SB261 (youth under 23 yrs old) YOPH Bill passes Assembly Floor

*** A short time ago, SB 261 passed the Assembly floor receiving 42 votes. The bill now heads to the Governor's office for final consideration.

Senate Bill 261, authored by Senator Hancock (D-Berkeley), which requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct parole hearings for those sentenced to state prison for certain crimes when they were under the age of 23. This Expands the current YOUTH PAROLE HEARING (SB260) Bill that previously passes in 2014 for those who committed their crime while under the age of 18 to  under the age of 23. 

This bill is an expansion of Senator Hancock's bill from 2013, SB 260, which allowed parole hearings for those persons who committed a crime and sentenced to state prison prior to being 18 years old.

For a complete update and tracking - see: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB261

We need to see of Governor Brown will signed off on it...... STAY tune! Most likely will be effective in January 2016.

*** credit for this information goes to CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION NETWORK at-->

http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=2146e9cc6b109029511d049fb&id=5b5a64d204&e=49eb3f1c25

**UPDATE SB 224, (Elderly Parole Hearing) - withdrawn - potential 3 Strikes Law conflicts

Sen. Carol Liu (Democrat), author of Senate Bill 224 (SB224), (Elderly Parole Hearing) that would codify and possibly expand considerations of elderly parole, has withdrawn the Bill from consideration for this session. Liu’s office and Bill supporters indicate discussions on possible changes to the Bill with an eye to reintroduction of the legislation will begin in January 2016.

Summary of original SB224:
The original draft of the Senate Bill required the Board of Parole Hearings  (BPH) to conduct a ELDERLY PAROLE HEARING for offenders sentence to State prison who have reached 50 years of age and have been incarcerated 15 years or more. NOTE: This would have been an expansion from the existing BPH regulation that was established in October 2014 to allow 60 yrs old inmates who have been incarcerated 25 years or more to go to a Elderly Parole Hearing.

Update***:   

SB 224 has been withdrawn from consideration for this session. Assessment by the Legislative Analyst’s Office  classified SB 224 in the category of Bills that would require a 2/3 majority vote on the legislative floor, a threshold Sen. Liu’s office felt could not be met. That concern lead to the bill being withdrawn from consideration for this session.

Prior to the inactivation of SB 224 the bill had been amended from its original framework that would have applied the considerations of elderly parole to those prisoners aged 50 years and over who had served 15 years to a higher standard, affecting the current qualified inmates 60 years and over who had served 25 years or more. The number of prisoners potentially impacted by the original age and time factors proposed (50/15) would have numbered about 6,000.


In 2014 the BPH scheduled over 4,000 hearings, so it also became apparent that such an influx of new hearings would have had a significant impact on the BPH’s already full parole hearing schedule. Ripples from the increased hearing numbers would also have had a significant impact on the availability of attorneys, hearing rooms, CRA evaluations and other requirements of hearings.

Reassessment of the Bill’s language will seek to navigate SB 224 away from conflict with the provisions of 3 Strikes, would then remove the need for a 2/3 majority floor vote for passage.

*** NOTE:  This SB224 update provided by Venessa at LSA   LIFE SUPPORT ALLIANCE

NEW ANNOUNCEMENT ---- UPCOMING LIFER PICNIC - join LSA as they HOST the reunion

• What:      LIFER PICNIC      (hosted by: LSA at 916-743-1654)
    
  • When:     Saturday, September 19 from 11:30 AM to 4:00 PM

• Where:   North Laguna Creek Park 6400 Jacinto Avenue Sacramento, CA 95823

===============================================================

If you want to retain an Attorney with ELDERLY Parole Hearing 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. 

GIlman v. Brown (Prop9) Marsy's Law: 9th Cir. Oral Argument - wait and see

UPDATE***** SEE OUR NEW 2/22/16 GILMAN  POSTING BLOG ( February 2016)

California Governor Brown appeals from the district court's bench trial judgment in an action brought by LIFE inmates challenging, on ex post facto grounds, Propositions 89 and 9, pertaining to the State's parole system.

==========================
As a reminder below are the two Propositions (P9, P89) being challenged: 

(NOTE back in 2008 it passed by 54% = Y,  46%= N)

On November 4, 2008, the People of the State of California approved Proposition 9, the Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law. This measure amended the California Constitution to provide additional rights to victims and increased all the Lifer Parole Hearing denial lengths from the range of 1 to 5 year to a minimum of 3 year to 15 year denial.   

(NOTE back in 1988 it passed by 55% = Y,  45%= N)

On  November 8, 1988 the People of the State of  approved California Proposition 89.
Proposition 89 gave to the Governor of California the authority to approve, modify, or Reverse any decision by the Parole authority (Board of Parole Hearings  or Youthful Offender Parole Board) regarding the parole of persons who are sentenced to an indeterminate term (ISL) for committing murder.

===========================
See Attorney Monica Knox's great Oral argument in the (9th Circuit Court on Gilman v. Brown  (Prop9, Prop 89). She challenges the application of Marsy's Law to all the LIFERS that were sentence prior to the 2008 enacted Marsy's Law. She argues for a class of approximately 10,000 Lifer (ISL) inmates.
GO MONICA GO.

**** We will have to wait for the 9th Circuit 's Decision of the June 15, 2015  Oral argument.

WE ARE LL HOPING THAT THE 9TH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION and finds that Marsy's Law is unconstitutional because it violates the Ex Post Facto principle.