Existing law authorizes a court to resentence a defendant under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the person was convicted of specified crimes that have since been repealed or had their sentences reduced.

This bill would require the presiding judge of each county superior court to, on or before March 1, 2025, convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings, as specified. The bill would require the presiding judge to invite to the meeting, among others, a representative from the district attorney, the public defender, and other entities that the presiding judge deems necessary in order to ensure timely and efficient postconviction proceedings. The bill would require postconviction proceedings, among other things, to include a consideration of whether or not to appoint counsel to represent the defendant and to allow the court to modify every aspect of the defendants sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea, except as specified. By imposing additional duties on county public defenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require, upon request from the defendant, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide to the requesting party specified records, including disciplinary records, as specified. The bill would require the department to designate a person for each prison as a point of contact for records, transportation, or inquiries pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require the department to regularly maintain a public directory of each designated person.

Existing law, when a probationary order or a judgment has been pronounced, requires that a copy of that order or judgment be sent to the officer whose duty it is to execute the order or judgment, as specified.

This bill would, when a person has been resentenced and there is a reasonable basis to believe the remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, require that copy to be furnished to the executing officer within 24 hours.

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 authorizes a court to resentence a defendant under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the person was convicted of specified crimes that have since been repealed or had their sentences reduced.

This bill would require the presiding judge of each county superior court to, on or before March 1, 2025, convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings, as specified. The bill would require the presiding judge to invite to the meeting, among others, a representative from the district attorney, the public defender, and other entities that the presiding judge deems necessary in order to ensure timely and efficient postconviction proceedings. The bill would require postconviction proceedings, among other things, to include a consideration of whether or not to appoint counsel to represent the defendant and to allow the court to modify every aspect of the defendants sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea, except as specified. By imposing additional duties on county public defenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require, upon request from the defendant, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide to the requesting party specified records, including disciplinary records, as specified. The bill would require the department to designate a person for each prison as a point of contact for records, transportation, or inquiries pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require the department to regularly maintain a public directory of each designated person.

Existing law, when a probationary order or a judgment has been pronounced, requires that a copy of that order or judgment be sent to the officer whose duty it is to execute the order or judgment, as specified.

This bill would, when a person has been resentenced and there is a reasonable basis to believe the remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, require that copy to be furnished to the executing officer within 24 hours.

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 authorizes a court to resentence a defendant under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the person was convicted of specified crimes that have since been repealed or had their sentences reduced.

This bill would require the presiding judge of each county superior court to, on or before March 1, 2025, convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings, as specified. The bill would require the presiding judge to invite to the meeting, among others, a representative from the district attorney, the public defender, and other entities that the presiding judge deems necessary in order to ensure timely and efficient postconviction proceedings. The bill would require postconviction proceedings, among other things, to include a consideration of whether or not to appoint counsel to represent the defendant and to allow the court to modify every aspect of the defendants sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea, except as specified. By imposing additional duties on county public defenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require, upon request from the defendant, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide to the requesting party specified records, including disciplinary records, within 30 days of the request. as specified. The bill would require the department to designate a person at for each prison who is responsible for managing postconviction proceedings, including providing records to parties and courts, and facilitating transportation to resentencing hearings. as a point of contact for records, transportation, or inquiries pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require the department to regularly maintain a public directory of each designated person.

Existing law, when a probationary order or a judgment has been pronounced, requires that a copy of that order or judgment be sent to the officer whose duty it is to execute the order or judgment, as specified.

This bill would, when a person has been resentenced and there is a reasonable basis to believe the remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, require that copy to be furnished to the executing officer within 24 hours.

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 authorizes a court to resentence a defendant under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the person was convicted of specified crimes that have since been repealed or had their sentences reduced.

This bill would require the presiding judge of each county superior court to, on or before March 1, 2025, convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings, as specified. The bill would require that meeting to include, the presiding judge to invite to the meeting, among others, a representative from the district attorney, the public defender, and other entities that the presiding judge deems necessary in order to ensure timely and efficient postconviction proceedings. By imposing additional duties on local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require postconviction proceedings, among other things, to include a consideration of whether or not to appoint counsel to represent the defendant and to allow the court to modify every aspect of the defendants sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea, except as specified. By imposing additional duties on county public defenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require, upon request from the defendant, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide specified records, including disciplinary records, within 30 days of the request. The bill would require the department to designate a person at each prison who is responsible for managing postconviction proceedings, including providing records to parties and courts, and facilitating transportation to resentencing hearings. The bill would require the department to regularly maintain a public directory of each designated person.

Existing law, when a probationary order or a judgment has been pronounced, requires that a copy of that order or judgment be sent to the officer whose duty it is to execute the order or judgment, as specified.

This bill would, when a person has been resentenced and there is a reasonable basis to believe the remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, require that copy to be furnished to the executing officer within 24 hours.

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 authorizes a court to resentence a defendant under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the person was convicted of specified crimes that have since been repealed or had their sentences reduced.

This bill would require the presiding judge of each county superior court to, on or before March 1, 2025, convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings, as specified. The bill would require that meeting to include, among others, a representative from the district attorney, public defender, department of probation, and sheriff. and other entities that the presiding judge deems necessary in order to ensure timely and efficient postconviction proceedings. By imposing additional duties on local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require postconviction proceedings, among other things, to include a consideration of whether or not to appoint counsel to represent the petitioner defendant and to allow the court to modify every aspect of the petitioners defendants sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea, except as specified. By imposing additional duties on county public defenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, when a probationary order or a judgment has been pronounced, requires that a copy of that order or judgment be sent to the officer whose duty it is to execute the order or judgment, as specified.

This bill would, when a person has been resentenced and their expected there is a reasonable basis to believe the remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, require that copy to be furnished to the executing officer within 24 hours.

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 authorizes a court to resentence a defendant under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the person was convicted of specified crimes that have since been repealed or had their sentences reduced.

This bill would require the presiding judge of each county superior court to, on or before March 1, 2025, convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings, as specified. The bill would require that meeting to include, among others, a representative from the district attorney, public defender, department of probation, and sheriff. By imposing additional duties on local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require postconviction proceedings, among other things, to include a consideration of whether or not to appoint counsel to represent the petitioner and to allow the court to modify every aspect of the petitioners sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea, except as specified. By imposing additional duties on county public defenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, when a probationary order or a judgment has been pronounced, requires that a copy of that order or judgment be sent to the officer whose duty it is to execute the order or judgment, as specified.

This bill would, when a person has been resentenced and their expected remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, require that copy to be furnished to the executing officer within 24 hours.

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 authorizes a court to resentence a defendant under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the person was convicted of specified crimes that have since been repealed or had their sentences reduced.

This bill would require the presiding judge of each county superior court to, on or before March 1, 2025, convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings, as specified. The bill would require that meeting to include, among others, a representative from the district attorney, public defender, department of probation, and sheriff. By imposing additional duties on local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require postconviction proceedings, among other things, to include a consideration of whether or not to appoint counsel to represent the petitioner and to allow the court to modify every aspect of the petitioners sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea, except as specified. By imposing additional duties on county public defenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, when a probationary order or a judgment has been pronounced, requires that a copy of that order or judgment be sent to the officer whose duty it is to execute the order or judgment, as specified.

This bill would, when a person has been resentenced and their expected remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, require that copy to be furnished to the executing officer within 24 hours.

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.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2483

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:August 15, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Sets uniform statewide standards for postconviction proceedings.

Senate Amendments

1. Requires CDCR, upon the request of the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was convicted, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case, to provide specified records to the requesting party.
2. Extends that timeframe for the provision of requested records from 30 to 45 days for records requests submitted on or after January 1, 2026, unless the requestor agrees to extend the period.
3. Requires CDCR, of it has in its possession relevant records it has determined are confidential under its regulations, to redact such portions before producing the records to the requestor.
4. Provides that any party may file a motion with the court presiding over a postconviction proceeding seeking disclosure of anything redacted, as specified.
5. Provides that, in addition to the parties required to be served such a motion, service is required upon CDCR through the person designated, as specified.
6. Requires the court to determine whether good cause exists for in-camera review of the redacted material; and, if the court determines that good cause exists for in-camera review, requires CDCR to provide the unredacted material for in-camera review within seven days.
7. Requires the court, after an in-camera review, to order disclosure of any redacted material that may be relevant to the postconviction proceeding and issue an appropriate protective order limiting the use and scope of the disclosure.
8. Requires each party, to protect personal privacy and other legitimate interests, to redact sensitive information as required by state and federal law and rules of court from all pleadings and other papers filed in the court's public file, whether filed in paper or electronic form, under this section.
9. Requires CDCR promulgate regulations to implement the above, as specified.
10. Clarifies that CDCR must designate a person for each prison as a point of contact for records, transportation, or inquiries, as specified.
11. Provides that the provisions of this bill do not diminish the ability of the prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding.
12. Provides that the provisions of this bill shall not be interpreted to authorize anything prohibited by an initiative statute.

