Existing law allows a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of their imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on several bases, including on the basis of the discovery of new evidence that has not been previously presented and heard at trial and has been discovered after trial.

This bill would require prohibit a habeas corpus petition prosecuted under these provisions to be considered on the merits and not dismissed based on timeliness considerations or as an abuse of the writ if the allegations in the petition establish by a preponderance that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner after a review of the evidence in the record in light of any new evidence developed by the petitioner. from being dismissed based on procedural bars if the petitioner establishes that in light of all of the evidence now before the court, it is more likely than not the outcome of the case would have been different, as specified.

Existing law allows a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of their imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on several bases, including on the basis of the discovery of new evidence that has not been previously presented and heard at trial and has been discovered after trial.

This bill would require a habeas corpus petition prosecuted under these provisions to be considered on the merits and not dismissed based on timeliness considerations or as an abuse of the writ if the allegations in the petition establish by a preponderance that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner after a review of the evidence in the record in light of any new evidence developed by the petitioner.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 3088 (Friedman) - Criminal procedure: writ of habeas corpus

Bill Summary:

AB 3088 would require habeas corpus petition to be considered by a court on its merits and not dismissed on grounds that it is untimely or successive if, the allegations in the petition taken as true, establish by a preponderance of evidence that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner in light of the new evidence.

Fiscal Impact:

Significant, ongoing workload costs pressures (General Fund, Trial Court Trust Fund) to the trial courts. Given the removal of procedural bars that are typically administrative reasons for petitions to be dismissed prior to a merit-based determination, the judicial branch estimates a significant increase in workload associated with these petitions at the superior court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court levels. The Judicial Council indicates that each petition that would currently be dismissed on a procedural bar will require a full merit-based review which can vary in complexity and length and will require by an experienced attorney. The Judicial Council estimates this bill will cost approximately $6,000,000 ongoing, annually for 26 additional attorneys to address the increased workload. Judicial Council notes that, if funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, it could result in delays and prioritization of court cases and may impact access to justice and that the effective date of this measure should be aligned with the state budget process, July 1, 2026, to ensure the judicial branch has the resources available to implement this bill. (See Staff Comments)

Background:

Habeas Corpus: The writ of habeas corpus, also known as "the Great Writ", is a process guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions to obtain prompt judicial relief from illegal restraint. Every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his or her liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint.

Under state law, a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons: (1) false evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against a person at a hearing or trial relating to his or her incarceration; (2) false physical evidence, believed by a person to be factual, probative, or material on the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty, which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty by the person; or, (3) new evidence exists that is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial.

Dismissals Based on Timeliness: Under existing state law, a person who wishes to challenge their conviction by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in state court must present each claim in a timely fashion. There is no express time period in which to seek state habeas corpus relief in a non-capital criminal case. Whether a claim has been timely presented is assessed based on an indeterminate reasonableness standard. A petition is timely if filed “within a reasonable time.” If a petition is not timely, it can be dismissed.

Dismissals Based on Successiveness - “Abuse of the Writ”: Under existing state law, a person is not allowed to engage in “piecemeal litigation” by bringing successive habeas petitions (i.e. “abuse of the writ”). For example, courts may refuse to consider new arguments if those arguments were known to the person when they brought a prior attack on the judgment. Similarly, previously rejected claims will not be considered in a successive petition. It has long been the rule that absent a change applicable law of facts the court will not consider repeated applications for habeas corpus presenting claims that were previously rejected. Before a successive petition is considered on its merits, the petitioner must explain their failure to timely present their claims in prior petitions. If a petition is successive, it can be dismissed.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires a habeas corpus petition be considered on the merits and not dismissed based on timeliness or as an abuse of the writ if the allegations in the petition establish by a preponderance that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner after a review of the evidence in the record in light of any new evidence developed by the petitioner.

