Existing law authorizes a prisoner who was under 18 years of age at the time of committing an offense for which the prisoner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to submit a petition for recall and resentencing after he or she has served at least 15 years of his or her sentence. Existing law prohibits a prisoner who tortured his or her victim or whose victim was a public safety official, as defined, from filing a petition for recall and resentencing. Existing law establishes certain criteria, at least one of which shall be asserted in the petition, to be considered when a court decides whether to conduct a hearing on the petition for recall and resentencing and additional criteria to be considered by the court when deciding whether to grant the petition. Existing law requires the court to hold a hearing if the court finds that the statements in the defendant's petition are true, as specified, and grants the court discretion to recall and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if he or she had not previously been sentenced, provided that the new sentence, if any, is not greater than the initial sentence. If the sentence is not recalled, existing law permits the defendant to submit another petition for recall when the defendant has been committed to the custody of the department for at least 20 years, and if the sentence is not recalled at that hearing, existing law allows the defendant to file another petition after having served 24 years. This bill would instead authorize that prisoner to submit the petition for recall and resentencing after he or she has been incarcerated for 15 years. The bill would allow a defendant whose sentence was recalled, but who was resentenced to life without the possibility of parole, to make additional petitions as specified above. The bill would also require a court, if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the qualifying criteria are true, to recall the sentence previously ordered and hold a hearing to resentence the defendant. The bill would make other conforming changes. Under existing law, most felonies are punishable by a triad of terms of incarceration in the state prison, comprised of low, middle, and upper lengths of terms. Until January 1, 2017, the choice of the appropriate term that is to best serve the interests of justice rests within the sound discretion of the court. On and after January 1, 2017, existing law requires the court to impose the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime. This bill would extend to January 1, 2022, the authority of the court to, in its sound discretion, impose the appropriate term that best serves the interests of justice. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2022, require the court to impose the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1170 of the Penal Code, proposed by AB 2590, that would become operative only if this bill and AB 2590 are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered last.
Sponsored bills
Existing law prohibits an employer from refusing to allow a female employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave for a reasonable time of up to 4 months before returning to work. Existing law also prohibits an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes that leave, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from refusing, as specified, to allow an employee with more than 12 months of service with the employer, and who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, to take up to 6 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child's birth, adoption, or foster care placement. The bill would also prohibit an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes this leave. The provisions of the bill would become operative on January 1, 2018.
Existing law defines rape and spousal rape as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under specified circumstances indicating a lack of consent, force, or duress, as specified. Existing law additionally makes various acts, including sodomy and oral copulation without consent or sexual intercourse with a minor, unlawful as sexual assault. This bill would state the findings of the Legislature that all forms of nonconsensual sexual assault may be considered rape for purposes of the gravity of the offense and the support of survivors and would state that this is declarative of existing law.
(1) Under existing law, the segments of postsecondary education in this state include the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges. Existing law authorizes the governing board of each community college district and the Trustees of the California State University to employ persons in academic and administrative positions in order to carry out the functions of their respective institutions. The California Constitution provides that the University of California constitutes a public trust administered by the Regents of the University of California, a corporation in the form of a board, with full powers of organization and government, subject to legislative control only for specified purposes. This bill would require the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University, and the community college district governing boards to require as part of the hiring process for an appointment to an academic or administrative position that the applicant disclose any final administrative decision, as defined, or final judicial decision, as defined, determining that the applicant committed sexual harassment. The bill would prohibit the University of California, the California State University, or a community college district from asking an applicant to disclose, orally or in writing, information concerning any final administrative decision or final judicial decision described above, including any inquiry about an applicable decision on any employment application, until it has determined that the applicant meets the minimum employment qualifications stated in the notice issued for the position. To the extent that these provisions would impose new requirements on community college district governing boards, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program. (2) 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 these statutory provisions.
Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, among other things provides for the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons by the Medical Board of California. Under existing law, the board's responsibilities include enforcement of the disciplinary and criminal provisions of the act. Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, including early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment for any individual under 21 years of age. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law establishes a statewide system of child welfare services, administered by the State Department of Social Services, with the intent that all children are entitled to be safe and free from abuse and neglect. This bill would, until January 1, 2027, require the State Department of Health Care Services and the State Department of Social Services, pursuant to a specified data-sharing agreement, to provide the Medical Board of California with information regarding Medi-Cal physicians and their prescribing patterns of psychotropic medications and related services for specified children and minors placed in foster care using data provided by the State Department of Health Care Services and the State Department of Social Services, as prescribed. The bill would require that the data concerning psychotropic medications and related services be drawn from existing data sources maintained by the departments and shared pursuant to a data-sharing agreement and would require that, every 5 years, the board, the State Department of Health Care Services, and the State Department of Social Services consult and revise the methodology, if determined to be necessary. The bill would require the board to contract for consulting services from, if available, a psychiatrist who has expertise and specializes in pediatric care for the purpose of reviewing the data provided to the board. Commencing July 1, 2017, the bill would require the board to report annually to the Legislature, the State Department of Health Care Services, and the State Department of Social Services the results of the analysis of the data. The bill would, until January 1, 2027, require the board to review the data in order to determine if any potential violations of law or excessive prescribing of psychotropic medications inconsistent with the standard of care exist and conduct an investigation, if warranted, and would require the board to take disciplinary action, as specified. The bill would require the board, on or before January 1, 2022, to conduct an internal review of those activities and to revise procedures relating to those activities, if determined to be necessary. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services to disseminate treatment guidelines on an annual basis through its existing communications with Medi-Cal providers, as specified. The bill would require the board to handle on a priority basis investigations of repeated acts of excessive prescribing, furnishing, or administering psychotropic medications to a minor, as specified.
