California seeks extension to comply with prison population caps

Admitting once again to federal judges that the state won't be able to reach goals set for reducing crowding in its prisons, Gov. Jerry Brown's administration has asked for a delay while it works on alternatives.

In legal filings Thursday, the state corrections department said the number of inmates in its 33 prisons has remained roughly unchanged for two months. It is highly unlikely, the state filing said, that  California will meet a December target of trimming its total prison population to 147% of capacity, let alone the goal of 137.5% of capacity by June.

Brown had relied on shifting low-level offenders to county jails to reduce the state prison population by some 33,000 inmates. But the plan has fallen short of original estimates. State projections released this month suggest California will have 7,000 too many inmates by the June deadline. A three-judge panel presiding over the case has ordered the state to produce an alternative plan by Jan. 7.

Those possible steps will be discussed with inmate lawyers in meetings later this month, the state said Thursday. In the meantime, it is asking judges to move its population deadlines back by six months, and to drop the requirement for a December report to the court.

Don Specter, lead counsel for the Prison Law Office, which represents inmates in the long-running litigation that led to the court-ordered caps, said he would oppose the state's request for more time. He confirmed that both sides were meeting later this month to discuss possible solutions.

Though inmates are no longer housed in community rooms and gymnasiums, double-bunking is common throughout the state prison system. Four state prisons — Avenal, Mule Creek, North Kern and the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad — hold at least 70% more inmates than they were designed to accommodate.

ALSO:

Prison population projections rise

Proposition 36 and prison overcrowding

California plans to drop outstanding parole warrants

-- Paige St. John in Sacramento

Photo: Inmates at dinner at the California State Prison in Lancaster. Credit: Gary Friedman / Los Angeles Times

California death penalty repeal, Proposition 34, rejected

Proposition 34, a bid to repeal California’s death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment, has failed.

The drive to abolish the death penalty was launched by former San Quentin State Prison warden Jeanne Woodford, who led a coalition that included Don Heller, one of the original architects of the 1978 death penalty initiative. Among those who also crusaded for the measure were the mothers of two murder victims and a warden who oversaw four executions.

Supporters argued that executions do nothing to prevent further crime and create the possibility of killing an innocent person. They also said it was an issue of cost, pointing to the millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on attorney fees and other expenses as the condemned go through the appeal process. 

RESULTS: California election | National election

Opponents argued that the death penalty helps deter crime and gives families of murdered victims a sense of justice. They said that repealing it would “embolden the most vicious criminals.”

Opposition to the initiative was largely organized by the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, with support from other law enforcement groups.

The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated the measure would save California $130 million a year in reduced prison security costs and litigation expenses. The initiative included a provision to direct $100 million of the savings to local law enforcement. 

ALSO:

Voters reject Proposition 32, AP says

Assembly speaker confident he has a two-thirds majority

Voters approve Brown's tax measure, Proposition 30, AP says

-- Paige St. John in Sacramento

Photo: A view of the lethal injection chamber at San Quentin State Prison. Credit: Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times

Proposition 36 and prison overcrowding

With a panel of federal judges watching closely over prison crowding, California correction officials have already estimated how many beds could be emptied by softening the state's three-strikes law.

Proposition 36 would authorize resentencing of those serving life sentences if their third conviction was not violent or serious. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation makes no estimate of how many inmates would be affected in the prison population estimates released last week.

PHOTOS: America goes to the polls

However, in legal motions filed with federal courts, state officials say they expect some 3,000 inmates to be eligible for resentencing if Californians pass the ballot measure.

That isn't enough by itself for the state to meet federally ordered population caps by next July. The latest projections suggest California will exceed judges' order by more than 7,000 inmates. Although the state says it intends to prove it can provide constitutionally adequate housing at higher population levels, judges have given California until January to come up with a new population reduction plan or face the threat of being ordered to release inmates early.

ALSO:

Prison count expected to rise

A year after realignment

California calls prison release plan unsafe

--Paige St. John in Sacramento

Death penalty faces more obstacles

This post has been corrected; see below.

