California law passed to expedite vacating cannabis convictions

California courts would face a deadline to implement quashes for previous cannabis-related convictions under a bill introduced in the state assembly on Wednesday.

According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, the legislation sponsored by State Assemblyman Mia Bonta would require courts to update case files for marijuana-related convictions and submit them to the California Department of Justice by January 1, 2023. The State Department of Justice would then be required to use the information from the courts to update their records by July 1, 2023.

“California made a promise. I’m focused on making sure California keeps its promises,” Bonta said. “This law would allow us to automatically seal qualified cannabis criminal records.”

Proposition 64, the landmark 2016 ballot initiative that legalized recreational marijuana in California, included provisions to enforce vacating convictions for cannabis-related offenses that are no longer illegal under state law. Additional legislation passed in 2018 required the state to take the lead in solving past marijuana convictions.

But an investigation by the Los Angeles Times found earlier this month that courts still have not processed the records of at least 34,000 cases. Under Bonta’s bill, the state Justice Department would be directed to update records when prosecutors or courts fail to meet their prescribed deadlines.

“By default, if the case is admissible, the file is sealed,” Bonta said. “There are 34,000 people in the state of California … who are unable to truly and fully live their lives because the law has not been fully implemented.”

No deletion progress in some countries

Some counties, including Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties, have made significant progress in addressing past cannabis convictions. But the investigation found some counties have yet to process cases eligible for deletion, including Riverside County, where 21,000 cases are awaiting action. Another 5,400 cases in San Bernardino County have remained unsolved. The delay comes even as counties have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in government funds earmarked to process the records.

“The court has begun working on these cases and, resources permitting, intends to complete the work by July 1, 2022,” said San Bernardino Superior Court spokeswoman Julie Van Hook.

Bonta’s bill also requires the Judiciary Council to collect data on cancellations of cannabis convictions and provide regular public reports on the state’s progress. In addition, the law requires the country’s judiciary to conduct a public awareness campaign to inform those affected that their files have been deleted and they no longer need to disclose their previous convictions. The measure also extends eligibility for deletion to some conspiracy convictions, where prosecutors have discretion to charge a crime as either a felony or a misdemeanor.

Bonta said that overturning previous convictions for cannabis-related crimes was necessary to address the harm and racial injustices caused by cannabis prohibition.

“Especially black people, people of color, have been targeted by the war on drugs,” Bonta said. “[The bill] is in a sense a form of reparation.”

Los Angeles County Assistant Public Defender Nick Stewart-Oaten, a board member of the California Public Defenders Association, welcomed Bonta’s proposed legislation.

“For decades, the justice system has swiftly and enthusiastically destroyed the lives of men, women and children accused of nonviolent marijuana crimes – this law simply requires that the system act with similar enthusiasm and speed when restoring the lives of those formerly convicted.” ‘ Stewart-Oaten said in a statement.

The legislation is also backed by the Last Prisoner Project, a non-profit organization working to free all those imprisoned for cannabis-related crimes. Gracie Burger, the group’s state policy director, said in a statement that Bonta’s bill would “ensure California delivers on its overdue promise to those harmed by the War on Drugs.”

So far, no group has spoken out against the law. Riverside Superior Court spokeswoman Marita Ford wrote in an email that “the court doesn’t really have comment on the pending legislation, but if it does pass we will of course ensure compliance.”