Staff Comments: As indicated by Judicial Council, this bill would increase workload costs pressures on the state funded trial court system. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If the bill results in only 12 or more days spent in court, trial court costs could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for trial court operations. The Budget Act of 2024, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024, includes a $97 million reduction to the trial courts, a commensurate reduction of up to 7.95 percent to the budget for the state-level judiciary, and a reduction of the trial court state-level emergency reserve in the Trial Court Trust Fund from $10 million to $5 million. The Budget Act also includes a $37.3 million General Fund backfill for the Trial Court Trust Fund to address the continued decline in civil fee and criminal fine and penalty revenues expected in fiscal year 2024‒25.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 3088 Hearing Date: June 25, 2024

Subject: Criminal procedure: writ of habeas corpus

HISTORY

Source: The California Innocence Coalition

Prior Legislation: SB 97 (Wiener) Chapter 381, States. 2023

SB 467 (Wiener) Chapter 982, Stats. 2022

SB 243 (Wiener) held on Appropriations Suspense 2021

SB 938 (Wiener, 2020) not heard COVID

SB 1134 (Leno, 2016) Chapter 785, Stats. 2016

SB 694 (Leno) held in Assembly Appropriations 2015

SB 1058 (Leno) Chapter 623, Stats. 2014

SB 618 (Leno) Chapter 800, Stats. 2013

AB 1593(Ma) Chapter 809, Stats. 2012

Support: ACLU California Action; All of Us or None Bakersfield; All of Us or None Los Angeles; All of Us or None Orange County; All of Us or None Riverside; All of Us or None San Diego; California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice; California Public Defenders Association; Californians United for A Responsible Budget; Courage California; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Felony Murder Elimination Project; Initiate Justice; LA Defensa; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; San Francisco Public Defender; Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos;
Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy; University of San Francisco School of Law, Racial Justice Clinic

Opposition: California District Attorneys Association

Assembly Floor Vote: 49 - 14

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to require habeas corpus petition to be considered on the merits and not dismissed on grounds that it is untimely or successive if, the allegations in the petition taken as true, establish by a preponderance of evidence that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner in light of the new evidence.

Existing law provides that every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty, under any pretense, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment or restraint. (Penal Code § 1473(a).)

Existing law states that a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons:

1. False evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt, or punishment was introduced against a person at any hearing or trial relating to his incarceration;
2. False physical evidence believed by a person to be factual, material or probative on the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty and which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty by the person.
3. New evidence exists that is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome of the trial. “New evidence” is evidence that was discovered after trial that could not have been discovered before trial and is admissible.(Penal Code § 1473 (b))

Existing law provides that any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have known of the false nature of the evidence is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus. (Penal Code § 1473(c).)

Existing law states that nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or as precluding the use of any other remedies. (Penal Code § 1473(d).)

Existing law provides that “false evidence” includes opinions of experts that have either been repudiated by the expert who originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or have been undermined by later scientific research or technological advances. (Penal Code § 1473(e)(1).)

Existing law provides that this section does not create additional liabilities, beyond these already recognized, for an expert who repudiates the original opinion provided at a hearing or trial or whose opinion has been undermined by later scientific research. (Penal Code § 1473(e)(2).)

This bill requires a habeas corpus petition be considered on the merits and not dismissed based on timeliness considerations or as an abuse of the writ if the allegations in the petition establish by a preponderance that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner after a review of the evidence in the record in light of any new evidence developed by the petitioner.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

People who are innocent but imprisoned face obstacles in seeking habeas petition relief due to unclear procedural bars. They are prevented from presenting crucial evidence that could exonerate them, leading to unjust incarceration. California must address this legal ambiguity to ensure fair opportunities for the wrongly convicted. AB 3088 seeks to empower those wrongly imprisoned with the chance to present their case effectively, fostering a criminal legal system that prioritizes the vital goal of establishing innocence.

2. Writ of Habeas Corpus

Writ of habeas corpus, also known as "the Great Writ", is a process guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions to obtain prompt judicial relief from illegal restraint. The functions of the writ is set forth in subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 1473: "Every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his or her liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint."

A writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons: (1) False evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against a person at a hearing or trial relating to his or her incarceration; (2) False physical evidence, believed by a person to be factual, probative, or material on the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty, which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty by the person; or (3) New evidence exists that is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial. (Pen. Code, §1473, subd. (b).)

Other avenues of challenging a conviction include a motion to vacate the judgement after being released. Such motions may be pursued in a couple of situations, including when new evidence is

discovered that tends to prove the defendant is innocent, and when it is discovered that false evidence was used in trial and it was material and substantial in proving the defendant’s guilt. (See Pen. Code, §§ 1473.6 and 1473.7, subd. (a)(2).)