Fourteen men have a particular interest in how Californians vote today on Proposition 34, repealing the death penalty. They are the ones closest to the executioner's gurney.

The short list of death row inmates who have exhausted their appeals includes Albert G. Brown, the last man to actually have a death sentence scheduled. Brown was convicted of the 1980 rape and murder of a 15-year-old Riverside girl. He came within 24 hours of execution in September 2010, having his veins inspected for the injection and a last meal of steak and onion rings, before a judge halted his execution in order to review the state's procedures for lethal injection.

California has executed only 13 inmates since enacting the death penalty in 1978. An additional 83 have died of other causes and 75 have had their sentences reduced. Today there are 727 inmates sentenced to death, most housed in single cells on San Quentin's death row as they await the outcome of lengthy appeals.

Legal obstacles to the death penalty in California remain unresolved, even as others seek to force the state to resume executions. They include Michael Winchell, the brother of a woman raped and murdered 30 years ago. Winchell sought to force California to resume executions as quickly as possible. The California Supreme Court refused in August to hear the dispute.

Winchell argued that California could speed up executions if it switched to a single drug protocol, the kind used by several other states. The state's current protocol requires three drugs -- starting with sodium thiopental to anesthetize the prisoner.

Elsewhere, California is appealing a Marin County Superior Court's injunction in February prohibiting California corrections officials from executing inmates until new regulations governing lethal injection are developed and reviewed. And according to a recent filing in a Los Angeles County case, Gov. Jerry Brown has directed the corrections department to begin considering alternative execution methods, including a one-drug protocol.

[Correction:  This post was updated at 2:40 p.m. Tuesday to correct that the California Supreme Court in August refused to hear the Winchell appeal.]

ALSO:

Death penalty proposition leads in poll

Some death row inmates oppose repeal

Death row and politics

--Paige St. John in Sacramento

Photo: Death row inmate Albert G. Brown was California's last scheduled execution. A judge halted the execution in 2010 to permit review of the state's lethal injection process. Photo courtesy California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Ann Ravel fights for Arizona records in biggest battle of her term

Updated 7:15 a.m.: State authorities have confirmed that they expect the Arizona nonprofit, Americans for Responsible Leadership, to release the names of its donors at 8 a.m. on Monday.

After more than a year and a half leading California's campaign finance watchdog, Ann Ravel hasn't gained a reputation as a firebrand or a lightning rod of controversy.

But in the mind of her opponents, she is a “one-woman media onslaught, rabblerousing and prejudging, including 'tweeting' her incendiary view.”

That quote is from a legal argument filed by Americans for Responsible Leadership, the obscure Arizona nonprofit that pumped $11 million into a California campaign fund last month.

Ravel and the Fair Political Practices Commission have been trying to audit the nonprofit's records to determine whether it is improperly shielding the identities of its donors.

The California Supreme Court ordered the nonprofit to turn over records on Sunday. In response, the group's lawyers said they were preparing to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block the audit. 

The full story ran in Monday's Los Angeles Times.

Ravel, a career government lawyer, said Sunday's court order was historic.

“It sends a signal that California is very concerned about anonymity of contributors and believes that transparency in all political financial transactions is absolutely essential,” she said.

ALSO:

Arizona nonprofit won't be audited for now, appeals court rules

Arizona group plans appeal to U.S. Supreme Court in funding case

California Supreme Court orders Arizona nonprofit to turn over records

-- Chris Megerian in Sacramento
twitter.com/chrismegerian

Photo: Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, talks with Gary Winuck, the commission's chief of enforcement, after a Superior Court hearing in Sacramento on Wednesday. Credit: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press

California judges' investments, campaign money easier to look up

It just became easier for Californians to look up the investments held and gifts received by judges.

After a months-long battle with advocates for the judges, the state Fair Political Practices Commission began posting each elected judicial officer's economic interest statement on its website.