COMMENTS

As Passed by The Assembly, this bill:

1. Required the following to apply to all postconviction proceedings, except in cases where there is a conflict with a more specific statute:
   1. Upon receiving a petition to begin a postconviction proceeding, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the petitioner;
   2. The court may consider any pertinent circumstances that have arisen since the sentence was imposed and has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the petitioner's sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea;
   3. Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement;
   4. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its decision to grant or deny the initial petition and shall provide notice to the petitioner of its decision;
   5. After ruling on a petition, the court shall advise the petitioner of their right to appeal and the necessary steps and time for taking an appeal;
   6. The parties may waive a resentencing hearing. If the hearing is not waived, the resentencing hearing may be conducted remotely through the use of remote technology, if the petitioner agrees.
   7. If a victim wishes to be heard, the victim shall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard.
   8. Upon request from the petitioner's attorney, the CDCR shall promptly make available any institutional records to the attorney that will assist the court's determination in the postconviction proceeding; and,
   9. Requires, when a person has been resentenced and their expected remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, a copy of the order and a Criminal Investigation and Identification (CII) number to be furnished to the executing officer within 24 hours.
2. Required, on or before March 1, 2025, the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings.
3. Required, at a minimum, the meeting to include a representative from the district attorney, the public defender or other representative of indigent defense services, the department of probation, the sheriffs, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and the clerk of the court's office.
4. Provided that, at the meeting, the presiding judge or their designee shall determine how postconviction proceedings will be assigned to individual judges, including whether they will take place before the original sentencing judge or designated judge.
5. Allowed the presiding judge to set further meetings at their discretion.
6. Made Legislative findings and declarations.

According to the Author

"Second look' sentencing authorizes courts to revisit criminal sentences. Over the past few years, the CDCR Secretary and District Attorneys have begun using their resentencing authority more frequently, and as we continue to make positive changes to this area of the law, new implementation barriers are presented. For example, there are no general procedures to follow for resentencing — and each new reform comes with its own distinct rules — resulting in wide variation and inefficiency across the state in how resentencing cases are handled. AB 2483 follows the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code's recommendations by setting statewide guidelines to ensure efficient and equitable resentencing procedures."

Arguments in Support

According to Initiate Justice, a sponsor of this bill, "Over the past decade, California has passed several ameliorative reforms that have allowed thousands of incarcerated people to return to court to have their sentences reconsidered. However, each new reform carried different or undefined procedural rules that has resulted in variation and inefficiency across the state in how these resentencings are handled. To avoid unnecessary litigation and delay, minimum procedures should apply to all resentencings.

"Under AB 2483 (Ting), stakeholders including judges, public defenders, and members of law enforcement would be required to collaborate and develop a plan to efficiently handle resentencings. The creation of collaborative workgroups lead to greater consistency and efficiency in the implementation of Proposition 36 in San Diego county. This approach will save costs and allow the spirit of ameliorative laws to be implemented soundly.

"CDCR can greatly improve the efficiency of resentencings by promptly providing institutional records needed to assist court's determinations in these hearings. Attorneys rely on CDCR to provide necessary records including information on an incarcerated persons's behavior and progress while in prison. Resentencings in federal courts have operated more smoothly despite encountering similar problems to state courts like California in part because of assistance from prison administrators in obtaining critical records.

"Other key provisions of the bill include ensuring that cases resolved by plea bargaining are expressly allowed under resentencings, and requiring abstracts of judgments are promptly transmitted to CDCR and acted upon. To be clear, AB 2483 (Ting) does not make resentencings automatic and it does not prohibit prosecutors from making arguments in court. The bill simply streamlines resentencings by establishing minimum procedures that will reduce costs and ensure uniformity in resentencings."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), "This bill through proposed Penal Code section 1171 seeks to impose a generalized framework as to any ameliorative post-conviction statute potentially creating greater inconsistency, inefficiencies, and confusion where there already exist distinct mechanisms for relief under these statutes. This bill also removes the ability for the DA and the Court to rescind a plea agreement in all ameliorative resentencings."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Significant ongoing costs (General Fund) to the California Department of Corrections and Retaliation (CDCR), likely in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars annually. CDCR anticipates a significant fiscal impact from this bill. Specifically, while this bill is specific to information provided to a defendant's attorney, there are many parties potentially involved in requesting information during a postconviction proceedings. While Litigation Coordinators at institutions are points of contact for these requests, based on the timelines and responsibilities in the bill, the department will likely need additional positions to assist institutions fulfill the requirements.
2. Minor and absorbable workload costs to courts to convene the planning meeting required by the bill. Possible future cost savings to the courts to the extent this bill reduces inefficiency in court proceedings and litigation on postconviction cases, as described in more detail below.
3. Likely nonreimbursable costs to county public defender offices. By requiring a court to consider appointing counsel for each postconviction petition, this bill will likely significantly increase the number of public defenders or other indigent counsel appointed to represent postconviction petitioners. However, the Commission on State Mandates has previously determined that county public defender costs incurred for resentencing proceedings are not reimbursable by the state because the proceedings pertain to the change of a penalty for a crime.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0-16

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Papan, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bains, Cervantes, Chen, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Muratsuchi, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Luz Rivas, Sanchez, Soria

SENATE FLOOR: 26-9-5

YES: Allen, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener

NO: Archuleta, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Seyarto, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Glazer, Min, Ochoa Bogh, Roth

UPDATED

VERSION: August 15, 2024

CONSULTANT: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004923

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2483

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:August 15, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Sets uniform statewide standards for postconviction proceedings.

Senate Amendments

1. Requires CDCR, upon the request of the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was convicted, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case, to provide specified records to the requesting party.
2. Extends that timeframe for the provision of requested records from 30 to 45 days for records requests submitted on or after January 1, 2026, unless the requestor agrees to extend the period.
3. Requires CDCR, of it has in its possession relevant records it has determined are confidential under its regulations, to redact such portions before producing the records to the requestor.
4. Provides that any party may file a motion with the court presiding over a postconviction proceeding seeking disclosure of anything redacted, as specified.
5. Provides that, in addition to the parties required to be served such a motion, service is required upon CDCR through the person designated, as specified.
6. Requires the court to determine whether good cause exists for in-camera review of the redacted material; and, if the court determines that good cause exists for in-camera review, requires CDCR to provide the unredacted material for in-camera review within seven days.
7. Requires the court, after an in-camera review, to order disclosure of any redacted material that may be relevant to the postconviction proceeding and issue an appropriate protective order limiting the use and scope of the disclosure.
8. Requires each party, to protect personal privacy and other legitimate interests, to redact sensitive information as required by state and federal law and rules of court from all pleadings and other papers filed in the court's public file, whether filed in paper or electronic form, under this section.
9. Requires CDCR promulgate regulations to implement the above, as specified.
10. Clarifies that CDCR must designate a person for each prison as a point of contact for records, transportation, or inquiries, as specified.
11. Provides that the provisions of this bill do not diminish the ability of the prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding.
12. Provides that the provisions of this bill shall not be interpreted to authorize anything prohibited by an initiative statute.

COMMENTS

As Passed by The Assembly, this bill:

1. Required the following to apply to all postconviction proceedings, except in cases where there is a conflict with a more specific statute:
   1. Upon receiving a petition to begin a postconviction proceeding, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the petitioner;
   2. The court may consider any pertinent circumstances that have arisen since the sentence was imposed and has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the petitioner's sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea;
   3. Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement;
   4. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its decision to grant or deny the initial petition and shall provide notice to the petitioner of its decision;
   5. After ruling on a petition, the court shall advise the petitioner of their right to appeal and the necessary steps and time for taking an appeal;
   6. The parties may waive a resentencing hearing. If the hearing is not waived, the resentencing hearing may be conducted remotely through the use of remote technology, if the petitioner agrees.
   7. If a victim wishes to be heard, the victim shall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard.
   8. Upon request from the petitioner's attorney, the CDCR shall promptly make available any institutional records to the attorney that will assist the court's determination in the postconviction proceeding; and,
   9. Requires, when a person has been resentenced and their expected remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, a copy of the order and a Criminal Investigation and Identification (CII) number to be furnished to the executing officer within 24 hours.
2. Required, on or before March 1, 2025, the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings.
3. Required, at a minimum, the meeting to include a representative from the district attorney, the public defender or other representative of indigent defense services, the department of probation, the sheriffs, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and the clerk of the court's office.
4. Provided that, at the meeting, the presiding judge or their designee shall determine how postconviction proceedings will be assigned to individual judges, including whether they will take place before the original sentencing judge or designated judge.
5. Allowed the presiding judge to set further meetings at their discretion.
6. Made Legislative findings and declarations.

According to the Author

"Second look' sentencing authorizes courts to revisit criminal sentences. Over the past few years, the CDCR Secretary and District Attorneys have begun using their resentencing authority more frequently, and as we continue to make positive changes to this area of the law, new implementation barriers are presented. For example, there are no general procedures to follow for resentencing — and each new reform comes with its own distinct rules — resulting in wide variation and inefficiency across the state in how resentencing cases are handled. AB 2483 follows the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code's recommendations by setting statewide guidelines to ensure efficient and equitable resentencing procedures."