3. Dismissals Based on Timeliness:

Under existing law, a person who wishes to challenge their conviction by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in state court must present each claim in a timely fashion^[1]. There is no express time period in which to seek state habeas corpus relief in a non-capital criminal case. (In re Douglas (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 236, 242.) Whether a claim has been timely presented is assessed based on an indeterminate reasonableness standard. A petition is timely if filed “within a reasonable time.” (Evans v. Chavis (2006) 546 U.S. 189, 191-192.)

Generally, delay in seeking habeas corpus relief in a non-capital case is measured from the time a petitioner or petitioner’s counsel becomes aware of the grounds for relief, which may be as early as the date of conviction. (Douglas, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at 243.) To show that there was not a substantial delay in filing a habeas petition, the “petitioner must allege, with specificity, facts showing when information offered in support of the claim was obtained, and that the information neither was known, nor reasonably should have been known, at any earlier time.” (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 461.)

There are exceptions to the rule. California courts allow a longer delay if the petitioner demonstrates good cause. (In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 780.) “A petitioner may establish good cause by showing particular circumstances to justify substantial delay.” (Ibid.) A petitioner can also bring an untimely habeas petition if they can show “error of constitutional magnitude led to a trial that was so fundamentally unfair that absent the error no reasonable judge or jury would have convicted the petitioner”; that they are “actually innocent of the crime or crimes of which he or she was convicted”; or that they were “convicted or sentenced under an invalid statute.” (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 460; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 797–98.)

This bill would additionally require a habeas corpus petition to be considered on the merits and not dismissed on grounds that it is untimely if, the allegations in the petition taken as true, establish by a preponderance of evidence that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner in light of the new evidence.

4. Dismissals Based on Successive Petitions

Under existing law, a person is not allowed to engage in “piecemeal litigation” by bringing successive habeas petitions (i.e. “abuse of the writ”). For example, courts may refuse to consider new arguments if those arguments were known to the person when they brought a prior attack on the judgment. (In re Clark, supra,5 Cal.4th 750.) Similarly, previously rejected claims will not be considered in a successive petition. “It has long been the rule that absent a change applicable law of facts the court will not consider repeated applications for habeas corpus presenting claims that were previously rejected.” (Ibid.) Before a successive petition is considered on its merits, the petitioner must explain their failure to timely present their claims in prior petitions. (Id., at p. 779.)

This bill would require a habeas petition to be considered on the merits and not dismissed even if it is a successive petition if the allegations in the petition establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner.

5. Argument in Support

LA Defensa supports this bill stating:

AB 3088 seeks to articulate the standard by which procedural barriers can be overcome by innocent individuals attempting to secure their release from prison through habeas petitions in California. AB 3088 would allow for habeas petitions implicating a wrongful conviction to be evaluated on their merits rather than being summarily dismissed based on procedural grounds. Specifically, if it is indicated that by a preponderance of the evidence, at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner, the claims raised in a petition should be considered by the court on their merits in light of the new evidence presented.

The result of the current system is innocent incarcerated people being barred from habeas petition consideration due to ill-defined procedural barriers. These individuals find themselves barred from presenting compelling evidence that could prove their innocence, resulting in wrongly incarcerated people remaining in prison. This clarification in the law is necessary for California to ensure that the wrongfully convicted are given an equitable process to prove their innocence. AB 3088 aims to ensure that the wrongfully incarcerated are empowered with the rightful opportunity to argue their case, fostering a justice system that genuinely honors and prioritizes the crucial task of determining innocence.

6. Argument in Opposition

California District Attorneys Association oppose this bill stating:

AB 3088 would implement a mandate for courts to disregard longstanding rules that require habeas corpus petitioners to file new claims in a timely manner and prohibit repetitive attempts to raise previously rejected claims. These procedural rules already permit a court to hear a petition that is unduly delayed or successive if the court finds that the claims raised would show a fundamental miscarriage of justice. AB 3088 however would mandate the court hear an otherwise barred petition based on a finding that a single juror would – for any reason – not have convicted the defendant.

A hung jury is not a finding of actual innocence nor does the rogue opinion of a single juror suggest there has been a miscarriage of justice. Especially when the jury hangs by a single vote, the reason may be based on confusion or improper jury nullification. Importantly, if a jury does return a hung verdict, prosecutors have the opportunity to try the case again while the evidence is still fresh and while the victims can still receive some sense of justice.

