Prison Talk

Prison Talk (http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes (http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=228)
-   -   SB 1437 / Updated: Passed. Waiting on Governor's signature (http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=710473)

PapaSmurf 03-09-2018 01:25 AM

SB 1437 / Updated: Passed. Waiting on Governor's signature
 
Outlined Below as the Senate Bill for the continuation of SCR 48

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1437

ARC is behind this (Yay ARC :) )

My questions are for this situation / case:

1) The Primary took a 1st Degree Murder as a Plea Bargain
2) The Accessory (Non Primary) took a deal for a Second Degree Murder as the Plea Bargain.
3) The First Degree Murderer admitted he killed the victim.
4) Nothing ever went to trial.

Based on this law change, there is no way for the second guy to get a 1st degree murder or even a second degree murder (Due to many different laws)

The question is, based on the TEXT of the new legislation, what time would the second guys time be re sentenced to?

It is clear in this specific instance that the Second guy did not kill the victim and was part of the felony murder concept.

qwerty 05-11-2018 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PapaSmurf (Post 7706736)
The question is, based on the TEXT of the new legislation, what time would the second guys time be re sentenced to?

Wish I knew... I am guessing the person would be re-sentenced only to the underlying felony charge that made it felony murder (ie. robbery, etc).

But I'd sure love to hear our PTO legal experts chime in on this!

miamac 05-11-2018 01:38 PM

The details of the plea and the prior record would factor here. Without knowing those, we can't put a number (even with, we'd be guessing).

The text indicates that:
"This bill would prohibit a participant or conspirator in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of one of the specified first degree murder felonies in which a death occurs from being liable for murder, unless the person personally committed the homicidal act, the person acted with premeditated intent to aid and abet an act wherein a death would occur, or the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life."

So it's not a cut and dry, if you didn't commit the act you're off the hook for murder. If you participated and the prosecution can show intent or reckless indifference, you're still eligible for the charge of murder.

Further, if there were prior strikes involved, this bill does not allow the court to remove those as a factor in sentencing.

It looks like it's still making its way through committees which leaves time for amendments. I would hold off on conjecture and specific sentence forecasting until in its final form.

gvalliant 05-11-2018 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miamac (Post 7720054)
It looks like it's still making its way through committees which leaves time for amendments. I would hold off on conjecture and specific sentence forecasting until in its final form.


Every inmate in that position would want to try for re-sentencing. Which would cost the courts and CDCR a lot of time and money just processing the requests. A lot more money having the actual hearings for those who qualify. I bet millions of $ impact. A lot of opponents are going to chirp about that.

We might start hearing noise in the press especially if it passes the senate and on to assembly hearings. If it does get that far inmates will hear and start talking about it. I'm gonna track and see if makes progress.

miamac 05-11-2018 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gvalliant (Post 7720082)
Every inmate in that position would want to try for re-sentencing. Which would cost the courts and CDCR a lot of time and money just processing the requests. A lot more money having the actual hearings for those who qualify. I bet millions of $ impact. A lot of opponents are going to chirp about that.


Any chance proponents will have the ability to prove a financial offset with reduced sentencing? I never know how that works as the budgets are completely separate, though funded by the same taxpayers. Individual counties would be affected disproportionately and the corrections budget is a state issue.

gvalliant 05-11-2018 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miamac (Post 7720091)
Any chance proponents will have the ability to prove a financial offset with reduced sentencing? I never know how that works as the budgets are completely separate, though funded by the same taxpayers. Individual counties would be affected disproportionately and the corrections budget is a state issue.

Those are issues that can be brought up in any hearing by politicos and the public during testimony. When the bill lands in the Senate Appropriations (and later Assembly Appropriations) committees they will (should) discuss, analyze, and try to quantify those exact issues.

How much potential cost to CDCR etc to administer / transport inmates etc?

How much savings to CDCR from reduced sentencing?

So a good question and we should watch for how those committees address it. I think LAO will weigh in also.

