Bill Text: CA SB467 | 2021-2022 | Regular Session | Amended

California Senate Bill 467 (Prior Session Legislation)

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

Bill Title: Expert witnesses: writ of habeas corpus.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 2-0)

Status: (Passed) 2022-09-30 - Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 982, Statutes of 2022. [SB467 Detail]

Download: California-2021-SB467-Amended.html

Amended IN Senate January 03, 2022

Amended IN Senate March 22, 2021

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2021–2022 REGULAR SESSION

Senate Bill

No. 467

Introduced by ~~Senators Wiener and Limón~~ Senator Wiener
~~(Coauthor: Senator Allen)(Coauthors: Assembly Members Kalra, Stone, Ward, and Wicks)~~

February 16, 2021

An act to amend Section 3157 of, to amend, repeal, and add Sections 3213 and 3215 of, to add Sections 3151.5, 3162, 3162.5, 3163, and 3203.5 to, to add Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 3870) to Division 3 of, and to repeal and add Article 3 (commencing with Section 3150) of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of, the Public Resources Code, relating to oil and gas. An act to amend Section 1473 of the Penal Code, relating to trial testimony.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 467, as amended, Wiener. ~~Oil and gas: hydraulic fracturing, acid well stimulation treatments, steam flooding, water flooding, or cyclic steaming: prohibition: job relocation.~~ Trial testimony: expert witnesses: writ of habeas corpus.

Existing law allows a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of their imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis of false evidence that is substantially material or probative to the issue of guilt or punishment that was introduced at trial. Existing law defines false evidence for these purposes as including the opinions of experts that have been repudiated by the expert or that have been undermined by later scientific research or technological advances.
This bill would additionally allow a person to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus if expert opinion testimony that was material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced and a reasonable dispute within the relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion has developed or further developed after the person’s trial. The bill would also expand the definition of false evidence to include the opinions of experts that are undermined by scientific research that existed at the time of the expert’s testimony and opinions.
Existing law authorizes the Geologic Energy Management Division in the Department of Conservation to regulate the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells in the state. Existing law requires an operator proposing to perform a well stimulation treatment to apply to the State Oil and Gas Supervisor or a district deputy for a permit to perform the well stimulation treatment and imposes other requirements and conditions on the use of well stimulation treatments. Under existing law, a person who fails to comply with this and other requirements relating to the regulation of oil or gas operations is guilty of a misdemeanor.
This bill would revise the definition of “well stimulation treatment” to include steam flooding and water flooding. The bill would prohibit the issuance or renewal of a permit to conduct hydraulic fracturing, acid well stimulation treatment, steam flooding, water flooding, or cyclic steaming for the extraction of oil and gas beginning January 1, 2022, and would prohibit new or repeated hydraulic fracturing, acid well stimulation treatments, steam flooding, water flooding, or cyclic steaming, except as conducted pursuant to a permit lawfully issued before that date. The bill would prohibit all hydraulic fracturing, acid well stimulation treatments, steam flooding, water flooding, cyclic steaming, or other well stimulation treatments beginning January 1, 2027. Because a violation of the prohibition on conducting hydraulic fracturing, acid well stimulation treatments, steam flooding, water flooding, cyclic steaming, or other well stimulation treatments, except pursuant to a permit issued before January 1, 2022, would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. The bill would, until January 1, 2027, authorize a local government to prohibit well stimulation treatments within its jurisdiction. The bill would also make conforming changes.
This bill would, on and after January 1, 2023, prohibit the issuance of a new or modified permit related to oil and gas wells or production facilities within a health protection zone, as defined, except for certain activities. The bill would authorize the issuance of a variance, as provided, from the prohibition if a court determines that the prohibition would result in a taking of private property of an operator of an oil or gas well or production facility. The bill would provide that the above provisions become operative on July 1, 2022, if, by that date, the division has not promulgated a final rule that would create a health protection zone and prohibit the issuance of any new or modified permit related to oil and gas wells or production facilities within the health protection zone except for certain activities.
This bill would require the division to develop and administer a program to identify workers in downstream, midstream, and upstream oil and gas operations who have lost their jobs and to provide incentives to oil and gas well remediation companies to hire those identified workers.
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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.~~

Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: ~~YES~~NO

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

Section 1473 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

1473.

(a) A person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty, under any pretense, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment or restraint.

(b) A writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons:

(1) False evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against a person at a hearing or trial relating to the person’s incarceration.

(2) False physical evidence, believed by a person to be factual, probative, or material on the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of guilty, which was a material factor directly related to the plea of guilty by the person.

(3) (A) New evidence exists that is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial.

(B) For purposes of this section, “new evidence” means evidence that has been discovered after trial, that could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence, and is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching.

(4) Expert opinion testimony that was material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment, regardless of whether it was offered by the prosecution or defense, was introduced and a reasonable dispute within the relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion has developed or further developed after the person’s trial. Disputes under this paragraph include both disputes about the expert’s ultimate conclusion and disputes about facts upon which the expert opinion is based.

(c) Any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have known of the false nature of the evidence referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (b).

(d) This section does not limit the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or preclude the use of any other remedies.

(e) (1) For purposes of this section, “false evidence” includes opinions of experts that have either been repudiated by the expert who originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or that have been undermined by ~~later scientific research or technological advances.~~ scientific research, including scientific research that existed at the time the expert’s testimony was given or later scientific research or technological advances.

(2) This section does not create additional liabilities, beyond those already recognized, for an expert who repudiates the original opinion provided at a hearing or trial or whose opinion has been undermined by ~~later scientific research or technological advancements.~~ scientific research, technological advancements, or because of a reasonable dispute within the expert’s relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion.

(f) Notwithstanding any other law, a writ of habeas corpus may also be prosecuted after judgment has been entered based on evidence that a criminal conviction or sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 745 if judgment was entered on or after January 1, 2021. A petition raising a claim of this nature for the first time, or on the basis of new discovery provided by the state or other new evidence that could not have been previously known by the petitioner with due diligence, shall not be deemed a successive or abusive petition. If the petitioner has a habeas corpus petition pending in state court, but it has not yet been decided, the petitioner may amend the existing petition with a claim that the petitioner’s conviction or sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 745. The petition shall state if the petitioner requests appointment of counsel and the court shall appoint counsel if the petitioner cannot afford counsel and either the petition alleges facts that would establish a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 745 or the State Public Defender requests counsel be appointed. Newly appointed counsel may amend a petition filed before their appointment. The court shall review a petition raising a claim pursuant to Section 745 and shall determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause why relief shall not be granted and hold an evidentiary hearing, unless the state declines to show cause. The defendant shall appear at the hearing by video unless counsel indicates that their presence in court is needed. If the court determines that the petitioner has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the court shall state the factual and legal basis for its conclusion on the record or issue a written order detailing the factual and legal basis for its conclusion.