Arguments in Support

According to Initiate Justice, a sponsor of this bill, "Over the past decade, California has passed several ameliorative reforms that have allowed thousands of incarcerated people to return to court to have their sentences reconsidered. However, each new reform carried different or undefined procedural rules that has resulted in variation and inefficiency across the state in how these resentencings are handled. To avoid unnecessary litigation and delay, minimum procedures should apply to all resentencings.

"Under AB 2483 (Ting), stakeholders including judges, public defenders, and members of law enforcement would be required to collaborate and develop a plan to efficiently handle resentencings. The creation of collaborative workgroups lead to greater consistency and efficiency in the implementation of Proposition 36 in San Diego county. This approach will save costs and allow the spirit of ameliorative laws to be implemented soundly.

"CDCR can greatly improve the efficiency of resentencings by promptly providing institutional records needed to assist court's determinations in these hearings. Attorneys rely on CDCR to provide necessary records including information on an incarcerated persons's behavior and progress while in prison. Resentencings in federal courts have operated more smoothly despite encountering similar problems to state courts like California in part because of assistance from prison administrators in obtaining critical records.

"Other key provisions of the bill include ensuring that cases resolved by plea bargaining are expressly allowed under resentencings, and requiring abstracts of judgments are promptly transmitted to CDCR and acted upon. To be clear, AB 2483 (Ting) does not make resentencings automatic and it does not prohibit prosecutors from making arguments in court. The bill simply streamlines resentencings by establishing minimum procedures that will reduce costs and ensure uniformity in resentencings."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), "This bill through proposed Penal Code section 1171 seeks to impose a generalized framework as to any ameliorative post-conviction statute potentially creating greater inconsistency, inefficiencies, and confusion where there already exist distinct mechanisms for relief under these statutes. This bill also removes the ability for the DA and the Court to rescind a plea agreement in all ameliorative resentencings."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Significant ongoing costs (General Fund) to the California Department of Corrections and Retaliation (CDCR), likely in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars annually. CDCR anticipates a significant fiscal impact from this bill. Specifically, while this bill is specific to information provided to a defendant's attorney, there are many parties potentially involved in requesting information during a postconviction proceedings. While Litigation Coordinators at institutions are points of contact for these requests, based on the timelines and responsibilities in the bill, the department will likely need additional positions to assist institutions fulfill the requirements.
2. Minor and absorbable workload costs to courts to convene the planning meeting required by the bill. Possible future cost savings to the courts to the extent this bill reduces inefficiency in court proceedings and litigation on postconviction cases, as described in more detail below.
3. Likely nonreimbursable costs to county public defender offices. By requiring a court to consider appointing counsel for each postconviction petition, this bill will likely significantly increase the number of public defenders or other indigent counsel appointed to represent postconviction petitioners. However, the Commission on State Mandates has previously determined that county public defender costs incurred for resentencing proceedings are not reimbursable by the state because the proceedings pertain to the change of a penalty for a crime.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0-16

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Papan, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bains, Cervantes, Chen, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Muratsuchi, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Luz Rivas, Sanchez, Soria

SENATE FLOOR: 26-9-5

YES: Allen, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener

NO: Archuleta, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Seyarto, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Glazer, Min, Ochoa Bogh, Roth

UPDATED

VERSION: August 15, 2024

CONSULTANT: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004923

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2483

Author: Ting (D)

Amended: 8/15/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/18/24

AYES: Wahab, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NOES: Jones

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 5/21/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Postconviction proceedings

SOURCE: Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code

DIGEST:

This bill sets uniform statewide standards for postconviction proceedings.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that the purpose of sentencing for crime is public safety achieved through punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. When a sentence includes incarceration, this purpose is best served by terms that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offense under similar circumstances. (Penal Code § 1170 (a)(1).)
2. Provides that when a defendant has been sentenced to be imprisoned, the court may, within 120 days of the date of commitment on its own motion, or at any time if the sentencing laws changed, as specified, recall the sentence and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(1).)
3. Authorizes the court also to recall and resentence at any time upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) in the case of persons incarcerated in state prison, the county correctional administrator in the case of persons in county jail, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General (AG) if the Department of Justice (DOJ) initially prosecuted the case. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(1).)
4. Provides that the new sentence cannot be greater than the initial sentence. (Penal Code, § 1172.1 (a)(1).)
5. Requires the court, in recalling and resentencing, to apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and many changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity and to promote uniformity of sentences. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(2).)
6. States 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:
   
   1. Reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment by modifying the sentence; or
      
   2. Vacate the defendant’s conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense, whether or not that offense was charged in the original pleading, and then resentence the defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment, with the concurrence of both the defendant and the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the AG if the DOJ originally prosecuted the case. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(3).)
      
7. Requires the court to consider post-conviction factors, including, but not limited to, the incarcerated person’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced their risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that the person’s continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice. (Penal Code, § 1172.1 (a)(5).)
8. Requires the court, to consider if the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence, if the defendant was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking prior to or at the time of the commission of the offense, or if the defendant is a youth or was a youth, as defined, at the time of the commission of the offense, and whether those circumstances were a contributing factor in the commission of the offense. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(5).)
9. States that resentencing may be granted without a hearing upon stipulation of the parties. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(7).
10. Provides that, if a victim wishes to be heard, the victim shall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(2)(8)(B).)
11. Provides that if a hearing is held, the defendant may appear remotely and the court may conduct the hearing through the use of remote technology, unless counsel requests their physical presence in court. (Penal Code § 1172.1(a)(8).)
12. Provides that if a resentencing request is from CDCR, BPH, a county correctional administrator, a district attorney, or the AG, the court must provide notice to the defendant and set a status conference within 30 days after the date that the court received the request and appoint counsel to represent the defendant. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (b).)
13. States that in order to preserve a victims’ right to due process and justice, the victim is, among other things, entitled to reasonable notice of all parole or other post-conviction release proceedings, as well as to be present at these proceedings and the right to be heard, upon request, at any proceeding, including sentencing, a post-conviction release decision, or any proceeding in which a right of the victim is at issue. (Cal. Const., art. I § 28(b)(7)-(8) & (15).)
14. Requires when a judgment has been pronounced, a copy of the judgment and a CII number to be forthwith furnished to the officer whose duty it is to execute the judgment. (Penal Code § 1213(a).)
    

This bill:

1. Requires the following to apply to all postconviction proceedings, except in cases where there is a conflict with a more specific statute:
   
   1. Upon receiving a petition to begin a postconviction proceeding that is authorized by law, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the defendant. This does not prevent the court from assigning counsel at a later time;
      
   2. The court shall consider any pertinent circumstances that have arisen since the sentence was imposed and has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea;
   3. Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement;
      
   4. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its decision to grant or deny the initial request to begin a postconviction proceeding and shall provide notice to the defendant of its decision;
   5. After ruling on a petition, the court shall advise the defendant of their right to appeal and the necessary steps and time for taking an appeal;
   6. The parties may waive a hearing and proceed directly to the resentencing. A defendant may waive their personal presence at a resentencing hearing and may appear via remote technology. If a victim of a crime wishes to be heard pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution, or pursuant to any other provision of law applicable to the hearing, the victim hall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard;
   7. If a victim wishes to be heard, the victim shall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard.
      
2. Provides that it does not diminish the ability of a prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding.
3. Provides that it does not authorize anything prohibited by an initiative statute.
4. Provides that notwithstanding other laws, upon request from the defendant’s attorney, the district attorney of the county in which the person was sentenced, the Attorney General if they prosecuted the case, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall provide the defendant’s attorney a case summary, disciplinary records, programming records, chronos and any of the material the department deems relevant to a postconviction proceeding.
5. Provides that the records shall be provided within 45 days of the request by secure electronic format.
6. Does not diminish the ability of parties or the court to request additional records, which shall be provided by the department as soon as practicable.
7. Provides that if CDCR has relevant records it has determined are confidential under the department’s regulations they shall redact the records.
8. Provides that any party may file a motion with the court presiding over a postconviction proceeding seeking disclosure of anything redacted and the court shall determine whether there shall be an in-camera review and determine whether any documents relevant to post-conviction proceedings should be released.
9. Provides that this section does not diminish the ability
10. Requires, on or before March 1, 2025, the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings.
11. Requires, at a minimum, the meeting to include a representative from the district attorney, the public defender or other representative of indigent defense services, and other entities that the presiding judge deems necessary to ensure timely and efficient postconviction proceedings.
12. Provides that, at the meeting, the presiding judge or their designee shall determine how postconviction proceedings will be assigned to individual judges, including whether they will take place before the original sentencing judge or designated judge.
13. Allows the presiding judge to set further meetings at their discretion.
14. Provides when a person has been resentenced and there is a reasonable basis to believe the remaining time to serve in custody is less than 30 days, then the copy of the judgement shall be furnished to the executing officer within 24hours and may be furnished by electronic means.
15. Makes Legislative findings and declarations.