Existing law prohibits a person who has been convicted of a felony involving bribery, embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes, from being considered a candidate for, or elected to, a state or local elective office. Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, provides that campaign funds under the control of a former candidate or elected officer are considered surplus campaign funds at a prescribed time, and it prohibits the use of surplus campaign funds except for specified purposes. This bill would prohibit an officeholder who is convicted of one of those enumerated felonies from using funds held by that officeholder's candidate controlled committee for purposes other than certain purposes permitted for the use of surplus campaign funds. The bill would also require the officeholder to forfeit any remaining funds held 6 months after the conviction became final, and it would direct those funds to be deposited in the General Fund. The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified. A violation of the act's provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, 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. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.
Under existing law, a candidate for nonpartisan office who receives votes on the majority of all ballots cast at a primary election is elected to that office, and the office does not appear on the ballot in the ensuing general election. Existing law prescribes which candidates appear on the ballot in the ensuing general election if no candidate has been elected pursuant to this provision, or if the number of candidates elected at the primary election is less than the total number to be elected to that office. Under existing law, these provisions do not apply to elections to fill certain enumerated offices. This bill would apply these provisions, upon approval by a jurisdiction's voters, to the nomination of officers for any jurisdiction not formed for municipal purposes, officers for general law cities, and school district officers, except as specified. Existing law provides procedures for the election of candidates for elective offices in cities, counties, and local educational agencies. Existing law specifies the circumstances in which voters in these jurisdictions may elect officers at large or from or by district. Existing law prescribes the length of various terms of office for locally elected officials. This bill would authorize a city, county, or local educational agency to conduct an election using ranked choice voting, in which voters rank the candidates for office in order of preference, as specified. This bill would specify the procedures for conducting an election using ranked choice voting as it applies to both a single-winner election and a multiple-winner election.
Existing law allows every person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his or her liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of his or her imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted for, but not limited to, false evidence that is substantially material or probative to the issue of guilt or punishment that was introduced at trial and false physical evidence which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty of the person. This bill would additionally allow a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis of new evidence that is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial. Existing law requires the California Victim Compensation Board to recommend an appropriation be made by the Legislature for the purpose of indemnifying a person if the evidence shows that a crime with which the person was charged was either not committed at all, or, if committed, was not committed by that person. Existing law requires that the appropriation recommended shall be a sum equivalent to $140 per day of incarceration served. If a court grants a writ of habeas corpus or vacates a judgment on the basis of new evidence and finds that the new evidence points unerringly to innocence, existing law requires the board to recommend an appropriation to the Legislature pursuant to these provisions without a hearing. This bill would require the board, without a hearing, to recommend an appropriation to the Legislature if the court finds that the person is factually innocent. The bill would make additional clarifying and technical changes.
Existing law requires the electronic recording of the entire custodial interrogation of a minor who is in a fixed place of detention, as defined, and who, at the time of the interrogation, is suspected of committing or accused of committing murder. Existing law sets forth various exceptions from this requirement, including if the law enforcement officer conducting the interrogation or his or her superior reasonably believes that electronic recording would disclose the identity of a confidential informant or jeopardize the safety of an officer, the individual being interrogated, or another individual. Existing law requires the prosecution to show by clear and convincing evidence that an exception applies to justify the failure to make that electronic recording. Existing law requires the interrogating entity to maintain the original or an exact copy of an electronic recording made of the interrogation until the final conclusion of the proceedings, as specified. Existing law additionally requires the court to provide jury instructions developed by the Judicial Council if the court finds that a defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation in violation of the above-mentioned provisions. This bill would make this electronic recording requirement applicable to the custodial interrogation of any person suspected of committing murder. By imposing new requirements on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exempt from the electronic recording requirement the interrogation of a person who is in custody on a charge of murder if the interrogation is not related to the commission of murder, as specified. Existing law defines "electronic recording" for these provisions as a video recording that accurately records a custodial interrogation. This bill would specify that the above definition applies only to the custodial interrogation of a minor. The bill would expand the definition to include a video or audio recording in the case of the custodial interrogation of an adult and would express the Legislature's encouragement that law enforcement agencies use video recording when available. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to the above provisions. 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 these statutory provisions.
Existing law provides legislative findings and declarations that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment and that the elimination of disparity and the provision of uniformity of sentences can best be achieved by determinate sentences fixed by statute in proportion to the seriousness of the offense, as specified. Existing law further provides that, notwithstanding those provisions, the Legislature finds and declares that programs should be available for inmates, including, but not limited to, educational programs, that are designed to prepare nonviolent felony offenders for successful reentry into the community. Existing law encourages the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to give priority enrollment in programs to promote successful return to the community to inmates with short remaining terms of commitment, as specified. This bill would instead make legislative findings and declarations that the purpose of sentencing is public safety achieved through punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. The bill would amend the above legislative findings and declarations to remove the provision relating to determinate sentences and to state that educational, rehabilitative, and restorative justice programs should be available, as specified, and would encourage the department to allow all eligible inmates the opportunity to enroll in programs that promote successful return to the community. This bill would also direct the department to establish a mission statement consistent with the principles described in the legislative findings and declarations. Under existing law, most felonies are punishable by a triad of terms of incarceration in the state prison, comprised of low, middle, and upper lengths of terms. Until January 1, 2017, the choice of the appropriate term that is to best serve the interests of justice rests within the sound discretion of the court. On and after January 1, 2017, existing law requires the court to impose the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime. This bill would extend to January 1, 2022, the authority of the court to, in its sound discretion, impose the appropriate term that best serves the interests of justice. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2022, require the court to impose the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1170 of the Penal Code, proposed by SB 1084, that would become operative only if this bill and SB 1084 are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered last.