Proposition 66 Rules Working Group

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group recommended new and amended rules and forms in five separate proposals between September 2018 and March 2019.  All five proposals were approved by the Judicial Council and will become effective on April 25, 2019.  To assist with training efforts on these new and amended rules in advance of their effective date, staff has compiled the rules from all five proposals into a single consolidated document.  This unofficial compilation, along with a version containing strikeouts and additions, and a separate compilation of the forms, can be found below.  The official versions of the new and amended rules and forms will be available on their effective date, April 25, 2019, on the Rules and Forms webpages respectively.

For Reference

• Prop. 66 new and amended rules
  • Rules with strike outs indicating language that was deleted and underlining indicating language that was added
• Prop. 66 forms:
  • HC-100, Declaration of Counsel Re Minimum Qualifications for Appointment in Death Penalty-Related Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  • HC-101, Order Appointing Counsel in Death Penalty-Related Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  • HC-200, Petitioner's Notice of Appeal - Death Penalty-Related Habeas Corpus Decision

Education and Training

Information on training related to Proposition 66 for judicial officers and court personnel (requires login).

The 23-member working group was comprised of superior court and appellate court judicial officers, court administrators, attorneys, subject-matter experts, and advisory staff from the Judicial Council. The membership term ran until April 26, 2019.

• Hon. Dennis M. Perluss, Chair, Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven
• Ms. Elaine A. Alexander, Executive Director, Appellate Defenders, Inc
• Hon. Richard T. Fields, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two
• Mr. Cliff Gardner, Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Cliff Gardner
• Mr. W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr., Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Riverside
• Mr. Michael J. Hersek, Director, Habeas Corpus Resource Center
• Mr. Thomas Kallay, Managing Attorney, Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District
• Hon. Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of El Dorado
• Mr. Ronald S. Matthias, Senior Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice
• Ms. Mary K. McComb, State Public Defender, Office of State Public Defender
• Mr. Jorge Navarrete, Clerk/Executive Officer, California Supreme Court
• Hon. Mary Ann O’Malley, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa
• Ms. Beth Robbins, Assistant Clerk/Administrator, Court of Appeal, First Appellate District
• Ms. Margo Rocconi, Chief of Capital Habeas Unit, Federal Public Defender's Office, Central District of California
• Ms. Anabel Romero, Deputy Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino
• Mr. Steven M. Rosenberg, Director, Capital Central Staff, California Supreme Court
• Hon. William C. Ryan, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
• Mr. Joseph Schlesinger, Executive Director, California Appellate Project San Francisco
• Hon. John S. Somers, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Kern
• Ms. Aimee Vierra, Deputy Public Defender IV, Riverside County Public Defender
• Hon. Stephen M. Wagstaffe, District Attorney, San Mateo County District Attorney's Office
• Professor Robert Weisberg, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School
• Mr. Kyle F. Graham, Advisor, Assistant Chief Supervising Attorney, California Supreme Court

Judicial Council Staff to the Committee

• Ms. Heather Anderson, Supervising Attorney, Legal Services
• Mr. Michael Giden, Supervising Attorney, Criminal Justice Services

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group is charged with reviewing California Rules of Court, Standards of Judicial Administration, Judicial Council forms, and other authorities relevant to the processing of capital appeals and state habeas corpus petitions to determine whether and what modifications should be recommended to fulfill the Judicial Council’s rule-making obligations under Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016.

The working group will consider what new or amended court rules, judicial administration standards, and Judicial Council forms are needed to address the act’s provisions, including those governing:

• Appointment of counsel for indigent capital inmates for both the direct appeal and habeas corpus proceedings, including the time frame for appointments and the qualifications necessary to achieve competent representation, the need to avoid unduly restricting the available pool of attorneys so as to provide timely appointment, and the standards needed to qualify for Chapter 154 of Title 28 of the United States Code (Pen. Code, § 1509 and § 1239.1 and Gov. Code, § 68665);
• The filing of habeas corpus petitions and other matters in the sentencing court and all procedures attendant thereto, including those pertaining to assignment of habeas corpus matters, briefing requirements, certificates of appealability, successive or untimely petitions, and method of execution (Pen. Code, § 1509 and § 3601.1(c));
• Appeals of the sentencing court’s rulings on capital habeas corpus petitions to the Court of Appeal and all procedures attendant thereto, including those pertaining to certificates of appealability, priority of such appeals, and the possibility of California Supreme Court review (Pen. Code, § 1509.1); and
• Supreme Court procedures and time frames pertaining to record preparation and briefing in capital appeals (Pen. Code, § 190.6).

In formulating any proposed new or amended court rule, judicial administration standard, or Judicial Council form, the working group will strive to promote the expeditious review of death penalty judgments while ensuring justice and fairness to both defendants and victims. The working group will take into account the language of the act, Briggs v. Brown ((2017) 3 Cal.5th 808), and constitutional standards and principles. While participating in the working group, members are expected to not act as advocates of the interests of any stakeholder group, but to contribute to this statewide endeavor by drawing on their expertise in capital litigation, court administration, or other matters relevant to the act.

The working group will propose recommendations to the Judicial Council for adoption, effective April 26, 2019.