Background

According to the author:

“Second look” sentencing authorizes courts to revisit criminal sentences. Over the past few years, the CDCR Secretary and District Attorneys have begun using their resentencing authority more frequently, and as we continue to make positive changes to this area of the law, new implementation barriers are presented. For example, there are no general procedures to follow for resentencing — and each new reform comes with its own distinct rules — resulting in wide variation and inefficiency across the state in how resentencing cases are handled. AB 2483 follows the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code’s recommendations by setting statewide guidelines to ensure efficient and equitable resentencing procedures.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Significant ongoing costs (General Fund) to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), likely in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars annually. CDCR anticipates a significant fiscal impact from this bill. Specifically, while this bill is specific to information provided to a defendant’s attorney, there are many parties potentially involved in requesting information during a postconviction proceedings. While Litigation Coordinators at institutions are points of contact for these requests, based on the timelines and responsibilities in the bill, the department will likely need additional positions to assist institutions fulfill the requirements.
   
2. Minor and absorbable workload costs to courts to convene the planning meeting required by the bill. Possible future cost savings to the courts to the extent this bill reduces inefficiency in court proceedings and litigation on postconviction cases, as described in more detail below.
   
3. Likely nonreimbursable costs to county public defender offices. By requiring a court to consider appointing counsel for each postconviction petition, this bill will likely significantly increase the number of public defenders or other indigent counsel appointed to represent postconviction petitioners. However, the Commission on State Mandates has previously determined that county public defender costs incurred for resentencing proceedings are not reimbursable by the state because the proceedings pertain to the change of a penalty for a crime.
   

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/15/24)

Commission on the Revision of the Penal Code (source)

ACLU California Action
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
Aouon Orange County
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for A Responsible Budget
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Initiate Justice
Initiate Justice Action
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Prosecutors Alliance
Reform Alliance
Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy
Universidad Popular

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/15/24)

California District Attorneys Association
Sacramento County District Attorney's Office

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of this bill, Initiate Justice states:

Over the past decade, California has passed several ameliorative reforms that have allowed thousands of incarcerated people to return to court to have their sentences reconsidered. However, each new reform carried different or undefined procedural rules that has resulted in variation and inefficiency across the state in how these resentencings are handled. To avoid unnecessary litigation and delay, minimum procedures should apply to all resentencings.

Under AB 2483 (Ting), judges would be encouraged to meet with stakeholders like public defenders, and members of law enforcement to develop a plan to efficiently handle resentencings. The creation of collaborative workgroups lead to greater consistency and efficiency in the implementation of Proposition 361 in San Diego County. This approach will save costs and allow the spirit of ameliorative laws to be implemented soundly.

CDCR can greatly improve the efficiency of resentencings by promptly providing institutional records needed to assist court’s determinations in these hearings. Attorneys rely on CDCR to provide necessary records including information on an incarcerated person's behavior and progress while in prison. Resentencings in federal courts have operated more smoothly despite encountering similar problems to state courts like California in part because of assistance from prison administrators in obtaining critical records.

Other key provisions of the bill include ensuring that cases resolved by plea bargaining are expressly allowed under resentencings, and requiring abstracts of judgments are promptly transmitted to CDCR and acted upon. To be clear, AB 2483 (Ting) does not make resentencings automatic and it does not prohibit prosecutors from making arguments in court. The bill simply streamlines resentencings by establishing minimum procedures that will reduce costs and ensure uniformity in resentencings.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California District Attorneys oppose this bill stating:

On behalf of the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), I write to share CDAA’s opposition to AB 2483. This bill through proposed Penal Code section 1171 seeks to impose a generalized framework as to any ameliorative post-conviction statute potentially creating greater inconsistency, inefficiencies, and confusion where there already exist distinctmechanisms for relief under these statutes. This bill also removes the ability for the DA and the

Court to rescind a plea agreement in all ameliorative resentencings.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 5/21/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Papan, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bains, Cervantes, Chen, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Muratsuchi, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Luz Rivas, Sanchez, Soria

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

8/18/24 18:22:24

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2483 (Ting) - Postconviction proceedings

Bill Summary:

AB 2483 would sets uniform statewide standards for postconviction proceedings, as specified.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 15, 2024

Fiscal Impact:

• Significant ongoing costs (General Fund) to the California Department of Corrections and Retaliation (CDCR), likely in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars annually. CDCR anticipates a significant fiscal impact from this bill. Specifically, while this bill is specific to information provided to a defendant’s attorney, there are many parties potentially involved in requesting information during a postconviction proceedings. While Litigation Coordinators at institutions are points of contact for these requests, based on the timelines and responsibilities in the bill, the department will likely need additional positions to assist institutions fulfill the requirements.
  
• Minor and absorbable workload costs to courts to convene the planning meeting required by the bill. Possible future cost savings to the courts to the extent this bill reduces inefficiency in court proceedings and litigation on postconviction cases, as described in more detail below.
  
• Likely nonreimbursable costs to county public defender offices. By requiring a court to consider appointing counsel for each postconviction petition, this bill will likely significantly increase the number of public defenders or other indigent counsel appointed to represent postconviction petitioners. However, the Commission on State Mandates has previously determined that county public defender costs incurred for resentencing proceedings are not reimbursable by the state because the proceedings pertain to the change of a penalty for a crime.

Author Amendments:

The amendments allow CDCR to redact portions of confidential records, as specified. Parties can file a motion with the court for an in-camera review of such records, as specified. The amendments require CDCR to promulgate regulations to implement these provisions.

The amendments include the district attorney and Attorney General as parties that can request specified records, as specified. These amendments also extend the time to provide records from 30 days to 45 days of the request, unless the requestor agrees to extend the period.

The amendments clarify that the provisions do not diminish the ability of the prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding.

The amendments also make technical and clarifying changes.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2483 (Ting) - Postconviction proceedings

Bill Summary:

AB 2483 would sets uniform statewide standards for postconviction proceedings, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Significant ongoing costs (General Fund) to the California Department of Corrections and Retaliation (CDCR), likely in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars annually. CDCR anticipates a significant fiscal impact from this bill. Specifically, while this bill is specific to information provided to a defendant’s attorney, there are many parties potentially involved in requesting information during a postconviction proceedings. While Litigation Coordinators at institutions are points of contact for these requests, based on the timelines and responsibilities in the bill, the department will likely need additional positions to assist institutions fulfill the requirements.
  
• Minor and absorbable workload costs to courts to convene the planning meeting required by the bill. Possible future cost savings to the courts to the extent this bill reduces inefficiency in court proceedings and litigation on postconviction cases, as described in more detail below.
  
• Likely nonreimbursable costs to county public defender offices. By requiring a court to consider appointing counsel for each postconviction petition, this bill will likely significantly increase the number of public defenders or other indigent counsel appointed to represent postconviction petitioners. However, the Commission on State Mandates has previously determined that county public defender costs incurred for resentencing proceedings are not reimbursable by the state because the proceedings pertain to the change of a penalty for a crime.
  

Background:

The Committee on Revision of the Penal Code (CRPC) was established by Governor Newsom in 2020 to study the California Penal Code and recommend statutory reforms to simplify and rationalize the law and procedures, establish alternatives to incarceration that will aid in rehabilitation, and improve the parole and probation system. This bill is based on CRPC’s recommendations for standardizing criminal postconviction resentencing procedures. In its 2023 annual report, CRPC explained:

For more than a decade, California has allowed thousands of incarcerated people to return to court to have their sentences reconsidered. However, each new reform comes with different or undefined procedural rules which has resulted in variation and inefficiency across the state in how resentencings are handled.

CPRC’s report cites multiple examples of postconviction cases that resulted in lengthy appellate litigation because the courts either did not understand or disagreed about rules for postconviction court proceedings, resentencing options, and even whether certain resentencing petitions should be considered by the court. This bill establishes some basic, statewide procedures that every court must follow when considering an applicable postconviction petition. These provisions are intended to help ensure that postconviction proceedings are handled more consistently statewide.

Proposed Law:

• Requires the following to apply to all postconviction proceedings, except in cases where there is a conflict with a more specific statute:
  • Upon receiving a petition to begin a postconviction proceeding that is authorized by law, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the defendant. This does not prevent the court from assigning counsel at a later time;
  • The court shall consider any pertinent circumstances that have arisen since the sentence was imposed and has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea;
  • Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement;
  • The court shall state on the record the reasons for its decision to grant or deny the initial request to begin a postconviction proceeding and shall provide notice to the defendant of its decision;
  • After ruling on a petition, the court shall advise the defendant of their right to appeal and the necessary steps and time for taking an appeal;
  • The parties may waive a hearing and proceed directly to the resentencing. A defendant may waive their personal presence at a resentencing hearing and may appear via remote technology. If a victim of a crime wishes to be heard pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution, or pursuant to any other provision of law applicable to the hearing, the victim hall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard; and,
  • If a victim wishes to be heard, the victim shall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard.
• Provides that it does not diminish the ability of a prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding.
• Provides that it does not authorize anything prohibited by an initiative statute.
• Provides that notwithstanding other laws, upon request from the defendant’s attorney, the CDCR shall provide the defendant’s attorney a case summary, disciplinary records, programming records, chronos and any of the material the department deems relevant to a postconviction proceeding.
• Provides that the records shall be provided within 30 days of the request by secure electronic format.
• Provides that it does not diminish the ability of parties or the court to request additional records, which shall be provided by CDCR as soon as practicable.
• Requires, on or before March 1, 2025, the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings.
• Requires, at a minimum, the meeting to include a representative from the district attorney, the public defender or other representative of indigent defense services, and other entities that the presiding judge deems necessary to ensure timely and efficient postconviction proceedings.
• Provides that, at the meeting, the presiding judge or their designee shall determine how postconviction proceedings will be assigned to individual judges, including whether they will take place before the original sentencing judge or designated judge.
• Allows the presiding judge to set further meetings at their discretion.
• Provides when a person has been resentenced and there is a reasonable basis to believe the remaining time to serve in custody is less than 30 days, then the copy of the judgement shall be furnished to the executing officer within 24hours and may be furnished by electronic means.
• Makes Legislative findings and declarations.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 2483 Hearing Date: June 18, 2024

