Bill Text: CA SB97 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Introduced

California Senate Bill 97

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

Bill Title: Criminal procedure: writ of habeas corpus.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Passed) 2023-10-07 - Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 381, Statutes of 2023. [SB97 Detail]

Download: California-2023-SB97-Introduced.html

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2023–2024 REGULAR SESSION

Senate Bill

No. 97

Introduced by Senator Wiener

January 18, 2023

An act to amend Section 1473 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 97, as introduced, Wiener. Criminal procedure: 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.

This bill would allow the district attorney or the Attorney General to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person to rectify a wrongful conviction or sentence. The bill would require the prosecuting agency to give written notice to that person, their last counsel of record, the public defender, and the local innocence organization, if the writ is based on facts showing the person may not have committed the offense.

Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on several bases, including on the basis of the discovery of new evidence discovered after trial.

This bill would allow for prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the additional bases of the discovery of new evidence discovered after a plea or a reasonable possibility that the factfinder would have reached a different outcome absent a combination of errors in the case.

The bill would require the court to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying a habeas relief on the grounds that the evidence lacks credibility.

The bill would allow a petitioner to not appear at an evidentiary hearing if there is a waiver of the right to appear on record, or appear through the use of remote technology unless counsel indicates that the defendant’s presence is needed.

The bill would require a presumption in favor of granting relief in a habeas petition if the district attorney or the Attorney General concede or stipulate to a factual or legal basis for the relief.

The bill would require, if after granting postconviction relief the prosecuting agency retries the petitioner, the petitioner’s postconviction counsel to be appointed as counsel to represent the petitioner on the retrial.

Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: 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) (1) 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.

(2) The district attorney of the county in which the person was convicted, or the Attorney General, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of an unlawfully imprisoned or restrained person to rectify a wrongful conviction, wrongful sentence, or both. The district attorney or Attorney General shall give written notice, at least 10 business days prior to filing, to the unlawfully imprisoned or restrained person, their last counsel of record, the public defender in the county of conviction, and, where the writ is based wholly or in part on facts showing the person may not have committed the offense, the innocence organization local to the county of conviction.

(b) (1) A writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons:

~~(1)~~

(A) 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)~~

(B) 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)~~

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

~~(B)~~

(ii) For purposes of this section, “new evidence” means evidence that has been discovered after a plea or trial, that could not have been discovered prior to a plea or trial by the exercise of due ~~diligence, and is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching.~~ diligence. If the court finds that the evidence was suppressed by the state, there is a presumption that the evidence could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

~~(4)~~

(D) A significant dispute has emerged or further developed in the petitioner’s favor regarding expert medical, scientific, or forensic testimony that was introduced at trial and contributed to the conviction, such that it would have more likely than not ~~changed~~ affected the outcome ~~at trial.~~ of the case.

~~(A)~~

(i) For purposes of this section, the expert medical, scientific, or forensic testimony includes the expert’s conclusion or the scientific, forensic, or medical facts upon which their opinion is based.

~~(B)~~

(ii) For purposes of this section, the significant dispute may be as to the reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, methods, theories, research, or studies upon which a medical, scientific or forensic expert based their testimony.

~~(C)~~

(iii) Under this section, a significant dispute can be established by credible expert testimony or declaration, or by peer reviewed literature showing that experts in the relevant medical, scientific, or forensic community, substantial in number or expertise, have concluded that developments have occurred that undermine the reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, methods, theories, research, or studies upon which a medical, scientific, or forensic expert based their testimony.

~~(D)~~

(iv) In assessing whether a dispute is significant, the court shall give great weight to evidence that a consensus has developed in the relevant medical, scientific, or forensic community undermining the reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, methods, theories, research, or studies upon which a medical, scientific, or forensic expert based their testimony or that there is a lack of consensus as to the reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, methods, theories, research, or studies upon which a medical, scientific, or forensic expert based their testimony.

~~(E)~~

(v) The significant dispute must have emerged or further developed within the relevant medical, scientific, or forensic community, which includes the scientific community and all fields of scientific knowledge on which those fields or disciplines rely and shall not be limited to practitioners or proponents of a particular scientific or technical field or discipline.

~~(F)~~

(vi) If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that they are entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause why relief shall not be granted. To obtain relief, all the elements of this ~~paragraph~~ subparagraph must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.

(E) There is a reasonable possibility that the factfinder, given the totality of the circumstances, would have reached a different outcome absent a combination of errors in the case.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “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 the state of scientific knowledge or later scientific research or technological advances.
(3) Any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have known of the false nature of the evidence is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus brought under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).
(4) This subdivision 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 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.
~~(G)~~

(c) This section does not change the existing procedures for habeas relief.

(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 the state of scientific knowledge 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 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)~~

(e) 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 that section applies based on the date of judgment as provided in subdivision (k) of Section 745. 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 may appear remotely, and the court may conduct the hearing through the use of remote technology, unless counsel indicates that the defendant’s 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.

(f) If the court holds an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner may choose not to appear for the hearing with a signed or oral waiver on record, or they may appear remotely, and the court may conduct the hearing through the use of remote technology, unless counsel indicates that the defendant’s presence in court is needed.
(g) Under this section, habeas relief cannot be denied on the grounds that the evidence lacks credibility without first holding an evidentiary hearing.
(h) For purposes of this section, if the district attorney in the county of conviction or the Attorney General concedes or stipulates to a factual or legal basis for habeas relief, there shall be a presumption in favor of granting relief. This presumption may be overcome only if the record before the court contradicts the concession or stipulation or it would lead to the court issuing an order contrary to law.
(i) (1) If after the court grants postconviction relief under this section and the prosecuting agency elects to retry the petitioner, the petitioner’s postconviction counsel shall be appointed as counsel or cocounsel to represent the petitioner on the retrial if both of the following requirements are met:
(A) The petitioner and postconviction counsel both agree for postconviction counsel to be appointed.
(B) Postconviction counsel is qualified to handle trials.
(2) Counsel shall be paid under the applicable county pay scale for appointed counsel. Otherwise, the court shall appoint, other, appropriate counsel.