BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 520
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 520 (Ammiano)
As Introduced February 15, 2011
Majority vote
PUBLIC SAFETY 4-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Cedillo, | | |
| |Mitchell, Skinner | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Knight, Hagman, Hill | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits imposition of the upper term of imprisonment
unless aggravating factors are found to be true by the finder of
fact. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes a legislative declaration that, to ensure
proportionality in sentencing, upper terms should be reserved
for individual cases in which aggravating facts exist and have
been proven to be true.
2)Provides that the court may not impose an upper term based on
aggravating facts unless the facts were first presented to the
fact-finder and the fact-finder found the facts to be true.
3)Requires the court to state the reasons for its sentence
choice on the record at the time of sentencing, including the
specific facts in aggravation, if any, relied upon to impose
an upper term.
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
AB 520
Page 2
the offense as determined by the Legislature to be imposed by
the court with specified discretion.
2)Provides that when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed
and the statute specifies three possible terms, the choice of
the appropriate term shall rest within the sound discretion of
the court.
3)Provides that when a sentencing enhancement specifies three
possible terms, the choice of the appropriate term shall rest
within the sound discretion of the court.
4)Provides that sentencing choices requiring a statement of a
reason include "Ýs]electing one of the three authorized prison
terms referred to in ÝPenal Code] section 1170(b) for either
an offense or an enhancement."
5)Requires the sentencing judge to consider relevant criteria
enumerated in the Rules of Court.
6)Provides that, in exercising discretion to select one of the
three authorized prison terms referred to in Penal Code
Section 1170(b), "the sentencing judge may consider
circumstances in aggravation or mitigation, and any other
factor reasonably related to the sentencing decision. The
relevant circumstances may be obtained from the case record,
the probation officer's report, other reports and statements
properly received, statements in aggravation or mitigation,
and any evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing."
7)Prohibits the sentencing court from using a fact charged and
found as an enhancement as a reason for imposing the upper
term unless the court exercises its discretion to strike the
punishment for the enhancement.
8)Prohibits the sentencing court from using a fact that is an
element of the crime to impose a greater term.
9)Enumerates circumstances in aggravation, relating both to the
crime and to the defendant, as specified.
10)Enumerates circumstances in mitigation, relating both to the
crime and to the defendant, as specified.
AB 520
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Following conviction or
upon a plea, a judge can unilaterally find that there are
aggravating circumstances and impose the upper term. While it
is appropriate for a judge to state his or her reason for
imposing a sentence that can be more than twice the length of
the lower sentence, the aggravating factors should be true, and
the only way to determine this is to put the facts before a jury
or independent factfinder which the U.S. Supreme Court declared
in its 2007 decision.
"This small policy change will instill a great sense of fairness
in our judicial system. The sponsors and I want to hold people
who break the law accountable for their actions, and if a jury
or independent factfinder finds that there are true factors in
aggravation, then the highest available sentence should be
imposed. If not, judges need to follow the law and impose the
middle term unless there are factors that have actually been
found to be true."
Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this
bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0000443