Subject: Postconviction proceedings

HISTORY

Source: Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code

Prior Legislation: AB 600 (Ting), Ch. 446, Stats. 2023

AB 200 (Committee on Budget), Ch. 58, Stats. 2022

AB 124 (Kamlger), Ch. 695, Stats. 2021

AB 1540 (Ting), Ch. 719, Stats. 2021

AB 2942 (Ting), Ch. 1001, Stats. 2018

AB 1156 (Brown), Ch. 378, Stats. 2015

Support: ACLU California Action; Alliance for Boys and Men of Color; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Public Defenders Association; Californians United for a Responsible Budget; Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice; Ella Baker Center for Human Justice; Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation; Felony Murder Elimination Project; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Initiate Justice; Initiate Justice Action; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Prosecutors Alliance; Reform Alliance; Smart Justice California

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 64 - 0

PURPOSE

This bill sets uniform statewide standards for postconviction proceedings

Existing law provides that the purpose of sentencing for crime is public safety achieved through punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. When a sentence includes incarceration, this purpose is best served by terms that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offense under similar circumstances. (Penal Code § 1170 (a)(1).)

Existing law provides that when a defendant has been sentenced to be imprisoned, the court may, within 120 days of the date of commitment on its own motion, or at any time if the sentencing laws changed, as specified, recall the sentence and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(1).)

Existing law authorizes the court also to recall and resentence at any time upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the CDCR or the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) in the case of persons incarcerated in state prison, the county correctional administrator in the case of persons in county jail, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General (AG) if the Department of Justice (DOJ) initially prosecuted the case. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(1).)

Existing law provides that the new sentence cannot be greater than the initial sentence. (Penal Code, § 1172.1 (a)(1).)

Existing law requires the court, in recalling and resentencing, to apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and many changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity and to promote uniformity of sentences. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(2).)

Existing law states 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:

• 1. Reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment by modifying the sentence; or
     
  2. Vacate the defendant’s conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense, whether or not that offense was charged in the original pleading, and then resentence the defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment, with the concurrence of both the defendant and the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the AG if the DOJ originally prosecuted the case. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(3).)
     

Existing law requires the court to consider post-conviction factors, including, but not limited to, the incarcerated person’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced their risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that the person’s continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice. (Penal Code, § 1172.1 (a)(5).)

Existing law requires the court, to consider if the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence, if the defendant was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking prior to or at the time of the commission of the offense, or if the defendant is a youth or was a youth, as defined, at the time of the commission of the offense, and whether those circumstances were a contributing factor in the commission of the offense. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(5).)

Existing law states that resentencing may be granted without a hearing upon stipulation of the parties. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(7).)

Existing law provides that, if a victim wishes to be heard, the victim shall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(2)(8)(B).)

Existing law provides that if a hearing is held, the defendant may appear remotely and the court may conduct the hearing through the use of remote technology, unless counsel requests their physical presence in court. (Penal Code § 1172.1(a)(8).)

Existing law provides that if a resentencing request is from CDCR, BPH, a county correctional administrator, a district attorney, or the AG, the court must provide notice to the defendant and set a status conference within 30 days after the date that the court received the request and appoint counsel to represent the defendant.. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (b).)

Existing law states that in order to preserve a victims’ right to due process and justice, the victim is, among other things, entitled to reasonable notice of all parole or other post-conviction release proceedings, as well as to be present at these proceedings and the right to be heard, upon request, at any proceeding, including sentencing, a post-conviction release decision, or any proceeding in which a right of the victim is at issue. (Cal. Const., art. I § 28(b)(7)-(8) & (15).)

This bill requires the following to apply to all postconviction proceedings, except in cases where there is a conflict with a more specific statute:

• 1. Upon receiving a petition to begin a postconviction proceeding that is authorized by law, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the defendant. This does not prevent the court from assigning counsel at a later time;
     
  2. The court shall consider any pertinent circumstances that have arisen since the sentence was imposed and has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea;
  3. Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement;
     
  4. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its decision to grant or deny the initial request to begin a postconviction proceeding and shall provide notice to the defendant of its decision;
  5. After ruling on a petition, the court shall advise the defendant of their right to appeal and the necessary steps and time for taking an appeal;
  6. The parties may waive a hearing and proceed directly to the resentencing. A defendant may waive their personal presence at a resentencing hearing and may appear via remote technology. If a victim of a crime wishes to be heard pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution, or pursuant to any other provision of law applicable to the hearing, the victim hall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard;
  7. If a victim wishes to be heard, the victim shall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard.
     

This bill provides that it does not diminish the ability of a prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding.

This bill provides that it does not authorize anything prohibited by an initiative statute.

This bill provides that notwithstanding other laws, upon request from the defendant’s attorney, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall provide the defendant’s attorney a case summary, disciplinary records, programming records, chronos and any of the material the department deems relevant to a postconviction proceeding.

This bill provides that the records shall be provided within 30 days of the request by secure electronic format.

This bill does not diminish the ability of parties or the court to request additional records , which shall be provided by the department as soon as practicable.

This bill requires, on or before March 1, 2025, the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings.

This bill requires, at a minimum, the meeting to include a representative from the district attorney, the public defender or other representative of indigent defense services, and other entities that the presiding judge deems necessary to ensure timely and efficient postconviction proceedings.

This bill provides that, at the meeting, the presiding judge or their designee shall determine how postconviction proceedings will be assigned to individual judges, including whether they will take place before the original sentencing judge or designated judge.

This bill allows the presiding judge to set further meetings at their discretion.

Existing law requires when a judgment has been pronounced, a copy of the judgment and a CII number to be forthwith furnished to the officer whose duty it is to execute the judgment. (Penal Code § 1213(a).)

This bill provides when a person has been resentenced and there is a reasonable basis to believe the remaining time to serve in custody is less than 30 days, then the copy of the judgement shall be furnished to the executing officer within 24hours and may be furnished by electronic means.

This bill makes Legislative findings and declarations.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

“Second look” sentencing authorizes courts to revisit criminal sentences. Over the past few years, the CDCR Secretary and District Attorneys have begun using their resentencing authority more frequently, and as we continue to make positive changes to this area of the law, new implementation barriers are presented. For example, there are no general procedures to follow for resentencing — and each new reform comes with its own distinct rules — resulting in wide variation and inefficiency across the state in how resentencing cases are handled. AB 2483 follows the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code’s recommendations by setting statewide guidelines to ensure efficient and equitable resentencing procedures.

2. Recall and Resentencing Provisions – Second Look Sentencing

As a general matter, a court typically loses jurisdiction over a sentence when the sentence begins. (Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 455.) Once the defendant has been committed on a sentence pronounced by the court, the court no longer has the legal authority to increase, reduce, or otherwise alter the defendant’s sentence. (Ibid.)

However, there are limited statutory exceptions allowing a court to recall a sentence and resentence the defendant. (Dix, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 455; see e.g., Penal Code § 1172.1 (a).) Specifically, the court has the ability to resentence the defendant as if it had never imposed sentence to begin with. (Penal Code, § 1172.1 (a).) In addition, CDCR, BPH, the county correctional administrator, the district attorney, or the AG can make a recommendation for resentencing at any time. (Ibid.) The defendant however is not authorized to file a petition under these revisions. (Ibid.)

When resentencing under the recall statutes, the court is required to “apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity in sentencing.” (Penal Code, § 1172.1. (a)(2).)

At resentencing, the court must consider postconviction factors, including the defendant’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, evidence reflecting whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition have reduced the defendant’s risk of future violence, and evidence of changed circumstances reflecting that incarceration is no longer in the interests of justice. Evidence that incarceration is no longer in the interests of justice includes the defendant’s constitutional rights having been violated in proceedings related to the conviction or sentence and any other evidence undermining the integrity of the conviction or sentence. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(5).)

Additionally, at resentencing, the court must consider if the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence, if the defendant was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking prior to or at the time of the commission of the offense, or if the defendant is or was under 26 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. If any of these circumstances is present, the court must then consider whether they were a contributing factor in the commission of the offense. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(5).)

Resentencing may generally be granted without a hearing if the parties stipulate. However, the court must provide a crime victim an opportunity to be heard under Marsy’s law or any applicable law, if they make a timely request. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(8).)