If a habeas corpus petition is granted, however, prosecutors may be unable to retry the case. This is especially true when the petition is brought decades after the original verdict. Evidence may have been lost and witnesses may have forgotten details or may even be deceased. This is especially true if the habeas proceedings are commenced long after the original conviction. The procedural protections that this bill would eliminate help ensure that persons convicted of crimes cannot take unfair advantage of the passage of time.

-- END –

1. The changes made by this bill would apply to non-capitol cases only. Proposition 66, codified as California Penal Code section 1509, provides that the initial habeas petition in a death penalty case must be filed within one year of the order in which habeas corpus counsel was appointed. (See also, Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808.) ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 3088

Author:(Friedman)

As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires a habeas corpus petition to be considered on the merits and not dismissed on grounds that it is untimely or successive if, the allegations in the petition taken as true, establish by a preponderance of evidence that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner in light of the new evidence.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"People who are innocent but imprisoned face obstacles in seeking habeas petition relief due to unclear procedural bars. They are prevented from presenting crucial evidence that could exonerate them, leading to unjust incarceration. California must address this legal ambiguity to ensure fair opportunities for the wrongly convicted. AB 3088 seeks to empower those wrongly imprisoned with the chance to present their case effectively, fostering a criminal legal system that prioritizes the vital goal of establishing innocence."

Arguments in Support

According to La Defensa "In California, case law states that a petitioner has to bring their habeas petition in a timely fashion and that courts will not consider successive claims. Unlike other states, these requirements are not statutorily defined, forcing courts to look to case law to determine whether a petition is timely or successive. Under existing case law, the procedural barriers of timeliness and successive petition considerations often bar incarcerated people from having their claims heard by a court, even when new evidence of innocence is alleged in their case.If someone fails to file a habeas petition in a timely manner or faces other procedural barriers, the court may dismiss the petition based on procedural grounds alone. This means that the court never has to consider the merits of the petition at all if it is deemed untimely or successive in their initial review of the petition. If the petitioner cannot prove actual innocence, as defined in case law, to overcome the procedural barrier, their claim will be dismissed. This actual innocence definition in case law is not only one of the highest standards in the country, but is also higher than the standard required to reverse a conviction.

AB 3088 seeks to articulate the standard by which procedural barriers can be overcome by innocent individuals attempting to secure their release from prison through habeas petitions in California. AB 3088 would allow for habeas petitions implicating a wrongful conviction to be evaluated on their merits rather than being summarily dismissed based on procedural grounds. Specifically, if it is indicated that by a preponderance of the evidence, at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner, the claims raised in a petition should be considered by the court on their merits in light of the new evidence presented.

The result of the current system is innocent incarcerated people being barred from habeas petition consideration due to ill-defined procedural barriers. These individuals find themselves barred from presenting compelling evidence that could prove their innocence, resulting in wrongly incarcerated people remaining in prison. This clarification in the law is necessary for California to ensure that the wrongfully convicted are given an equitable process to prove their innocence. AB 3088 aims to ensure that the wrongfully incarcerated are empowered with the rightful opportunity to argue their case, fostering a justice system that genuinely honors and prioritizes the crucial task of determining innocence."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), "AB 3088 would implement a mandate for courts to disregard longstanding rules that require habeas corpus petitioners to file new claims in a timely manner and prohibit repetitive attempts to raise previously rejected claims. These procedural rules already permit a court to hear a petition that is unduly delayed or successive if the court finds that the claims raised would show a fundamental miscarriage of justice. AB 3088 however would mandate the court hear an otherwise barred petition based on a finding that a single juror would – for any reason – not have convicted the defendant. […]If a habeas corpus petition is granted, however, prosecutors may be unable to retry the case. This is especially true when the petition is brought decades after the original verdict. Evidence may have been lost and witnesses may have forgotten details or may even be deceased. This is especially true if the habeas proceedings are commenced long after the original conviction. The procedural protections that this bill would eliminate help ensure that persons convicted of crime cannot take unfair advantage of the passage of time.
AB 3088 would also permit a court to ignore abusive use of writ petitions. Such abuses include repeated petitions raising the same claims, or repetitive petitions each raising only part of a claim even though the entirety of the information was known at the time of filing the original writ. Abuses also include using a writ to raise issues that have already been decided on their merits. Under AB 3088 a petitioner could file multiple petitions raising the same claim even if a court has already determined the claim is without merit.