There is some cost threshold (over $100K I think) where a bill goes into what they call suspense. That can be a problem. Some senator or assemblymember or group then has to step forward and get funding for it. Which takes guts most of them don't have. So bills often die if they go into suspense / cost money.

Easy for politicians to support something if it doesn't cost anything right?

qwerty 05-17-2018 10:05 AM

Video of Senate Appropriations hearing on SB 1437
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC_2pHx_7xE

Lots of mentions of the savings it could bring. Also, it passed Appropriations 7-0.

gvalliant 05-18-2018 09:08 AM

Their back of the napkin math said hundreds of millions savings per year. They glossed over cost for re-sentencing, guesstimating one time cost of $7 million. Not as precise as you would hope from a committee charged with appropriations. Their "WAG'" at numbers seem overwhelmingly favorable nonetheless.

To suspense file. Budget for it and move it to Assembly who I believe are not as Liberal as Senate. Good so far.

qwerty 05-18-2018 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gvalliant (Post 7721125)
Their back of the napkin math said hundreds of millions savings per year. They glossed over cost for re-sentencing, guesstimating one time cost of $7 million. Not as precise as you would hope from a committee charged with appropriations. Their "WAG'" at numbers seem overwhelmingly favorable nonetheless.

To suspense file. Budget for it and move it to Assembly who I believe are not as Liberal as Senate. Good so far.

I agree with your assessment here. The Assembly is a tad more conservative, so we shall see. I am getting the sense that Skinner is not going to let this die on the vine if she can help it.

What is strange to me is the additional language in the actual bill that seems (to me) to be making it harder for prosecutors to plea bargain. It does not relate to felony murder cases, just serious felonies in general. Another example of the legislature cobbling two oddly unrelated things together...?

qwerty 05-26-2018 06:43 PM

My mistake. It did not pass Senate Appropriations 7-0, that was the vote to put it in suspension.

However, it did just pass Appropriations 5-2 on Friday. It's now headed to a second reading. They made some amendments that I like the language of -- makes it much clearer who the bill applies to and how re-sentencing will work.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180SB1437

qwerty 05-30-2018 03:50 PM

It just passed the Senate, something like 28-11. Now on to the Assembly! :D

qwerty 05-31-2018 10:23 AM

Final vote was 26-11.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180SB1437

Patrickj 05-31-2018 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty (Post 7724026)


So now it is time for us to call or email our assembly members if we support this Bill.

AdalineNChris 05-31-2018 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty (Post 7724026)

'Hi Was Reading The Bill Wanted To Ask Does It Help The Inmates Who Are In Prison ? Of Charge's Attempted Murder/With Machine Assault With A Deadly Weapon On Person ? ? .

PapaSmurf 06-01-2018 12:22 AM

On its way
 
well it looks like it is doing well.
Needs 41 votes to pass in the assembly.
Democrats rulethe Assembly by 69%

Anyway, as to the Plea Bargain Aspect.

Prosecutors abused the Plea Bargains and basically gave many accomplices zero choice but to take Plea Bargains for 15 or 25 to life for Second or First Degree Murders they didn't physically commit.

How you say?

Because proving Felony Murder is easier than actual murder.
And what is worse... The actual killer gets a 25 or 15 to life sentence and the Felony Murder Rule leaves the non killer facing Life Without Parole or Death Penalty.

This is no joke, it is dead accurate truth.

The secondary gets pressured to take a deal to avoid the LWOP or Death Penalty for a murder they didnt actually physically do.

The prosecutors will paint the worst story possible about the accomplice as being equally liable for every single possible BS reason and can legally do it.

Thank God someone is exposing this.

lovemyandrew 06-07-2018 06:52 PM

Does anybody know when it will be ready in Assembly commitee?

Patrickj 06-07-2018 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovemyandrew (Post 7725496)
Does anybody know when it will be ready in Assembly commitee?