In resentencing, the court is not bound by the terms of an earlier plea agreement. (People v. Pillsbury (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 776, 787-788.) However, the new sentence cannot be greater than the initial sentence. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(1).) If it’s in the interests of justice, the resentencing court can reduce the defendant’s sentence. Alternatively, the court can vacate the defendant’s conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense, whether or not it was charged, provided the defendant concurs. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(3).) However, if the court has recalled the sentence on its own motion, it cannot impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense if the conviction was a result of a plea bargain, unless both the defendant and the prosecution concur. (Penal Code § 1172.1 (a)(4).)

3. Plan for postconviction proceedings

This bill would require the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings.

According to background from the author:

Over the past few years, the CDCR Secretary and District Attorneys have begun using their resentencing authority more frequently, and as we continue to make positive changes to this area of the law, new implementation barriers are presented.

For example, there are no general procedures to follow for resentencing — and each new reform comes with its own distinct rules — resulting in wide variation and inefficiency across the state in how resentencing cases are handled.

The Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code’s 2023 Annual Report provided recommendations to help give courts standardized guidelines, creating consistency across the state with the implementation of resentencing laws. (Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code, 2023 Annual Report, at p. 23. Available at: <http://www.clrc.ca.gov/‌CRPC/‌Pub/Reports/‌CRPC_‌AR2023.pdf>.) This bill adopts some of the recommendations of the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code, specifically it:

• Requires the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of post-conviction proceedings in their jurisdiction.
• Standardizes post-conviction proceeding procedures.
• Ensures specified records are promptly provided.
• Requires that when a person’s release is within 30 days of resentencing being granted, courts shall transmit necessary documents to the executing officer within 24 hours.

4. Argument in Support

In support of this bill, Initiate Justice states:

Over the past decade, California has passed several ameliorative reforms that have allowed thousands of incarcerated people to return to court to have their sentences reconsidered. However, each new reform carried different or undefined procedural rules that has resulted in variation and inefficiency across the state in how these resentencings are handled. To avoid unnecessary litigation and delay, minimum procedures should apply to all resentencings.

Under AB 2483 (Ting), judges would be encouraged to meet with stakeholders like public defenders, and members of law enforcement to develop a plan to efficiently handle resentencings. The creation of collaborative workgroups lead to greater consistency and efficiency in the implementation of Proposition 361 in San Diego county. This approach will save costs and allow the spirit of ameliorative laws to be implemented soundly.

CDCR can greatly improve the efficiency of resentencings by promptly providing institutional records needed to assist court’s determinations in these hearings. Attorneys rely on CDCR to provide necessary records including information on an incarcerated person's behavior and progress while in prison. Resentencings in federal courts have operated more smoothly despite encountering similar problems to state courts like California in part because of assistance from prison administrators in obtaining critical records.

Other key provisions of the bill include ensuring that cases resolved by plea bargaining are expressly allowed under resentencings, and requiring abstracts of judgments are promptly transmitted to CDCR and acted upon. To be clear, AB 2483 (Ting) does not make resentencings automatic and it does not prohibit prosecutors from making arguments in court. The bill simply streamlines resentencings by establishing minimum procedures that will reduce costs and ensure uniformity in resentencings.

-- END –

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2483

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Sets uniform statewide standards for postconviction proceedings.

Major Provisions

1. Requires the following to apply to all postconviction proceedings, except in cases where there is a conflict with a more specific statute:
   1. Upon receiving a request to begin a postconviction proceeding that is authorized by law, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the defendant;
   2. The court shall consider any pertinent circumstances that have arisen since the sentence was imposed and has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant's sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea;
   3. Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement;
   4. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its decision to grant or deny the initial request to begin a postconviction proceeding and shall provide notice to the defendant of its decision;
   5. After ruling on a request, the court shall advise the defendant of their right to appeal and the necessary steps and time for taking an appeal;
   6. The parties may waive a hearing and proceed directly to resentencing. A defendant may waive their personal presence at a resentencing hearing and may appear via remote technology; and,
   7. If a victim wishes to be heard, the victim shall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard.
2. Upon request from the defendant's attorney, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) shall provide the defendant's attorney a case summary, disciplinary records, programming records, chronos, and any other material the department deems relevant to a postconviction proceeding.
3. Requires the records to be provided within 30 days of the request, and to be provided in a secure electronic format.
4. Requires CDCR to designate a person at each prison who is responsible for managing postconviction proceedings, including providing records to parties and courts, and facilitating transportation to resentencing hearings.
5. Requires, when a person has been resentenced and there is a reasonable basis to believe the remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, a copy of the order and a Criminal Investigation and Identification (CII) number to be furnished to the executing officer within 24 hours.
6. Requires, on or before March 1, 2025, the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings.
7. Requires the meeting to include a representative from the district attorney, the public defender or other representative of indigent defense services, and other entities that the presiding judge deems necessary in order to ensure timely and efficient postconviction proceedings.
8. Provides that, at the meeting, the presiding judge or their designee shall determine how postconviction proceedings will be assigned to individual judges, including whether they will take place before the original sentencing judge or designated judge.
9. Allows the presiding judge to set further meetings at their discretion.
10. Makes Legislative findings and declarations.

COMMENTS

Recall and Resentencing Provisions – Second Look Sentencing: As a general matter, a court typically loses jurisdiction over a sentence when the sentence begins. (Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 455.) Once the defendant has been committed on a sentence pronounced by the court, the court no longer has the legal authority to increase, reduce, or otherwise alter the defendant's sentence. (Ibid.)

However, the Legislature has created limited statutory exceptions allowing a court to recall a sentence and resentence the defendant. (Dix, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 455; see e.g., Penal Code, Section 1172.1, subdivision (a).) Specifically, the court has the ability to resentence the defendant as if it had never imposed sentence to begin with. (Penal Code, Section 1172.1, subdivision(a).) In addition, CDCR, BPH, the county correctional administrator, the district attorney, or the AG can make a recommendation for resentencing at any time. (Ibid.) The defendant however is not authorized to file a petition under these revisions. (Ibid.)

When resentencing under the recall statutes, the court is required to "apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity in sentencing." (Penal Code, Section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(2).)

At resentencing, the court must consider postconviction factors, including the defendant's disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, evidence reflecting whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition have reduced the defendant's risk of future violence, and evidence of changed circumstances reflecting that incarceration is no longer in the interests of justice. Evidence that incarceration is no longer in the interests of justice includes the defendant's constitutional rights having been violated in proceedings related to the conviction or sentence and any other evidence undermining the integrity of the conviction or sentence. (Penal Code, Section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(5).)

Additionally, at resentencing, the court must consider if the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence, if the defendant was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking prior to or at the time of the commission of the offense, or if the defendant is or was under 26 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. If any of these circumstances is present, the court must then consider whether they were a contributing factor in the commission of the offense. (Penal Code, Section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(5).)

Resentencing may generally be granted without a hearing if the parties stipulate. However, the court must provide a crime victim an opportunity to be heard under Marsy's law or any applicable law, if they make a timely request. (Penal Code, Section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(8).)

In resentencing, the court is not bound by the terms of an earlier plea agreement. (People v. Pillsbury (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 776, 787-788.) However, the new sentence cannot be greater than the initial sentence. (Penal Code, Section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1).) If it's in the interests of justice, the resentencing court can reduce the defendant's sentence. Alternatively, the court can vacate the defendant's conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense, whether or not it was charged, provided the defendant concurs. (Penal Code, Section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(3).) Importantly, however, if the court has recalled the sentence on its own motion, it cannot impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense if the conviction was a result of a plea bargain, unless both the defendant and the prosecution concur. (Penal Code, Section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(4).)

According to the Author

"'Second look' sentencing authorizes courts to revisit criminal sentences. Over the past few years, the CDCR Secretary and District Attorneys have begun using their resentencing authority more frequently, and as we continue to make positive changes to this area of the law, new implementation barriers are presented. For example, there are no general procedures to follow for resentencing — and each new reform comes with its own distinct rules — resulting in wide variation and inefficiency across the state in how resentencing cases are handled. AB 2483 follows the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code's recommendations by setting statewide guidelines to ensure efficient and equitable resentencing procedures."

Arguments in Support

According to Initiate Justice, a sponsor of this bill, "Over the past decade, California has passed several ameliorative reforms that have allowed thousands of incarcerated people to return to court to have their sentences reconsidered. However, each new reform carried different or undefined procedural rules that has resulted in variation and inefficiency across the state in how these resentencings are handled. To avoid unnecessary litigation and delay, minimum procedures should apply to all resentencings.

"Under AB 2483 (Ting), stakeholders including judges, public defenders, and members of law enforcement would be required to collaborate and develop a plan to efficiently handle resentencings. The creation of collaborative workgroups lead to greater consistency and efficiency in the implementation of Proposition 36 in San Diego county. This approach will save costs and allow the spirit of ameliorative laws to be implemented soundly.

"CDCR can greatly improve the efficiency of resentencings by promptly providing institutional records needed to assist court's determinations in these hearings. Attorneys rely on CDCR to provide necessary records including information on an incarcerated persons's behavior and progress while in prison. Resentencings in federal courts have operated more smoothly despite encountering similar problems to state courts like California in part because of assistance from prison administrators in obtaining critical records.