For example, a petitioner could claim they had an alibi for the time of the crime. That allegation, taken as true and supported by reasonably available evidence, may establish a prima facie case. Under AB 3088, such a claim [could] be raised decades after the conviction even though the convicted person would presumably have known where they were and who they were with at the time of the crime. Moreover, if the alibi claim resulted in a hearing upon first being raised, and if at that hearing the People presented proof the alibi evidence was falsified, current procedural protections would mean the court could refuse to hear the claim again. AB 3088 however would mandate a new hearing on the merits because an alibi defense, if believed, could cause a juror to vote not guilty. Under AB 3088 there would be no limit to the number of hearings the defendant would be entitled to have on the same disproven claim. […]

Further, AB 3088 appears broad enough to apply when an individual juror's shift in religious, social, or political beliefs regarding the crime, defendant, or victim mean that the juror would no longer vote to convict regardless of the evidence presented at trial or in a habeas petition."

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 6-1-1

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

NO: Alanis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey

UPDATED

VERSION: February 16, 2024

CONSULTANT: Liah Burnley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002692

Date of Hearing: April 2, 2024

Counsel: Liah Burnley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY: Requires a

habeas corpus petition to be considered on the merits and not dismissed on grounds that it is untimely or successive if, the allegations in the petition taken as true, establish by a preponderance of evidence that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner in light of the new evidence.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that a person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment or restraint. (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (a).)
   
2. States that a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons:
   
   1. False evidence that is material on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against a person at a hearing or trial relating to the person’s incarceration;
      
   2. False physical evidence, believed by a person to be factual, probative, or material on the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty, as specified;
   3. New evidence exists that is presented without substantial delay, is admissible, and is sufficiently material and credible that it more likely than not would have changed the outcome of the case. “New evidence” means evidence that has not previously been presented and heard at trial and has been discovered after trial; and,
      
   4. A significant dispute has emerged or further developed in the petitioner’s favor regarding expert medical, scientific, or forensic testimony that was introduced at trial or a hearing and that expert testimony more likely than not affected the outcome of the case, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (b)(1).)
      
3. Provides that the writ of habeas corpus may also be prosecuted after judgment has been entered based on evidence that a criminal conviction or sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)
   
4. States that a petition raising a claim based on evidence that a criminal conviction or sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, or on the basis of new discovery provided by the state or other new evidence that could not have been previously known by the petitioner with due diligence, shall not be deemed a successive or abusive petition. (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e).)
   
5. Provides that, if the district attorney in the county of conviction or the Attorney General concedes or stipulates to a factual or legal basis for habeas relief, there shall be a presumption in favor of granting relief. This presumption may be overcome only if the record before the court contradicts the concession or stipulation or it would lead to the court issuing an order contrary to law. (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (g).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “People who are innocent but imprisoned face obstacles in seeking habeas petition relief due to unclear procedural bars. They are prevented from presenting crucial evidence that could exonerate them, leading to unjust incarceration. California must address this legal ambiguity to ensure fair opportunities for the wrongly convicted. AB 3088 seeks to empower those wrongly imprisoned with the chance to present their case effectively, fostering a criminal legal system that prioritizes the vital goal of establishing innocence.”
   
2. The Writ of Habeas Corpus: The right to habeas corpus is guaranteed by the California Constitution and “may not be suspended unless required by public safety in cases of rebellion or invasion.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 11.) A writ of habeas corpus provides “an avenue of relief to those unjustly incarcerated when the normal method of relief—i.e., direct appeal—is inadequate.” (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 450.) Habeas challenges are a “safety valve” or “escape hatch” allowing an incarcerated person to attack the validity of a conviction “based on newly discovered evidence, claims going to the jurisdiction of the court, and claims of constitutional dimension.” (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 766-767.) “The fundamental due process principle . . . is that the prosecution may not deprive an accused of the opportunity to present material evidence which might prove his innocence.” (People v. Mejia (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 574, 579.)
   
