Existing law allows a person sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole who was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense to petition the court for recall of their sentence and resentencing, as specified. Existing law prohibits a person from seeking recall and resentencing pursuant to these provisions if it is pleaded and proved that the person committed certain offenses and the victim was a public safety official, including any law enforcement personnel. This bill would additionally prohibit a person from seeking recall and resentencing pursuant to these provisions for an offense that meets the definition of a school shooting, as defined.
Existing law creates the Office of Youth and Community Restoration within the California Health and Human Services Agency to promote trauma-responsive, culturally informed services for youth involved in the juvenile justice system, as specified. Existing law grants the office the responsibility and authority to report on youth outcomes, identify policy recommendations, identify and disseminate best practices, and provide technical assistance to develop and expand local youth diversion opportunities. Existing law subjects a minor between 12 and 17 years of age, inclusive, who violates any federal, state, or local law or ordinance, and a minor under 12 years of age who is alleged to have committed specified serious offenses, to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court. Under existing law, juvenile court proceedings to declare a minor a ward of the court are commenced by the filing of a petition, as specified. Existing law authorizes a probation officer who concludes that a minor is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court or would come within the jurisdiction of the court if a petition was filed, in lieu of filing a petition to declare a minor a ward of the court or requesting that a petition be filed by the prosecuting attorney, to declare a minor a ward of the court, as specified, to refer the minor to services provided by a health agency, community-based organization, local educational agency, an appropriate nonlaw enforcement agency, or the probation department. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2030, the Office of Youth and Community Restoration to establish a grant program to create a youth court diversion pilot program. The bill would authorize the office, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to award 6 one-time grants to 6 counties to establish a youth diversion program for first-time misdemeanor juvenile offenders. The bill would specify the criteria for a juvenile to participate in the pilot program, including, among other things, the types of offenses for which a juvenile may participate in the pilot program. The bill would require that juveniles participating in the program appear before a jury composed of high school student volunteers who have been trained and mentored by attorneys from the district attorney and public defender's offices. The bill would require the student volunteers to determine a disposition, as specified, and would prohibit the student jury from making a determination of guilt or innocence. The bill would specify the minimum requirements for youth court diversion proceedings pursuant to these provisions. The bill would also require participating counties to annually provide a report to the office regarding the juveniles who have completed the program.
Existing law establishes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to administer the state prison system under the direction of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Existing California constitutional provisions grant the department the authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements in order to enhance public safety, improve rehabilitation, and avoid the release of prisoners by federal court order. This bill, the Second Chance Sports Act, would, until January 1, 2036, require the department to formalize, in consultation with specified individuals and organizations, a policy on organized sports programming. The bill would authorize the department to solicit and accept proposals and negotiate and enter into agreements with specified entities for the purposes of expanding access to sports programming as described above. The bill would establish the Second Chance Sports Fund within the State Treasury. The bill would require the department to seek advisement from the Legislature on the priorities for utilizing the moneys in the fund. The bill would make funds available, upon appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act, for the above-described purposes. The bill would require the Controller, on or before January 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, to provide a report to the Legislature on the amounts deposited into the fund. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Existing law establishes specified rights for victims and witnesses of crimes, including to be notified or informed regarding specified court proceedings and inmate placement or parole eligibility. This bill would require the district attorney's office or other prosecuting agency to ensure that the contact information of the victim and the victim's next of kin is provided to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at the time of sentencing in cases that result in a sentence to state prison, to the extent that contact information is reasonably available. By increasing the burdens on local prosecuting agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires that, as a condition of parole, a prisoner who has a severe mental health disorder be treated by the State Department of State Hospitals if the prisoner meets certain requirements, including, among others, that the severe mental health disorder was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the commission of a specified crime for which the prisoner was sentenced to prison, and that prior to release on parole, the prisoner has been evaluated, as specified, and the chief psychiatrist of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has certified that the prisoner has a severe mental health disorder, that the disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, that the severe mental health disorder was one of the causes or was an aggravating factor in the prisoner's criminal behavior, that the prisoner has been in treatment for the severe mental health disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to the prisoner's parole release day, and that by reason of the prisoner's severe mental health disorder, the prisoner represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. This bill would instead require the chief psychiatrist of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to certify that the prisoner meets three of the following criteria: a severe mental health disorder, the disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, the severe mental health disorder was one of the causes or was an aggravating factor in the prisoner's criminal behavior, the prisoner has been in treatment for the severe mental health disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to the prisoner's parole release day, and by reason of the prisoner's severe mental health disorder, the prisoner represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. The bill would include sexual harassment and battery under physical harm.