Here is the latest action on this Bill. Lets hope it doesn't die at the desk

Last 5 History Actions
Date Action
05/31/18 In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
05/30/18 Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 26. Noes 11.) Ordered to the Assembly.
05/29/18 Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
05/25/18 Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
05/25/18 From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (May 25).

qwerty 06-07-2018 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdalineNChris (Post 7724099)
'Hi Was Reading The Bill Wanted To Ask Does It Help The Inmates Who Are In Prison ? Of Charge's Attempted Murder/With Machine Assault With A Deadly Weapon On Person ? ? .

Sorry, no this bill only deals with people charged under the "felony murder rule," it's a very specific charge.

qwerty 06-07-2018 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrickj (Post 7725544)
Here is the latest action on this Bill. Lets hope it doesn't die at the desk

Yes, let's hope indeed! I just read that "held at desk" usually means it's being prepared to go before a committee. Guessing Public Safety, since that's who had it first in the Senate.

UPDATE: The website for the bill is asking people to contact the Assembly Public Safety Committee chair, so it looks like that's where it's headed next!

https://restorecal.org/sb1437/

Patrickj 06-08-2018 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty (Post 7725561)
Yes, let's hope indeed! I just read that "held at desk" usually means it's being prepared to go before a committee. Guessing Public Safety, since that's who had it first in the Senate.

UPDATE: The website for the bill is asking people to contact the Assembly Public Safety Committee chair, so it looks like that's where it's headed next!

https://restorecal.org/sb1437/

This Bill is still young in the Assembly, I know through other legislation that I have fought against. "Tabling" is done when they don't really want to take action on the legislation. Correct this Bill hasn't gone to committee. In order to be approved it will need a majority vote in the Assembly. Lets keep our eyes on this one. I will see if I can find any Hearing dates on this Bill and post it when I do

lovemyandrew 06-08-2018 03:17 PM

Held at desk
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrickj (Post 7725544)
Here is the latest action on this Bill. Lets hope it doesn't die at the desk

Last 5 History Actions
Date Action
05/31/18 In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
05/30/18 Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 26. Noes 11.) Ordered to the Assembly.
05/29/18 Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
05/25/18 Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
05/25/18 From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (May 25).

I dont quite understand what Held at desk means. Im new to advocating but trying to learn:). How can this bill "die at the Desk"

Patrickj 06-08-2018 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovemyandrew (Post 7725740)
I dont quite understand what Held at desk means. Im new to advocating but trying to learn:). How can this bill "die at the Desk"

A Bill being held at the desk means it needs to go to committee for hearing and approval. Then it must pass the Assembly by a majority vote.
For a Bill to die at the desk it is never assigned to a committee. Then the session of the legislators ends. Then all Bills that have not gone to committee for a hearing for approval or disapproval die at the end of the legislation session.
Sometimes a Bill, gets "Tabled" because it doesn't have the support to get it passed or it just plain bad legislation. Party politics plays into the game also.

Here are a couple of articles(web pages) that may help you also. OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
Lifecycle of a Bill
Here is the definition of TABLE To set aside. Typically used to dispense with, or set aside, amendments to a bill rather than vote “aye” or “no” on them. A motion to table is nondebatable and, once made, must be voted upon. TAX LEVY – Any bill that imposes, repeals, or materially alters a state tax. Legislative Counsel determines whether a bill is a tax levy and so indicates this information in the title, digest, and body of the bill. Tax levies have slightly different legislative deadlines than do other measures.
This definition comes from Glossary of Legislative Terms at the link below

A Guide for Accessing California Legislative Information on the Internet
The California Legislative Process This link has good information also You can look on page 2 for A General Calendar of the Legislative Process

PapaSmurf 06-09-2018 05:17 PM

Public Safety
 
This is a public safety issue so it will be:

Referred to Committee on Public Safety for the Assembly

Probably around 06-15 to 06-20 time frame.

qwerty 06-11-2018 01:50 PM

Re:Store Justice just sent an email saying the bill will be heard in the Assembly's Public Safety Committee on June 26.

Letters to the committee must be sent by next Tuesday, June 19.

They have a page set up for those who wish to email the committee chair: https://restorecal.org/sb1437/

lovemyandrew 06-11-2018 08:54 PM

committee hearing for SB 1437
 
how can we attend this hearing


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online