AB 1166 - An Act to Amend Sections 3041 and 3041.5 of the Penal Code, Relating to Parole.

Parole: hearings: review. 2009-2010 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law provides that, one year prior to the minimum eligible parole release date of an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence, a panel of 2 or more commissioners or deputy commissioners of the Board of Parole Hearings shall meet with the inmate and set a parole release date, as specified. Existing law provides that in the event of a tie vote, the matter shall be referred to the board for… More
Existing law provides that, one year prior to the minimum eligible parole release date of an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence, a panel of 2 or more commissioners or deputy commissioners of the Board of Parole Hearings shall meet with the inmate and set a parole release date, as specified. Existing law provides that in the event of a tie vote, the matter shall be referred to the board for an en banc hearing, as specified.

This bill would, instead, provide that in the event of a tie vote, the matter shall be referred to the board for an en banc review limited to the record, as specified, that was before the panel that rendered the tie vote. The bill would require the board to vote, upon the en banc review of the record, to either grant or deny parole and render a statement of decision. The bill would require the board to separately state reasons for its decision to grant or deny parole. The bill would require that the commissioners involved in the tie vote be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review.

Existing law, as amended by Proposition 9, the Victim’s Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law, of the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, establishes procedures at all hearings for the purpose of reviewing a prisoner’s parole suitability, or the setting, postponing, or rescinding of parole dates, and provides prisoners and victims specified rights at these hearings.

This bill would exempt en banc reviews of tie votes from these provisions.

Proposition 9 permits the Legislature, by a statute enacted by a vote of 34 of the membership of each house and in accordance with specified procedures, to amend the provisions of the act. Because this bill would eliminate these en banc hearings and exempt en banc reviews from the application of this act’s statutory provisions, it would require a 34 vote of the Legislature. Hide
 
Status:
The bill has become law (chaptered). 
Assembly Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 27, 2009.

voted YES: 76 voted NO: 1
2 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Sections 3041 and 3041.5 of the Penal Code, Relating to Parole.

AB 1166 — 2009-2010 Legislature

Summary
Existing law provides that, one year prior to the minimum eligible parole release date of an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence, a panel of 2 or more commissioners or deputy commissioners of the Board of Parole Hearings shall meet with the inmate and set a parole release date, as specified. Existing law provides that in the event of a tie vote, the matter shall be referred to the board for an en banc hearing, as specified.

This bill would, instead, provide that in the event of a tie vote, the matter shall be referred to the board for an en banc review limited to the record, as specified, that was before the panel that rendered the tie vote. The bill would require the board to vote, upon the en banc review of the record, to either grant or deny parole and render a statement of decision. The bill would require the board to separately state reasons for its decision to grant or deny parole. The bill would require that the commissioners involved in the tie vote be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review.

Existing law, as amended by Proposition 9, the Victim’s Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law, of the November 4, 2008,… More
Existing law provides that, one year prior to the minimum eligible parole release date of an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence, a panel of 2 or more commissioners or deputy commissioners of the Board of Parole Hearings shall meet with the inmate and set a parole release date, as specified. Existing law provides that in the event of a tie vote, the matter shall be referred to the board for an en banc hearing, as specified.

This bill would, instead, provide that in the event of a tie vote, the matter shall be referred to the board for an en banc review limited to the record, as specified, that was before the panel that rendered the tie vote. The bill would require the board to vote, upon the en banc review of the record, to either grant or deny parole and render a statement of decision. The bill would require the board to separately state reasons for its decision to grant or deny parole. The bill would require that the commissioners involved in the tie vote be recused from consideration of the matter in the en banc review.

Existing law, as amended by Proposition 9, the Victim’s Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law, of the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, establishes procedures at all hearings for the purpose of reviewing a prisoner’s parole suitability, or the setting, postponing, or rescinding of parole dates, and provides prisoners and victims specified rights at these hearings.

This bill would exempt en banc reviews of tie votes from these provisions.