Existing law generally authorizes the court to suspend a criminal sentence and make and enforce terms of probation for a period not to exceed 2 years, and in misdemeanor cases, for a period not to exceed one year. Existing law imposes various penalties for theft- or fraud-related crimes, including, among others, the abuse or neglect of an elder or dependent adult, mortgage fraud, or identity theft. This bill would authorize the court, upon a conviction of certain felony offenses related to, among other things, the purchase or sale of real property or the recording or attempted recording of a real estate instrument, if the court grants the defendant probation, to impose up to a one-year extension to the probationary term. The bill would create a process for the court to impose the one-year extension if the defendant is on formal probation by requiring the probation department to file a petition to the court to extend the probationary period and requiring the court to make a finding that additional time is necessary for programming. By increasing the period of probation, and increasing the duties on local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires a probation department to request that the prosecuting attorney petition the committing court for an order directing that a person confined in a secure youth treatment facility remain subject to the control of the department at the time of discharge if the person confined is determined to be physically dangerous to the public because of the person's mental or physical condition, disorder, or other problem that causes the person to have serious difficulty controlling their dangerous behavior. Existing law establishes the process for the petition, probable cause hearing, trial, continued detention, and appeal pursuant to this provision. Under existing law, if an order for continued detention is made pursuant to these provisions, the probation department has continued control over the person, except as specified, and existing law requires the department to, within 2 years after the date of the order made by a juvenile court or after conviction in criminal proceedings, file a new application for continued detention if continued detention is deemed necessary. This bill would require, if a petition is filed pursuant to these provisions, that the person who is the subject of the petition remain in custody in a secure youth treatment facility until the conclusion of the proceedings. The bill would prohibit a probable cause hearing pursuant to these provisions from being continued, except upon a showing of good cause by the party requesting the continuance. The bill would also authorize the court to base the finding of probable cause on certain hearsay statements, as specified. The bill would require the person be brought to trial within 60 days from the probable cause determination, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, the person enters a waiver, or the person requests or consents to the setting of the trial date beyond the 60-day period. The bill would require the court, if the court or jury finds that the person has a mental condition or disorder, to determine a period of continued detention, as specified. The bill would require the department to file a new application within the specified time of an order for continued detention if the department deems continued detention pursuant to these provisions is necessary. The bill would specify that the discovery process for criminal proceedings applies to these provisions. To the extent that this bill would increase local duties relating to the confinement of persons in a secure youth treatment facility, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law requires the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to evaluate a person who is newly committed to a state prison and classify incarcerated persons based on the evaluations, and, when reasonable, assign or reassign an incarcerated person to the institution of the appropriate security level and gender population nearest the incarcerated person's home, unless other classification factors make that placement unreasonable. This bill would require the department to contract with an independent research entity to conduct a study to reassess the entire security classification system, as specified. The bill would require the study to contain policy recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of the classification system, as specified. The bill would require the selected research entity to perform the study according to specified criteria, including, among others, that the entity is governed by the University of California Board of Regents and has demonstrated expertise on Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation policy and data. The bill would require the report to be published on or before January 1, 2030, and would repeal the provisions as of January 1, 2031.
Existing law, until January 1, 2031, authorizes a city or county prosecuting attorney or county probation department to create a diversion or deferred entry of judgment program for persons who commit a theft offense or repeat theft offenses. Existing law requires the prosecuting attorney in a participating county to either refer the case to the county probation department to conduct a prefiling investigation report and determine the appropriateness of program placement or, if the prosecuting attorney's office operates the program, determine if the case is appropriate for referral. Existing law requires the county probation department or prosecuting attorney's office to consider certain factors for referral, including, among others, whether the person has a violent or serious prior criminal record or has previously been referred to a diversion program and failed that program. This bill would require the prosecutor or county probation department, for certain theft offenses, including shoplifting and vandalism, to determine whether, based on certain criteria, specified defendants are eligible for a theft diversion program. The bill would require the prosecuting attorney to review their file for certain factors, including whether the offense charged involved a crime of violence or threatened violence and, if the defendant is eligible, would require the attorney to file a declaration or state for the record the grounds for the determination of the defendant's eligibility. The bill would require the court to dismiss the action against the defendant at the end of the period of diversion if the defendant has complied with the imposed terms and conditions of diversion. By increasing the duties on local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to meet with each indeterminately sentenced inmate during the 6th year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date for the purpose of reviewing and documenting the inmate's activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. One year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date, existing law requires a panel of the board to meet with the inmate and to grant parole unless the panel or board sitting en banc determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the inmate. In certain circumstances, the board will conduct an en banc review, defined as a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board, and existing law specifies how the en banc review is required to be conducted. Existing law authorizes the Governor to request a review of a decision by the board to grant or deny parole and, if a request has been made, existing law requires the request to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners, as specified. This bill would instead require that all commissioners participate in an en banc review and a request for review made by the Governor. The bill would also require the en banc review decision and the vote of each commissioner to be a public record. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend. Existing law authorizes certain state bodies to hold closed session meetings for certain purposes, including allowing a state body to hold a closed session when considering and acting upon the determination of a term, parole, or release of any individual or other disposition of an individual case. This bill would prohibit an en banc review conducted by the board from being held in a closed session.
