP) sentences. This new case coupled with Senate Bill 9 (SB9- see our previous BLOG) gives hope to many inmates that were incarcerated and sentence to an LWOP. A Writ of Habeas Corpus (WHC) can be filed on a dual track 1) Petition under the SB9 and a 2) Petition under Miller v. Alabama to recall the LWOP sentence. 

 

Below is a REPRINT of the In re Wilson Summary:
by the Courtesy of the CCAP(Central California Appellate Program)

CASE HOLDING:
Habeas petitioner is entitled to relief because trial court did not adequately consider the distinctive mitigating circumstances of his youth and background, as required by Miller v. Alabama, when imposing juvenile LWOP sentence. In 1995, when he was 17 years old, Wilson participated in a bank robbery that resulted in the death of a bank employee. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of felony murder and related offenses, and was sentenced to LWOP. The appellate court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. In 2013, Wilson petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455. The trial court denied the petition. Wilson next sought habeas relief in the Court of Appeal. Held: Petition granted. In Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids mandatory LWOP sentences for individuals who were juveniles at the time they committed a homicide. The Court outlined a number of individual sentencing factors (the Miller factors) that the sentencing court must consider before imposing an LWOP sentence. Based on the record in this case, the trial court did not presumptively impose Wilson's LWOP sentence. (See Pen. Code, § 190.5, subd. (b); People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354.) However, the trial court did not adequately consider the Miller factors. The court rejected the Attorney General's argument that habeas relief should be denied because Wilson has the possibility of parole under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(2). Relying in part on Gutierrez, the court concluded that this statute falls short of what Miller requires, even where the trial court did not apply a presumption in favor of LWOP.

The rules announced in Miller apply retroactively to cases that were final prior to the decision. Wilson's LWOP sentence was imposed and the judgment in his case became final 15 years before Miller was decided. Although new rules are not generally applied retroactively in cases on collateral review, there is an exception when the rule is substantive. (Teague v. Lane (1989) 489 U.S. 288; Schriro v. Summerlin (2004) 542 U.S. 348.) After reviewing decisions from other states and federal courts, the appellate court here concluded that Miller applies retroactively. Miller held that a sentencing court must consider specific, individualized factors before imposing an LWOP sentence and recognized that LWOP sentences should be rare when mitigating evidence is considered. This is a new substantive rule that addresses the limits on the imposition of a juvenile LWOP sentence. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has already applied the rule to a petitioner who was before the Court on collateral review in Miller. Wilson is entitled to the benefit of Miller because of the unfairness that would result if Miller did not apply. [Editor's Note: A Miller retroactivity issue is currently pending in the California Supreme Court: Does Miller apply retroactively on habeas corpus to a prisoner who was a juvenile at the time of the commitment offense and who is presently serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole? (In re Alatriste (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1232, review granted 2/19/2014 (S214652/B248072); In re Bonilla (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1232, review granted 2/19/2014 (S214960/B248199).)]


Thanks again  to CCAP for their Case Summary.