The new postings, previously only available by visiting courthouses, had been delayed after the California Judges Assn. raised concerns about the safety of the state's 2,500 judges if information on their investments, including homes and businesses, were made more accessible to the public. The judges initially requested that the statements detailing their investments, real estate holdings and gifts received be kept at state offices for public inspection, to make it harder for people with ill intent to determine where judges and their family members live and work.

The commission is allowing judges to redact information that might jeopardize personal safety, such as home addresses and the location of rental properties occupied by the judges' children.

"A major focus of the FPPC is the disclosure of important information to the public in an accessible way," said Chairwoman Ann Ravel. "We understand that information about a public official's financial interests must be disclosed in a way that is meaningful."

The commission also included a chart showing who is contributing to judges’ elections campaigns.

ALSO:

California sets new record for voter registration

Authorities racing the clock to identify Arizona donors

L.A. Democrats decry outside group's mailer slamming elected officials 

-- Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento

Photo: Superior Court Judge Robert Perry overseeing a trial earlier this year in Los Angeles. Credit: Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times

Woman files for protective order against Assemblyman Hernandez

A woman has filed an emergency protective order against Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, alleging that the West Covina lawmaker had physically abused her and that she feared for her safety, authorities said Monday.

About 7 p.m. Sunday, police responded to a disturbance call at the Lazy Dog restaurant in West Covina, Police Chief Frank Wills said. Hernandez had left the scene by the time authorities arrived, but the woman appeared shaken up.

"The alleged victim made the statement that she was concerned for her personal safety and that Mr. Hernandez was erratic," Wills said.

The woman told officers that she had been the victim of a domestic violence incident in July. She then filed for an emergency protective order, which was approved by a court commissioner and served on Hernandez on Sunday. Wills said police had no report of the alleged incident from July.

Hernandez did not return a call seeking comment. His attorney, Anthony Falangetti, told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on Monday night that the accusations were "completely false." Falangetti said the charges were politically motivated.

"The timing of these accusations is obviously designed to hurt the Assemblyman in an election which is just a week away," Falangetti told the newspaper. "She alleges an incident occurred back in July, but only now she comes forward for newspaper headlines within days of the election."

Police declined to provide more detail about the incident. But the San Gabriel Valley Tribune report cited the protective order, which claimed Hernandez "struck (the victim) with a belt during an argument. Hernandez also grabbed (her) by her arms and slammed her against the wall causing visible injury."

The woman also "says she fears for her safety due to Hernandez using cocaine," the protective order reads, according to the newspaper. Falangetti called the drug-use allegations "ridiculous."

Wills, the police chief, said his department would decide Tuesday whether to pursue its own investigation or turn the matter over to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

"It’s important to us that the criminal justice system work fairly and Mr. Hernandez feels he’s being treated fairly by the criminal justice system," Wills said.

Hernandez made headlines this year after he was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving in the Northern California city of Concord. A jury acquitted Hernandez on one count of drunk driving and a judge subsequently dismissed a second charge.

ALSO:

Assemblyman Roger Hernandez found not guilty of drunk driving

California Assemblyman arrested on suspicion of drunken driving

Assemblyman Roger Hernandez found not guilty of driving drunk

--Michael J. Mishak in Sacramento

Twitter.com/mjmishak

Photo: Assemblyman Roger Hernandez (D–West Covina). Credit: Rich Pedroncelli / AP Photo

After Jerry Brown vetoes California immigration bill, LAPD goes it alone

Days after Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed controversial legislation that would have blunted federal deportation efforts, the Los Angeles Police Department has decided to set its own policy on illegal immigrants.

On Thursday, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck announced that hundreds of illegal immigrants arrested by his officers each year in low-level crimes would no longer be turned over to federal authorities for deportation.The policy is similar to a proposal called the Trust Act that Brown rejected this week.

As The Times' Joel Rubin and Andrew Blankstein reported Friday, the new rules are the latest in a series of moves by Beck to redefine the LAPD's position on immigration issues.

