Bill Text: CA SCA27 | 2009-2010 | Regular Session | Introduced

---

Bill Title: Death penalty appeals: transfer.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)

Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2010-05-17 - Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a). (Page 3603.) [SCA27 Detail]

Download: California-2009-SCA27-Introduced.html

---

BILL NUMBER: SCA 27	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY   Senator Harman

                        FEBRUARY 11, 2010

   A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California
an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by amending Section 12
of Article VI thereof, relating to death penalty appeals.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SCA 27, as introduced, Harman. Death penalty appeals: transfer.
   Existing law provides that the Supreme Court has appellate
jurisdiction when a judgment of death has been pronounced. Existing
law authorizes the Supreme Court to, before decision, transfer a
cause from itself to a court of appeal, and review the decision of a
court of appeal in any cause, except that this transfer authorization
does not apply to appeals involving a judgment of death.
   This measure would amend the California Constitution to also
authorize the Supreme Court to transfer a cause to a court of appeal
when a judgment of death has been pronounced. The measure would
require, if the Supreme Court transfers a cause concerning a judgment
of death to a court of appeal, that the Supreme Court review the
resulting decision of the court of appeal affirming or reversing that
judgment. The measure would provide that if the Supreme Court
concludes that the decision contains no error affecting the judgment,
presents no need to secure uniformity of decision, and does not
require resolution of an important question of law, the Supreme Court
may summarily affirm the judgment of the court of appeal in an order
published in the official reports. The measure would also require
that, if the Supreme Court determines that summary affirmance is not
appropriate, the Supreme Court is required to hold oral argument and
issue a decision in writing with reasons stated, addressing all or
part of the court of appeal's decision.
   Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.



   WHEREAS, This measure shall be known, and may be cited, as "The
Fair Administration of Justice Act of 2010"; and
   WHEREAS, The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
   (a) The California capital punishment appellate system is severely
dysfunctional, resulting in an unacceptable delay of justice for
both victims and prisoners and an inefficient use of scarce public
resources during a budgetary crisis;
   (b) A major obstacle in the death penalty appeals process is the
burdensome requirement of the California Constitution that all
capital appeals, regardless of merit, must be reviewed exclusively by
the California Supreme Court;
   (c) Granting California's courts of appeal certain jurisdiction to
hear capital appeals, with discretionary review by the California
Supreme Court, would streamline the capital appellate process to the
ultimate benefit of victims, taxpayers, and prisoners; now,
therefore, be it
   Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That the
Legislature of the State of California at its 2009-10 Regular Session
commencing on the first day of December 2008, two-thirds of the
membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of
the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be
amended as follows:
    That Section 12 of Article VI thereof is amended to read:
      SEC. 12.  (a) The Supreme Court may, before decision, transfer
to itself a cause in a court of appeal. It may, before decision,
transfer a cause from itself to a court of appeal  , including
when a judgment of death has been pronounced,  or from one court
of appeal or division to another. The court to which a cause is
transferred has jurisdiction.
   (b) The Supreme Court may review the decision of a court of appeal
in any cause. 
   (c) If the Supreme Court transfers to a court of appeal a cause
when a judgment of death has been pronounced, it shall review the
resulting decision of the court of appeal affirming or reversing that
judgment.
   If the Supreme Court concludes that the decision: (1) contains no
error affecting the judgment, (2) presents no need to secure
uniformity of decision, and (3) does not require resolution of an
important question of law, the Supreme Court may summarily affirm the
judgment of the court of appeal in an order published in the
official reports.
   If the Supreme Court determines that summary affirmance is not
appropriate, the Supreme Court shall hold oral argument and issue a
decision in writing with reasons stated, addressing all or part of
the decision of the court of appeal.  
   (c) 
    (d)  The Judicial Council shall provide, by rules of
court, for the time and procedure for transfer and for review,
including, among other things, provisions for the time and procedure
for transfer with instructions, for review of all or part of a
decision, and for remand as improvidently granted. 
   (d) This section shall not apply to an appeal involving a judgment
of death.