   A writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted when there is false evidence that is material on the issue of guilt or punishment that was introduced against the defendant at trial or at the time of entering a plea of guilty, as specified; when new evidence exists that is sufficiently material and credible and it more likely than not would have changed the outcome of the case, as specified; and, if a significant dispute has emerged or further developed in the defendant’s favor regarding expert medical, scientific, or forensic testimony that was introduced at trial and that expert testimony more likely than not affected the outcome of the case, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (b)(1).)
   
3. Dismissals Based on Timeliness: Under existing law, a person who wishes to challenge their conviction by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in state court must present each claim in a timely fashion^[1]. There is no express time period in which to seek state habeas corpus relief in a non-capital criminal case. (In re Douglas (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 236, 242.) Whether a claim has been timely presented is assessed based on an indeterminate reasonableness standard. A petition is timely if filed “within a reasonable time.” (Evans v. Chavis (2006) 546 U.S. 189, 191-192.)

Generally, delay in seeking habeas corpus relief in a non-capital case is measured from the time a petitioner or petitioner’s counsel becomes aware of the grounds for relief, which may be as early as the date of conviction. (Douglas, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at 243.) To show that there was not a substantial delay in filing a habeas petition, the “petitioner must allege, with specificity, facts showing when information offered in support of the claim was obtained, and that the information neither was known, nor reasonably should have been known, at any earlier time.” (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 461.)

There are exceptions to the rule. California courts allow a longer delay if the petitioner demonstrates good cause. (In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 780.) “A petitioner may establish good cause by showing particular circumstances to justify substantial delay.” (Ibid.) A petitioner can also bring an untimely habeas petition if they can show “error of constitutional magnitude led to a trial that was so fundamentally unfair that absent the error no reasonable judge or jury would have convicted the petitioner”; that they are “actually innocent of the crime or crimes of which he or she was convicted”; or that they were “convicted or sentenced under an invalid statute.” (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 460; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 797–98.)

This bill would additionally require a habeas corpus petition to be considered on the merits and not dismissed on grounds that it is untimely if, the allegations in the petition taken as true, establish by a preponderance of evidence that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner in light of the new evidence.

1. Dismissals Based on Successive Petitions: Under existing law, a person is not allowed to engage in “piecemeal litigation” by bringing successive habeas petitions (i.e. “abuse of the writ”). For example, courts may refuse to consider new arguments if those arguments were known to the person when they brought a prior attack on the judgment. (In re Clark, supra,5 Cal.4th 750.) Similarly, previously rejected claims will not be considered in a successive petition. “It has long been the rule that absent a change applicable law of facts the court will not consider repeated applications for habeas corpus presenting claims that were previously rejected.” (Ibid.) Before a successive petition is considered on its merits, the petitioner must explain their failure to timely present their claims in prior petitions. (Id., at p. 779.)
   
   This bill would require a habeas petition to be considered on the merits and not dismissed even if it is a successive petition if the allegations in the petition establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner.
2. Argument in Support: According to La Defensa “In California, case law states that a petitioner has to bring their habeas petition in a timely fashion and that courts will not consider successive claims. Unlike other states, these requirements are not statutorily defined, forcing courts to look to case law to determine whether a petition is timely or successive. Under existing case law, the procedural barriers of timeliness and successive petition considerations often bar incarcerated people from having their claims heard by a court, even when new evidence of innocence is alleged in their case.
   

“If someone fails to file a habeas petition in a timely manner or faces other procedural barriers, the court may dismiss the petition based on procedural grounds alone. This means that the court never has to consider the merits of the petition at all if it is deemed untimely or successive in their initial review of the petition. If the petitioner cannot prove actual innocence, as defined in case law, to overcome the procedural barrier, their claim will be dismissed. This actual innocence definition in case law is not only one of the highest standards in the country, but is also higher than the standard required to reverse a conviction.

“AB 3088 seeks to articulate the standard by which procedural barriers can be overcome by innocent individuals attempting to secure their release from prison through habeas petitions in California. AB 3088 would allow for habeas petitions implicating a wrongful conviction to be evaluated on their merits rather than being summarily dismissed based on procedural grounds. Specifically, if it is indicated that by a preponderance of the evidence, at least one juror would not have convicted the petitioner, the claims raised in a petition should be considered by the court on their merits in light of the new evidence presented.