Earlier this year, the chief pushed through a controversial plan that limits the cases in which police officers impound vehicles of drivers operating without a license — a group consisting largely of illegal immigrants. And he came out in favor of issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Brown vetoed state legislation Sunday that would have prohibited local law enforcement officials from detaining undocumented immigrants unless they had been convicted or charged with a serious or violent felony. The governor said the proposal was "fatally flawed" because it omitted serious crimes, including child abuse and drug trafficking.

It would have been the first law of its kind in the nation. In his veto message, however, he pledged to work with lawmakers and revisit the issue.

ALSO:

Opponents prime arguments for corporate tax campaign

Procter & Gamble stands aside as corporate tax battle heats up

Immigration-rights advocates criticize Gov. Brown's veto of Trust Act

--Michael J. Mishak in Sacramento

Photo: LAPD Chief Charlie Beck at a press conference in Los Angeles last year. Credit: Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times.

Jerry Brown OKs appeal for minors sentenced to life without parole

Juvenile killers sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in California will be given a new chance at release after they serve 25 years under legislation signed Sunday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The governor approved a measure by state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), a child psychologist who argued that minors are immature and lack good judgment and should be given a second chance.

"The Governor’s signature of SB 9 is emotional for both the supporters and the opposition, but I am proud that today California said we believe all kids, even those we had given up on in the past, are deserving of a second chance," Yee said Sunday.

There are about 300 people in California prisons who were sentenced to life behind bars without the possibility of parole for murders committed when they were minors.

The legislation requires that convicts show remorse and work toward rehabilitation before they can petition for a new sentence, and disqualifies those whose crimes involved torture. 

The bill was opposed by the California District Attorneys Assn., which noted that prosecutors have discretion when seeking sentences for minors. The group wrote to lawmakers that creating the potential for a life sentence to be reduced "by setting such a low standard for eligibility is an affront to justice and disrespectful of the victims of these crimes."

Civil rights leaders disagreed.

"Teenagers are still developing," said Elizabeth Calvin, children’s rights advocate at Human Rights Watch. "No one –- not a judge, a psychologist, or a doctor -– can look at a 16-year-old and be sure how that young person will turn out as an adult."

ALSO:

Endangered turtle named state marine reptile

New law is fallout from state official's killing of mountain lion 

Gov. Jerry Brown tweets that he signed social media privacy bills

-- Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento

Photo: Gov. Jerry Brown. Credit: Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times

After shoplifting plea, lawmaker seeks another office

A California lawmaker who pleaded no contest earlier this year to shoplifting charges is seeking another elected office.

Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi (D-Hayward) will hold a fundraiser Wednesday night in the Bay Area for her campaign for Alameda County supervisor.

The termed-out lawmaker, who was arrested last year on charges of trying to shoplift $2,500 in clothes from the Neiman Marcus in San Francisco, is running for the seat formerly held by Nadia Lockyer, who resigned from the Board of Supervisors in April amid revelations of an affair and drug addiction.

Hayashi told the San Jose Mercury News that voters would look past the shoplifting incident, which she has characterized as an honest mistake. The lawmaker has stated that she simply forgot to pay for the items — which included a white blouse, black skirt and leather pants — because she was talking on her cellphone and got distracted.

As part of a plea deal, a San Francisco County Superior Court judge reduced the charges against the lawmaker from felony grand theft to a misdemeanor. She was sentenced to three years probation and $180 in fines and required to stay at least 50 feet from the store on Union Square where the offense occurred.

Hayashi, who was elected to the Assembly in 2006, is married to Alameda County Superior Court Judge Dennis Hayashi. She heads the Assembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer Protection.

RELATED:

Assemblywoman Hayashi facing shoplifting charge

Handguns and shoplifting: Another week in the Assembly

Assemblywoman pleads no contest to shoplifting; lawyer cites brain tumor

— Michael J. Mishak in Sacramento

Photo: Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi (D-Hayward) at the opening session of the Assembly. Credit: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press