BILL ANALYSIS AB 2263 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 2263 (Yamada) As Amended March 22, 2010 2/3 vote PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Ammiano, Hagman, Beall, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, | | |Gilmore, Hill, | | | | |Portantino, Skinner | |Bradford, Charles | | | | |Calderon, Coto, | | | | |Davis, Monning, Ruskin, | | | | |Harkey, | | | | |Miller, Nielson, Norby, | | | | |Skinner, | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Extends to January 1, 2012 provisions of law that state the court shall, in its discretion, impose the term or enhancement that best serves the interest of justice, as required by SB 40 (Romero), Chapter 40, Statutes of 2007, SB 150 (Wright), Chapter 171, Statutes of 2009 and Cunningham vs. California (2007) 549 US 270 and makes other conforming changes. EXISTING LAW : 1)States the Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment. This purpose is best served by terms proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offense under similar circumstances. The Legislature further finds and declares that the elimination of disparity and the provision of uniformity of sentences can best be achieved by determinate sentences fixed by statute in proportion to the seriousness of the offense as determined by the Legislature to be imposed by the court with specified discretion. 2)Provides that in any case in which the punishment prescribed by statute for a person convicted of a public offense is a term of imprisonment in the state prison of any specification AB 2263 Page 2 of three time periods, the court shall sentence the defendant to one of the terms of imprisonment specified unless the convicted person is given any other disposition provided by law, including a fine, jail, probation, or the suspension of imposition or execution of sentence or is sentenced pursuant to existing law, or because he or she had committed his or her crime prior to July 1, 1977. In sentencing the convicted person, the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council. The court, unless it determines that there are circumstances in mitigation of the punishment prescribed, shall also impose any other term that it is required by law to impose as an additional term. Nothing in this article shall affect any provision of law that imposes the death penalty, that authorizes or restricts the granting of probation or suspending the execution or imposition of sentence, or expressly provides for imprisonment in the state prison for life. In any case in which the amount of pre-imprisonment credit under existing law or any other provision of law is equal to or exceeds any sentence imposed pursuant to this chapter, the entire sentence shall be deemed to have been served and the defendant shall not be actually delivered to the custody of the secretary. 3)Requires that when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall order imposition of the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime. At least four days prior to the time set for imposition of judgment, either party or the victim, or the family of the victim if the victim is deceased, may submit a statement in aggravation or mitigation to dispute facts in the record or the probation officer's report, or to present additional facts. In determining whether there are circumstances that justify imposition of the upper or lower term, the court may consider the record in the case, the probation officer's report, and statements in aggravation or mitigation submitted by the prosecution, the defendant, or the victim, or the family of the victim if the victim is deceased, and any further evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing. The court shall set forth on the record the facts and reasons for imposing the upper or lower term. The court may not impose an upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed under any provision of law. A term of imprisonment shall not be specified if imposition of sentence AB 2263 Page 3 is suspended. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, unknown moderate annual General Fund costs or savings, potentially in the low millions of dollars, for increased or decreased state prison terms to the extent more offenders receive the upper or lower sentence and/or enhancement rather than the presumptive middle term and/or enhancement. While many judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors suggest this measure will not significantly alter current sentencing patterns, even a minor increase in the number of offenders deviating from the middle term drives significant costs or savings; given the large base of offenders (some 60,000 offenders will receive determinate prison sentences in 2009-10). Based on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation figures from 2006 through 2009, the number of upper terms per the number of determinate sentences has in creased slightly, from about 15% to about 18%, though in actual numbers, there were fewer 250 fewer upward deviations in 2009 than in 2006. These figures support the contention that the "Cunningham fix" will not result in a major deviation from the presumptive middle terms/enhancements. COMMENTS : According to the author, "AB 2263 extends the sunset date for current statutes authorizing courts to impose the maximum term on sentences and sentence enhancements. This bill is necessary because courts need this authority for sentencing procedures until a more permanent and constitutional fix is established. The statutes that allow a court to impose the upper term in a defendant's base sentence or for sentence enhancements that include a sentencing range are set to sunset on January 1, 2011. Unless legislation is enacted to extend the sunset of these statutes, California's sentencing laws will be deemed unconstitutional as found by the United States Supreme Court in Cunningham v. California." Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this bill. Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 AB 2263 Page 4 FN: 0004591