Full Assembly to Vote in August

The Fair Sentencing for Youth Act, which allows juveniles serving life sentences to have an opportunity for parole after 10 years, passed out of the California Assembly Appropriations Committee. The next and final vote, scheduled for August, will be by the full Assembly.  The bill needs support of 41 of the Assembly’s 80 members in order to pass.

NCYL and Human Rights Watch are co-sponsors of the legislation, commonly known as Senate Bill 399. The bill provides an opportunity for people sentenced to life without parole as juveniles to have their sentences reviewed by the parole board after 10 years. After review, a prisoner’s sentence may be commuted to 25 years to life. After serving 25 years, the prisoner goes before the parole board to determine if he or she should be released. Although the bill is retroactive in its application, under no circumstances is release guaranteed with the adoption of the bill. It simply provides the opportunity for review of a sentence after 10 years.

The bill is authored by Sen. Leland Yee (D-SF/San Mateo) and co-authored by Sen. Gloria Romero (D-LA), Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), and Assembly Member Filipe Fuentes (D-Sylmar). Senator Yee, who is a child psychologist, introduced SB 399 to reflect scientific evidence that maturation continues beyond adolescence. Therefore, young people should be provided with an opportunity for parole, as they are the most amendable to treatment.

There are several cases that illustrate the cruelty of sentencing juveniles to life without parole. One such case is that of Sarah Kruzan. Sarah, now 32, was sentenced to life without parole for killing her pimp when she was 16 years old. Her then 36-year old pimp had sexually abused her and groomed her for prostitution starting when she was 11 years old. Sarah was sentenced to life without parole even though a psychiatric evaluation revealed that she was amenable to rehabilitation.

Antonio Nunez was just 14 when he was riding in a car with two adults in South Los Angeles. The men had picked up Antonio at a party. One would later claim to be a kidnapping victim. Later that day, when plainclothes police officers in an unmarked van began to chase their car, Antonio fired shots at them out of fear that he would be hurt. Just one year earlier, he had been critically injured in a drive-by shooting that took the life of his brother. When the unmarked police van activated its light, Antonio dropped the gun. He took responsibility for his actions after being arrested. Although no one was hurt, Antonio was sentenced to life without parole for armed kidnapping. California’s 4th District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded his case, holding his sentence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Tragically, however, Antonio was resentenced to another excessive sentence of five life terms with the possibility of parole after serving 186 years.

More than half of juveniles nationwide sentenced to life without parole were first-time offenders. There are more than 270 people in California prisons sentenced to life without parole as juveniles. No other country in the world sentences juveniles to life without the possibility of parole. California also has the worst record in the country for racial disparity in meting out juvenile life without parole sentences.  African American youth are serving life without parole at a rate 18 times higher than white youth; the rate for Hispanic youth is five times higher.

Jeanne Woodford, a former warden at San Quentin State Prison and former director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, supports adoption of the bill and testified before the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Woodford has more than 30 years’ experience in law enforcement.

Current California law only allows resentencing for prisoners who have not been sentenced to life without parole, and resentencing can only occur upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or the Parole Board of Hearings.

Under SB 399, a prisoner would be granted a petition for review only if he or she meets three of eight specific criteria, including:

• Defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder or aiding and abetting murder provisions of law.
• Defendant does not have juvenile felony adjudications for assault or other felony crimes with a significant potential for personal harm to victims prior to the offense for which the sentence is being considered for recall.
• Defendant committed the offense with at least one adult co-defendant.
• Prior to the offense for which the sentence is being considered for recall, defendant had insufficient adult support or supervision and had suffered psychological or physical trauma, or significant stress.
• Defendant suffers from cognitive limitations due to mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other factors that did not constitute a defense, but influenced defendant's involvement in the offense.
• Defendant has performed acts that indicate rehabilitation or the potential for rehabilitation, including but not limited to participation in rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs, using self-study for self-improvement, or taking action that demonstrates the presence of remorse.
• Defendant has maintained family ties or connections with others through letter writing, calls, or visits, or has eliminated contact with individuals outside of prison who are currently involved with crime.
• Defendant has had no violent disciplinary violations in the last five years in which the defendant was determined to be the aggressor.
• 
If the criteria are met, the bill would require a resentencing hearing. All of the procedures that apply to the initial sentencing hearings (including allowing victims or victims’ families to make statements aggravating or mitigating the sentence) would be followed in the resentencing hearing. Additionally, the matter would be held before the judge who originally sentenced the prisoner, if that judge is available.