"Other key provisions of the bill include ensuring that cases resolved by plea bargaining are expressly allowed under resentencings, and requiring abstracts of judgments are promptly transmitted to CDCR and acted upon. To be clear, AB 2483 (Ting) does not make resentencings automatic and it does not prohibit prosecutors from making arguments in court. The bill simply streamlines resentencings by establishing minimum procedures that will reduce costs and ensure uniformity in resentencings."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), "This bill through proposed Penal Code Section 1171 seeks to impose a generalized framework as to any ameliorative post-conviction statute potentially creating greater inconsistency, inefficiencies, and confusion where there already exist distinct mechanisms for relief under these statutes. This bill also removes the ability for the DA and the Court to rescind a plea agreement in all ameliorative resentencings."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Minor and absorbable workload costs to each county court to convene the planning meeting required by the bill. Possible future cost savings to the courts to the extent this bill reduces inefficiency in court proceedings and litigation on postconviction cases.
2. Possibly absorbable costs (local funds, General Fund) for representatives from district attorneys' offices and public defenders' offices to attend the meetings convened by county courts. If costs are not absorbable and the Commission on State Mandates determines these duties constitute a reimbursable state mandate, these costs may be required to be reimbursed from the General Fund.
3. Costs (General Fund) of an unknown amount but potentially significant amount to CDCR to provide specified records upon an attorney's request. If CDCR needs to hire additional staff to review and redact records, and notify other parties whose information appears in the records that they are being disclosed, costs to CDCR may be in the hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars annually.
4. Likely nonreimbursable costs to county public defender offices. By requiring a court to consider appointing counsel for each postconviction petition, this bill will likely significantly increase the number of public defenders or other indigent counsel appointed to represent postconviction petitioners. However, the Commission on State Mandates has previously determined that county public defender costs incurred for resentencing proceedings are not reimbursable by the state because the proceedings pertain to the change of a penalty for a crime.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: May 16, 2024

CONSULTANT: Liah Burnley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003273

Date of Hearing: April 17, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2483

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 1, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill sets statewide standards for postconviction proceedings and requires each county court to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings.

Specifically, among other provisions, this bill:

1. Establishes procedural rules that apply to all postconviction proceedings, including:
2. Upon receiving a petition to begin a postconviction proceeding, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the petitioner.
3. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its decision to grant or deny the initial petition and shall provide notice to the petitioner of its decision.
4. The parties may waive a resentencing hearing. If the hearing is not waived, the resentencing hearing may be conducted remotely through the use of remote technology, if the petitioner agrees.
5. If a victim wishes to be heard, the victim shall notify the prosecution within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard.
6. Upon request from the petitioner’s attorney, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) shall promptly make available any institutional records to the attorney that will assist the court’s determination in the postconviction proceeding.
7. Requires, when a person has been resentenced and their expected remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, the court to furnish a copy of the order and a Criminal Investigation and Identification (CII) number to the executing officer within 24 hours.
8. Requires, on or before March 1, 2025, the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings. The meeting must include, at a minimum, a representative from the district attorney, the public defender or other representative of indigent defense services, the department of probation, the sheriffs, CDCR, and the clerk of the court’s office. The presiding judge may convene additional meetings at their discretion.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Minor and absorbable workload costs to each county court to convene the planning meeting required by the bill. Possible future cost savings to the courts to the extent this bill reduces inefficiency in court proceedings and litigation on postconviction cases, as described in more detail below.
2. Likely reimbursable costs (local funds, General Fund) for representatives from district attorneys offices, public defenders offices, county probation departments, and county sheriff’s offices to attend the required meeting. Collectively, workload costs may be in the tens of thousands of dollars. General Fund costs will depend on whether these duties constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
3. Costs (General Fund) to CDCR to provide records upon an attorney’s request, possibly in the millions of dollars annually in increased staffing. The bill does not specify which records CDCR must produce or the exact timeline for production, but CDCR will likely need to hire additional litigation coordinators to locate and review records, redact records for production if needed, and notify other parties whose information appears in the records that they are being disclosed. CDCR will also incur workload costs for staff to attend each of the 58 county court meetings required by the bill.
4. Likely nonreimbursable costs to county public defender offices. By requiring a court to consider appointing counsel for each postconviction petition, this bill will likely significantly increase the number of public defenders or other indigent counsel appointed to represent postconviction petitioners. However, the Commission on State Mandates has previously determined that county public defender costs incurred for resentencing proceedings are not reimbursable by the state because the proceedings pertain to the change of a penalty for a crime.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

“Second look” sentencing authorizes courts to revisit criminal sentences. Over the past few years, the CDCR Secretary and District Attorneys have begun using their resentencing authority more frequently, and as we continue to make positive changes to this area of the law, new implementation barriers are presented. For example, there are no general procedures to follow for resentencing — and each new reform comes with its own distinct rules — resulting in wide variation and inefficiency across the state in how resentencing cases are handled. AB 2483 follows the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code’s recommendations by setting statewide guidelines to ensure efficient and equitable resentencing procedures.

1. Background. The Committee on Revision of the Penal Code (CRPC) was established by Governor Newsom in 2020 to study the California Penal Code and recommend statutory reforms to simplify and rationalize the law and procedures, establish alternatives to incarceration that will aid in rehabilitation, and improve the parole and probation system. This bill is based on CRPC’s recommendations for standardizing criminal postconviction resentencing procedures. In its 2023 annual report, CRPC explained:

For more than a decade, California has allowed thousands of incarcerated people to return to court to have their sentences reconsidered. However, each new reform comes with different or undefined procedural rules which has resulted in variation and inefficiency across the state in how resentencings are handled.

CPRC’s report cites multiple examples of postconviction cases that resulted in lengthy appellate litigation because the courts either did not understand or disagreed about rules for postconviction court proceedings, resentencing options, and even whether certain resentencing petitions should be considered by the court. This bill establishes some basic, statewide procedures that every court must follow when considering an applicable postconviction petition. The bill also requires the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting of relevant stakeholders to establish a plan for how the county will fairly and efficiently handle postconviction proceedings. Taken together, most of these provisions will result in only modest costs to the courts and practitioners, and will help ensure that postconviction proceedings are handled more consistently statewide.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Liah Burnley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2483

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 1, 2024

SUMMARY:

Sets uniform statewide standards for postconviction proceedings. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the following to apply to all postconviction proceedings, except in cases where there is a conflict with a more specific statute:
   
   1. Upon receiving a petition to begin a postconviction proceeding, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the petitioner;
      
   2. The court may consider any pertinent circumstances that have arisen since the sentence was imposed and has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the petitioner’s sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea;
   3. Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement;
      
   4. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its decision to grant or deny the initial petition and shall provide notice to the petitioner of its decision;
   5. After ruling on a petition, the court shall advise the petitioner of their right to appeal and the necessary steps and time for taking an appeal;
   6. The parties may waive a resentencing hearing. If the hearing is not waived, the resentencing hearing may be conducted remotely through the use of remote technology, if the petitioner agrees.
   7. If a victim wishes to be heard, the victim shall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard.
      
   8. Upon request from the petitioner’s attorney, the CDCR shall promptly make available any institutional records to the attorney that will assist the court’s determination in the postconviction proceeding; and,
   9. Requires, when a person has been resentenced and their expected remaining time in custody is less than 30 days, a copy of the order and a Criminal Investigation and Identification (CII) number to be furnished to the executing officer within 24 hours.
2. Requires, on or before March 1, 2025, the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to develop a plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings.
   
3. Requires, at a minimum, the meeting to include a representative from the district attorney, the public defender or other representative of indigent defense services, the department of probation, the sheriffs, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and the clerk of the court’s office.
   
4. Provides that, at the meeting, the presiding judge or their designee shall determine how postconviction proceedings will be assigned to individual judges, including whether they will take place before the original sentencing judge or designated judge.
   
5. Allows the presiding judge to set further meetings at their discretion.
   
6. Makes Legislative findings and declarations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that the purpose of sentencing for crime is public safety achieved through punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. When a sentence includes incarceration, this purpose is best served by terms that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offense under similar circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (a)(1).)
   
2. Provides that when a defendant has been sentenced to be imprisoned, the court may, within 120 days of the date of commitment on its own motion, or at any time if the sentencing laws changed, as specified, recall the sentence and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).)
   
3. Authorizes the court also to recall and resentence at any time upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the CDCR or the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) in the case of persons incarcerated in state prison, the county correctional administrator in the case of persons in county jail, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General (AG) if the Department of Justice (DOJ) initially prosecuted the case. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).)
   
4. Provides that the new sentence cannot be greater than the initial sentence. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).)
   
5. Requires the court, in recalling and resentencing, to apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and many changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity and to promote uniformity of sentences. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(2).)
   
6. States 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:
   
   1. Reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment by modifying the sentence; or
      
   2. Vacate the defendant’s conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense, whether or not that offense was charged in the original pleading, and then resentence the defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment, with the concurrence of both the defendant and the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the AG if the DOJ originally prosecuted the case. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(3).)
      
7. Requires the court to consider post-conviction factors, including, but not limited to, the incarcerated person’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced their risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that the person’s continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(5).)
   
8. Requires the court, to consider if the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence, if the defendant was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking prior to or at the time of the commission of the offense, or if the defendant is a youth or was a youth, as defined, at the time of the commission of the offense, and whether those circumstances were a contributing factor in the commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(5).)
   