Proposition 9 permits the Legislature, by a statute enacted by a vote of 34 of the membership of each house and in accordance with specified procedures, to amend the provisions of the act. Because this bill would eliminate these en banc hearings and exempt en banc reviews from the application of this act’s statutory provisions, it would require a 34 vote of the Legislature. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 3041 and 3041.5 of the Penal Code, Relating to Parole.
Author(s)
Jim Nielsen
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Parole: hearings: review
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/27/2009
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Assembly Committee on Public Safety4/21/2009
    Passed Assembly Committee on Appropriations5/06/2009
    Passed Assembly5/14/2009
    Passed Senate Committee on Public Safety7/07/2009
    Passed Senate8/24/2009
    Passed Assembly8/27/2009
    Presented to the governor (enrolled)9/02/2009
    Became law (chaptered).10/11/2009
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteAssembly Committee on Public SafetyDo pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.4/21/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Public Safety
    7 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on AppropriationsDo pass, to Consent Calendar.5/06/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
    15 voted YES 0 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblyAB 1166 NIELSEN Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session5/14/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
    73 voted YES 0 voted NO 7 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on Public SafetyDo pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.7/07/2009This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Public Safety
    7 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateSpecial Consent #15 AB1166 Nielsen8/24/2009This bill PASSED the Senate
    39 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedAssemblyAB 1166 NIELSEN Concurrence in Senate Amendments8/27/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
    76 voted YES 1 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/27/2009
    2/27/2009Introduced. To print.
    3/01/2009From printer. May be heard in committee March 30.
    3/02/2009Read first time.
    3/26/2009Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
    select this voteVote4/21/2009Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    4/22/2009From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 21).
    select this voteVote5/06/2009Do pass, to Consent Calendar.
    5/07/2009From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (May 6).
    5/11/2009Read second time. To Consent Calendar.
    5/14/2009Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 1470.)
    5/14/2009In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage5/14/2009AB 1166 NIELSEN Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session
    5/21/2009Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
    select this voteVote7/07/2009Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
    7/08/2009From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 7).
    7/09/2009Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    7/23/2009From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
    8/17/2009Read second time. To third reading.
    8/20/2009Ordered to Special Consent Calendar.
    8/24/2009Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 1926.)
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage8/24/2009Special Consent #15 AB1166 Nielsen
    8/25/2009In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 27 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
    8/27/2009Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 76. Noes 1. Page 2748.)
    currently selectedAssembly Vote on Passage8/27/2009AB 1166 NIELSEN Concurrence in Senate Amendments
    9/02/2009Enrolled and to the Governor at 4:15 p.m.
    10/11/2009Approved by the Governor.
    10/11/2009Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 276, Statutes of 2009.

    MapLight did not identify any interest groups that took a position on this vote.
    You may be able to explore campaign contributions data if you add interest groups.

    0 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Amend Sections 3041 and 3041.5 of the Penal Code, Relating to Parole.: AB 1166 NIELSEN Concurrence in Senate Amendments

    0 organizations supported this bill

    0 organizations opposed this bill

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Assemblymembers in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2010.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Anthony AdamsRCA-59$0$0Yes
    Tom AmmianoDCA-13$0$0No
    Joel AndersonRCA-77$0$0Yes
    Juan ArambulaICA-31$0$0Yes
    Karen BassDCA-47$0$0Yes
    Jim BeallDCA-24$0$0Yes
    Bill BerryhillRCA-26$0$0Yes
    Tom BerryhillRCA-25$0$0Yes
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-33$0$0Yes
    Marty BlockDCA-78$0$0Yes
    Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$0$0Yes
    Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0Yes
    Joan BuchananDCA-15$0$0Yes
    Anna CaballeroDCA-28$0$0Yes
    Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0Yes
    Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0Yes
    Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$0$0Yes
    Connie ConwayRCA-34$0$0Yes
    Paul CookRCA-65$0$0Yes
    Joe CotoDCA-23$0$0Yes
    Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0Yes
    Hector De La TorreDCA-50$0$0Yes
    Kevin De LeonDCA-45$0$0Yes
    Chuck DeVoreRCA-70$0$0Yes
    Mike DuvallRCA-72$0$0Yes
    Bill EmmersonRCA-63$0$0Yes
    Mike EngDCA-49$0$0Yes
    Noreen EvansDCA-7$0$0Not Voting
    Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0Yes
    Nathan FletcherRCA-75$0$0Yes
    Paul FongDCA-22$0$0Yes
    Felipe FuentesDCA-39$0$0Yes
    Jean FullerRCA-32$0$0Yes
    Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0Yes
    Ted GainesRCA-4$0$0Yes
    Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$0$0Yes
    Martin GarrickRCA-74$0$0Yes
    Danny GilmoreRCA-30$0$0Yes
    Curt HagmanRCA-60$0$0Yes
    Isadore HallDCA-52$0$0Yes
    Diane HarkeyRCA-73$0$0Yes
    Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0Yes
    Ed HernandezDCA-57$0$0Yes
    Jerry HillDCA-19$0$0Yes
    Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0Yes
    Jared HuffmanDCA-6$0$0Yes
    Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0Yes
    Dave JonesDCA-9$0$0Yes
    Steve KnightRCA-36$0$0Yes
    Paul KrekorianDCA-43$0$0Yes
    Ted LieuDCA-53$0$0Yes
    Dan LogueRCA-3$0$0Yes
    Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$0$0Yes
    Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0Yes
    Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0Yes
    Jeff MillerRCA-71$0$0Yes
    Bill MonningDCA-27$0$0Yes
    Pedro NavaDCA-35$0$0Yes
    Brian NestandeRCA-64$0$0Yes
    Roger NielloRCA-5$0$0Yes
    Jim NielsenRCA-2$0$0Yes
    John PerezDCA-46$0$0Yes
    Manuel PerezDCA-80$0$0Yes
    Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$0$0Yes
    Ira RuskinDCA-21$0$0Yes
    Mary SalasDCA-79$0$0Yes
    Lori SaldanaDCA-76$0$0Not Voting
    Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$0Yes
    Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$0$0Yes
    Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0Yes
    Jose SolorioDCA-69$0$0Yes
    Audra StricklandRCA-37$0$0Yes
    Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0Yes
    Tom TorlaksonDCA-11$0$0Yes
    Norma TorresDCA-61$0$0Yes
    Alberto TorricoDCA-20$0$0Yes
    Van TranRCA-68$0$0Yes
    Mike VillinesRCA-29$0$0Yes
    Mariko YamadaDCA-8$0$0Yes

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range