“The result of the current system is innocent incarcerated people being barred from habeas petition consideration due to ill-defined procedural barriers. These individuals find themselves barred from presenting compelling evidence that could prove their innocence, resulting in wrongly incarcerated people remaining in prison. This clarification in the law is necessary for California to ensure that the wrongfully convicted are given an equitable process to prove their innocence. AB 3088 aims to ensure that the wrongfully incarcerated are empowered with the rightful opportunity to argue their case, fostering a justice system that genuinely honors and prioritizes the crucial task of determining innocence.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), “AB 3088 would implement a mandate for courts to disregard longstanding rules that require habeas corpus petitioners to file new claims in a timely manner and prohibit repetitive attempts to raise previously rejected claims. These procedural rules already permit a court to hear a petition that is unduly delayed or successive if the court finds that the claims raised would show a fundamental miscarriage of justice. AB 3088 however would mandate the court hear an otherwise barred petition based on a finding that a single juror would – for any reason – not have convicted the defendant. […]
   

“If a habeas corpus petition is granted, however, prosecutors may be unable to retry the case. This is especially true when the petition is brought decades after the original verdict. Evidence may have been lost and witnesses may have forgotten details or may even be deceased. This is especially true if the habeas proceedings are commenced long after the original conviction. The procedural protections that this bill would eliminate help ensure that persons convicted of crime cannot take unfair advantage of the passage of time.

“AB 3088 would also permit a court to ignore abusive use of writ petitions. Such abuses include repeated petitions raising the same claims, or repetitive petitions each raising only part of a claim even though the entirety of the information was known at the time of filing the original writ. Abuses also include using a writ to raise issues that have already been decided on their merits. Under AB 3088 a petitioner could file multiple petitions raising the same claim even if a court has already determined the claim is without merit.

“For example, a petitioner could claim they had an alibi for the time of the crime. That allegation, taken as true and supported by reasonably available evidence, may establish a prima facie case. Under AB 3088, such a claim be raised decades after the conviction even though the convicted person would presumably have known where they were and who they were with at the time of the crime. Moreover, if the alibi claim resulted in a hearing upon first being raised, and if at that hearing the People presented proof the alibi evidence was falsified, current procedural protections would mean the court could refuse to hear the claim again. AB 3088 however would mandate a new hearing on the merits because an alibi defense, if believed, could cause a juror to vote not guilty. Under AB 3088 there would be no limit to the number of hearings the defendant would be entitled to have on the same disproven claim. […]

“Further, AB 3088 appears broad enough to apply when an individual juror’s shift in religious, social, or political beliefs regarding the crime, defendant, or victim mean that the juror would no longer vote to convict regardless of the evidence presented at trial or in a habeas petition.”

1. Related Legislation: AB 2483 (Ting), would require the presiding judge of each county superior court to convene a meeting to plan for fair and efficient handling of postconviction proceedings. AB 2483 is being heard by this Committee today.
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 97 (Wiener), Chapter 381, Statutes of 2023, authorizes a broader basis for the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus when new evidence is discovered after plea or trial, creates a presumption in favor of granting relief if the prosecution stipulates to a factual or legal basis for the relief, and provides for continuity of counsel on retrial.
      
   2. SB 467 (Wiener), Chapter 982, Statutes of 2022, permits a person to bring a habeas writ where a significant dispute has developed regarding expert medical, scientific, or forensic testimony that would have more likely than not changed the outcome of their trial, and expands the definition of false evidence for the purpose of a habeas writ.
   3. SB 1134 (Leno), Chapter 785, Statutes of 2016, codified a standard for habeas corpus petitions filed on the basis of new evidence.
      
   4. SB 1058 (Leno), Chapter 623, Statutes of 2014, allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted when evidence given at trial has subsequently been repudiated by the expert that testified or undermined by later scientific research or technological advances.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Coalition for Women Prisoners

California for Safety and Justice

California Public Defenders Association

Californians United for A Responsible Budget

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Felony Murder Elimination Project

Initiate Justice

LA Defensa

Legal Services for Prisoners With Children

Rubicon Programs

San Francisco Public Defender

Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy

University of San Francisco School of Law | Racial Justice Clinic

Young Women's Freedom Center

Opposition

California District Attorneys Association

Analysis Prepared by:

1. The changes made by this bill would apply to non-capitol cases only. Proposition 66, codified as California Penal Code section 1509, provides that the initial habeas petition in a death penalty case must be filed within one year of the order in which habeas corpus counsel was appointed. (See also, Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808.) ↑