By Dorrin Akbari
STATE CAPITOL — Legislation was introduced here Tuesday to reform California’s existing “felony murder special circumstances law” to provide an avenue for individuals currently incarcerated to petition for resentencing – offering recourse to hundreds of Californians presently serving life in prison without parole (LWOP) or awaiting execution.
The “Sentencing Reform Act of 2021” (SB300) is authored by State Sen. Dave Cortese and will allow for a sentence other than the death penalty or Life Without the Parole (LWOP) for a person convicted of murder with special circumstances who did not themselves commit murder and who did not intend for anyone to die.
It will also provide a path for currently incarcerated people to petition the court for resentencing with the possibility to earn parole through rehabilitative programming, work, and good behavior.
“Sentencing someone to die in prison whether by the death penalty or by life without the possibility of parole is virtually unheard of in much of the world. California not only regularly imposes these sentences but requires judges to impose life without parole for certain categories of offenses even on defendants who did not kill nor intend for a person to be killed,” said Sen. Cortese.
The lawmaker added, “Decades of research have failed to show any public safety benefit from life without parole or the death penalty…severe punishments like these have driven the mass incarceration crisis that has destroyed lives, families, and entire communities, particularly Black and Latinx communities that have long been deprived of the support of investments and programs.”
Senator Cortese framed his efforts around SB 300 as a continuation of the progress made through fellow Sen. Nancy Skinner’s Senate Bill 1437 (SB 1437), which was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown in September 2018.
SB 1437 reformed California’s first-degree felony murder rule, freeing many by limiting first-degree felony murder to only an accomplice who acted with reckless indifference to human life and who was a major participant.
As noted by Cortese and other speakers present during the announcement, SB 1437 fell short of changing the felony murder special 
circumstances law—a gap which SB 300 seeks to remedy.
Cortese clarified that whereas felony murder attributes intent to the perpetrators, the special circumstances rule goes further, “basically imputing intent regardless of whether or not the perpetrator had intent simply by pointing to special circumstances and at the same time taking away any judicial discretion whatsoever to alter that sentence.”
Under the felony murder special circumstances law, if certain circumstances existed and are alleged by the district attorney, then the judge loses discretion on sentencing those involved in the crime to anything other than LWOP or the death penalty.
“The special circumstances sentencing scheme reflects the worst tendencies within our criminal justice system and overwhelmingly impacts people of color,” Cortese stated somberly.
“As you listen to the rest of my comments, keep in mind my thought that we can adopt resolutions on racial justice, we can set up commissions and special oversight boards on racial justice, but until we change the laws that are leading to the mass incarceration of people of color, none of that is going to matter,” he noted.
At present, there are more than 51,000 individuals serving LWOP sentences—68 percent are Black or Latinx. Among the overall group, 32,021 people were 25 years old or younger at the time of the offense for which they were sentenced to life without parole. For 3,700 of those individuals, it was their first offense.
Following Senator Cortese’s introduction of the bill and its history, four speakers and bill co-sponsors were invited to share their stories.
The first speaker was Joanne Scheer—founder of the Felony Murder Elimination Project, a growing group of concerned citizens whose goal is the elimination of the felony murder rule from California law. When her only child, Tony, was convicted under the felony murder rule, she began the work of bringing an end to the law.
When Tony was 20 years old, one of two young men he was with made the decision to shoot someone in the course of retrieving personal property, which the district attorney characterized as burglary. All three young men who were present at the scene were given the same sentence of LWOP under felony murder special circumstances.
“Like thousands of incarcerated people in California and nationwide, Tony did not harm or intend to harm anyone, but if we don’t change these draconian laws, if we refuse to stop the separation and devastation of families and communities caused by these unjust and irreversible sentencing laws, I will never again see my son outside of a prison visiting room. Tony and I will die alone,” said Scheer.
Christina Mendoza—a mother of three whose husband is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole and an organizer with Families United to End LWOP— said her husband was sentenced to LWOP as an aider and abettor under California’s felony murder rule, meaning he was not the perpetrator nor did he inflict harm on the victim.
He was present during the commission of a crime while serving as a decoy to retrieve items that were previously stolen from a friend of his.
Speaking to the harm imposed on family members of those sentenced to LWOP or death, Mendoza remarked, “Every day is a challenge to try to give hope not only to our children but to each other. We are serving this death sentence together.”
Tammy Cooper followed Mendoza’s story with her own. Cooper was incarcerated in California for 28 years, charged as an unwilling accomplice under draconian felony murder laws and sentenced to LWOP. She was commuted in November 2018 by former Gov. Brown and was released from prison in July 2019. Her co-defendant, who committed the murder, received no prison time.
“I wasn’t supposed to be here at all in the world today. I was supposed to die in prison. To die in a casket, and never come back out into the world,” said Miss Cooper as she struggled to maintain her composure.
Raj Jayedev—Executive Director of Silicon Valley De-Bug, a community organization based in San Jose that works on justice reform, immigrant rights, economic justice, and racial justice on a local, state, and national level – backs the measure.
“We couldn’t be more excited for this bill that has finally arrived from a convergence of the unbearable denial of justice for hundreds who were sentenced to die in prisons for something they did not do, a movement led by families torn apart by that injustice, and a legislator/leader from my hometown of San Jose who saw the irrefutable and urgent need to redress this wrong,” he said.
SB 300 will need a supermajority vote in the state Assembly and Senate to go to the governor.
Dorrin Akbari graduated from UC Berkeley in 2019 with a B.A. in Legal Studies and a minor in Persian. She is from San Jose, CA.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
reform California’s existing “felony murder special circumstances law.
How’s this for an idea, expedite executions and publicize the executions on primetime television.
The state of California could sell advertising time that would help offset the cost of these executions in order to save the taxpayers money.
If this idea was brought to the voters as a proposition come next election cycle I think it would win by a large majority of votes
Just one person’s opinion
Huh?
The person is known by the author to have committed the murder was not convicted? OK… surprises me that if another was known to commit the murder, not convicted, and an ‘accomplice’ was given hard time… the other side of ‘wrongful conviction’ is ‘wrongful acquittal’… but, no statute of limitations on murder, right? Oh, the ‘double jeopardy thingy’…
But of course, ‘wrongful acquittal’ is justice, right? The only injustices occur when folk are overcharged or actually ‘innocent’ (as opposed to ‘acquitted’/found ‘not guilty’)…
Ex.: OJ never killed Nichole… justice was served when he was not convicted…
You have to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable double – that means that a guilty person may well go free. Blackstone: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
When the law states that you must prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that law is the most in humane law that can ever be used in a courtroom. Everybody has a opinion when it comes to the accuser whether they did it or not, people will base guilt on prior incidences or prejudices or peer pressure this is someone’s life we’re talking about not a game of chess. Prosecutors are known to misguide the jury into believing what conviction they want even if there is no clear and convincing evidence and judges don’t judge by the law they judge by the DA.