9. States that resentencing may be granted without a hearing upon stipulation of the parties. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(7).)
   
10. Provides that, if a victim wishes to be heard, the victim shall notify the prosecution of their request to be heard within 15 days of being notified that resentencing is being sought and the court shall provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1 subd. (a)(2)(8)(B).)
    
11. Provides that if a hearing is held, the defendant may appear remotely and the court may conduct the hearing through the use of remote technology, unless counsel requests their physical presence in court. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(8).)
    
12. Provides that if a resentencing request is from CDCR, BPH, a county correctional administrator, a district attorney, or the AG, the court must provide notice to the defendant and set a status conference within 30 days after the date that the court received the request and appoint counsel to represent the defendant.. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (b).)
    
13. Requires when a judgment has been pronounced, a copy of the judgment and a CII number to be forthwith furnished to the officer whose duty it is to execute the judgment. (Pen. Code, § 1213, subd. (a).)
    
14. States that in order to preserve a victims’ right to due process and justice, the victim is, among other things, entitled to reasonable notice of all parole or other post-conviction release proceedings, as well as to be present at these proceedings and the right to be heard, upon request, at any proceeding, including sentencing, a post-conviction release decision, or any proceeding in which a right of the victim is at issue. (Cal. Const., art. I § 28(b)(7)-(8) & (15).)
    

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement: According to the author, “‘Second look’ sentencing authorizes courts to revisit criminal sentences. Over the past few years, the CDCR Secretary and District Attorneys have begun using their resentencing authority more frequently, and as we continue to make positive changes to this area of the law, new implementation barriers are presented. For example, there are no general procedures to follow for resentencing — and each new reform comes with its own distinct rules — resulting in wide variation and inefficiency across the state in how resentencing cases are handled. AB 2483 follows the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code’s recommendations by setting statewide guidelines to ensure efficient and equitable resentencing procedures.”
   
2. Recall and Resentencing Provisions – Second Look Sentencing: As a general matter, a court typically loses jurisdiction over a sentence when the sentence begins. (Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 455.) Once the defendant has been committed on a sentence pronounced by the court, the court no longer has the legal authority to increase, reduce, or otherwise alter the defendant’s sentence. (Ibid.)
   
   However, the Legislature has created limited statutory exceptions allowing a court to recall a sentence and resentence the defendant. (Dix, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 455; see e.g., Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a).) Specifically, the court has the ability to resentence the defendant as if it had never imposed sentence to begin with. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a).) In addition, CDCR, BPH, the county correctional administrator, the district attorney, or the AG can make a recommendation for resentencing at any time. (Ibid.) The defendant however is not authorized to file a petition under these revisions. (Ibid.)
   
   When resentencing under the recall statutes, the court is required to “apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity in sentencing.” (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(2).)
   

At resentencing, the court must consider postconviction factors, including the defendant’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, evidence reflecting whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition have reduced the defendant’s risk of future violence, and evidence of changed circumstances reflecting that incarceration is no longer in the interests of justice. Evidence that incarceration is no longer in the interests of justice includes the defendant’s constitutional rights having been violated in proceedings related to the conviction or sentence and any other evidence undermining the integrity of the conviction or sentence. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(5).)

Additionally, at resentencing, the court must consider if the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence, if the defendant was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking prior to or at the time of the commission of the offense, or if the defendant is or was under 26 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. If any of these circumstances is present, the court must then consider whether they were a contributing factor in the commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(5).)

Resentencing may generally be granted without a hearing if the parties stipulate. However, the court must provide a crime victim an opportunity to be heard under Marsy’s law or any applicable law, if they make a timely request. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(8).)

In resentencing, the court is not bound by the terms of an earlier plea agreement. (People v. Pillsbury (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 776, 787-788.) However, the new sentence cannot be greater than the initial sentence. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).) If it’s in the interests of justice, the resentencing court can reduce the defendant’s sentence. Alternatively, the court can vacate the defendant’s conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense, whether or not it was charged, provided the defendant concurs. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(3).) Importantly, however, if the court has recalled the sentence on its own motion, it cannot impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense if the conviction was a result of a plea bargain, unless both the defendant and the prosecution concur. (Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(4).)

1. Need for this Bill: This bill would require the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings. According to background materials submitted by the author, “Over the past few years, the CDCR Secretary and District Attorneys have begun using their resentencing authority more frequently, and as we continue to make positive changes to this area of the law, new implementation barriers are presented. For example, there are no general procedures to follow for resentencing — and each new reform comes with its own distinct rules — resulting in wide variation and inefficiency across the state in how resentencing cases are handled.”

In addition, the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code’s 2023 Annual Report provided recommendations to help give courts standardized guidelines, creating consistency across the state with the implementation of resentencing laws. (Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code, 2023 Annual Report, at p. 23. Available at: <http://www.clrc.ca.gov/‌CRPC/‌Pub/Reports/‌CRPC_‌AR2023.pdf>.) This bill adopts some of the recommendations of the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code, such as requiring the appointment of counsel, and allowing resentencing of convictions by guilty pleas.

1. Argument in Support: According to Initiate Justice, a sponsor of this bill, “Over the past decade, California has passed several ameliorative reforms that have allowed thousands of incarcerated people to return to court to have their sentences reconsidered. However, each new reform carried different or undefined procedural rules that has resulted in variation and inefficiency across the state in how these resentencings are handled. To avoid unnecessary litigation and delay, minimum procedures should apply to all resentencings.
   

“Under AB 2483 (Ting), stakeholders including judges, public defenders, and members of law enforcement would be required to collaborate and develop a plan to efficiently handle resentencings. The creation of collaborative workgroups lead to greater consistency and efficiency in the implementation of Proposition 36 in San Diego county. This approach will save costs and allow the spirit of ameliorative laws to be implemented soundly.

“CDCR can greatly improve the efficiency of resentencings by promptly providing institutional records needed to assist court’s determinations in these hearings. Attorneys rely on CDCR to provide necessary records including information on an incarcerated persons’s behavior and progress while in prison. Resentencings in federal courts have operated more smoothly despite encountering similar problems to state courts like California in part because of assistance from prison administrators in obtaining critical records.

“Other key provisions of the bill include ensuring that cases resolved by plea bargaining are expressly allowed under resentencings, and requiring abstracts of judgments are promptly transmitted to CDCR and acted upon. To be clear, AB 2483 (Ting) does not make resentencings automatic and it does not prohibit prosecutors from making arguments in court. The bill simply streamlines resentencings by establishing minimum procedures that will reduce costs and ensure uniformity in resentencings.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), “This bill through proposed Penal Code section 1171 seeks to impose a generalized framework as to any ameliorative post-conviction statute potentially creating greater inconsistency, inefficiencies, and confusion where there already exist distinct mechanisms for relief under these statutes. This bill also removes the ability for the DA and the Court to rescind a plea agreement in all ameliorative resentencings.”
   
2. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 1809 (Rodriguez) would roll back resentencing provisions for an incarcerated person convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer ineligible for recall and resentencing. AB 1809 is pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. SB 94 (Cortese), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have created a process for a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole to seek a recall of their sentence and be resentenced to a lesser sentence. SB 94 has been ordered to the inactive file.
      
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 600 (Ting), Chapter 446, Statutes of 2023, allows a court to recall a sentence at any time if applicable sentencing laws are subsequently changed due to new statutes or case law, and makes changes to the procedural requirements to be followed when requests for recall are made.
      
   2. AB 88 (Sanchez), Chapter 795, Statutes of 2023, requires a victim who wishes to be heard regarding resentencing to notify the prosecution of their request for a hearing within 15 and would require the court to provide an opportunity for the victim to be heard.
      
   3. AB 124 (Kamlager), Chapter 695, Statutes of 2021, requires courts to consider whether specified trauma to a defendant and other factors contributed to the commission of an offense when making sentencing and resentencing determinations.
   4. AB 1540 (Ting), Chapter 719, Statutes of 2021, requires the court to provide counsel for the defendant when there is recommendation from CDCR, the BPH, the sheriff, or the prosecuting agency, to recall an inmate's sentence and resentence that inmate to a lesser sentence. AB 1540 also creates a presumption favoring recall and resentencing, as specified, when the recommendation has been made by one of these agencies.
      
   5. AB 2942 (Ting), Chapter 1001, Statutes of 2018, allows the district attorney of the county where a defendant was convicted and sentenced to make a recommendation that the court recall and resentence the defendant.
      
   6. AB 1156 (Brown), Chapter 378, Statutes of 2015, provides, in pertinent part, that when a defendant is sentenced to the county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act, the court may, within 120 days of the date of commitment on its own motion, or upon the recommendation of the county correctional administrator, recall the sentence previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the original sentence.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

All of Us or None Bakersfield
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for A Responsible Budget
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration
Famm
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Initiate Justice
Initiate Justice Action
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Prosecutors Alliance of California, a Project of Tides Advocacy
Rubicon Programs
Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy
Young Women's Freedom Center

2 Private Individuals

Opposition

California District Attorneys Association

Analysis Prepared by:

Liah Burnley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744