Existing law authorizes certain internship and fellowship programs, as specified. This measure would honor the achievements of the United States House of Representatives' Wounded Warrior Program and would encourage the Assembly Committee on Rules to study the potential of implementing similar programs in the Legislature.
This measure would proclaim January 13, 2019, as Korean American Day.
This measure would honor the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and commemorate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
(1) Existing law, as proposed by SB 10 of the 2017–18 Regular Session, commencing October 1, 2019, requires persons arrested and detained to be subject to a pretrial risk assessment conducted by Pretrial Assessment Services, defined as an entity, division, or program that is assigned the responsibility to assess the risk level of persons charged with the commission of a crime, report the results of the risk determination to the court, and make recommendations for conditions of release of individuals pending adjudication of their criminal case. SB 10 requires the courts to establish pretrial assessment services and authorizes those services to be performed by court employees or through a contract with a local public agency, as specified. SB 10 provides that if no local agency will agree to perform the pretrial assessments, and if the court elects not to perform the assessments, the court may contract with a new local pretrial assessment services agency established specifically to perform the role. SB 10 requires pretrial assessment services to be performed by public employees. This bill, notwithstanding the requirement that pretrial assessment services be performed by public employees, would authorize, until January 1, 2023, a qualified local public agency in the City and County of San Francisco to contract with the existing not-for-profit entity that is performing pretrial services in the city and county to provide continuity and sufficient time to transition the entity's employees into public employment. (2) SB 10 authorizes Pretrial Assessment Services to release a person assessed as being a low risk, as defined, on his or her own recognizance, and additionally requires superior courts to adopt rules authorizing Pretrial Assessment Services to release persons assessed as being a medium risk, as defined, on his or her own recognizance. However, SB 10 prohibits Pretrial Assessment Services from releasing persons who meet specified conditions, including, among others, tier 2 sex offenders subject to registration for a minimum of 20 years and tier 3 sex offenders subject to lifetime registration. This bill would provide that if SB 10 of the 2017–18 Regular Session becomes operative, the release prohibitions described above would be expanded to additionally include persons convicted of sex crimes and certain other offenses subject to the Sex Offender Registration Act, as specified. By increasing the length of time certain persons remain in county jails, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. Existing law defines malice for this purpose as either express or implied and defines those terms. This bill would require a principal in a crime to act with malice aforethought to be convicted of murder except when the person was a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a specified felony in which a death occurred and the person was the actual killer, was not the actual killer but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree, or the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. Existing law defines first degree murder, in part, as all murder that is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, specified felonies, including arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, and kidnapping. Existing law, as enacted by Proposition 7, approved by the voters at the November 7, 1978, statewide general election, prescribes a penalty for that crime of death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 25 years to life. Existing law defines 2nd degree murder as all murder that is not in the first degree and imposes a penalty of imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life. This bill would prohibit a participant 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 was the actual killer or the person was not the actual killer but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer, or the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, unless the victim was a peace officer who was killed in the course of performing his or her duties where the defendant knew or should reasonably have known the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties. This bill would provide a means of vacating the conviction and resentencing a defendant when a complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the defendant that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of first degree felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, the defendant was sentenced for first degree or 2nd degree murder or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the defendant could be convicted for first degree or 2nd degree murder, and the defendant could not be charged with murder after the enactment of this bill. By requiring the participation of district attorneys and public defenders in the resentencing process, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 grant pretrial diversion, for a period no longer than 2 years, to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law conditions eligibility on, among other criteria, a court finding that the defendant's mental disorder played a significant role in the commission of the charged offense. Existing law requires, if the defendant has performed satisfactorily in diversion, that the court dismiss the defendant's criminal charges, with a record filed with the Department of Justice indicating the disposition of the case diverted, that the arrest is deemed never to have occurred, and requires the court to order access to the record of the arrest restricted, except as specified. This bill would make defendants ineligible for the diversion program for certain offenses, including murder, voluntary manslaughter, and rape. The bill would authorize a court to require the defendant to make a prima facie showing that the defendant will meet the minimum requirements of eligibility for diversion and that the defendant and the offense are suitable for diversion, as specified. The bill would also require the court, upon request, to conduct a hearing to determine whether restitution is owed to any victim as a result of the diverted offense and, if owed, to order its payment during the period of diversion. The bill would provide that a defendant's inability to pay restitution due to indigence or mental disorder would not be grounds for denial of diversion or a finding that the defendant has failed to comply with the terms of diversion. The bill would also make technical changes.
