BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 1017
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 18, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                AB 1017 (Ammiano) - As Introduced:  February 18, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                              Public 
          SafetyVote:   4-3

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:               No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill makes the cultivation of marijuana - currently a 
          felony, punishable by 16 months, 2 or 3 years in state prison - 
          an alternative felony/misdemeanor, punishable by 16 months, 2, 
          or 3 years in state prison, or up to one year in county jail.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Unknown, potentially moderate, annual GF savings as a result of 
          creating a misdemeanor charging option for marijuana 
          cultivation. In 2009 and 2010, a total of 260 persons were 
          committed to state prison for cultivation. If this number was 
          decreased by 25%, annual state savings would be in the range of 
          $1.5 million. State savings would be offset to a degree by 
          increased local incarceration (non-state-reimbursable), though 
          many of these offenders would likely receive probation. 

           COMMENTS  

           Rationale  . According to the author and sponsor, the Mendocino 
          County D.A.'s Office, this bill simply provides district 
          attorneys another option to bringing a felony charge for 
          marijuana cultivation, which allows district attorneys to adjust 
          charges to the magnitude of the case, rather than a 
          one-size-fits-all felony. 

          According to the author, "Marijuana cultivation statutes do not 
          discriminate between major cultivation operations and illegal 
          personal backyard gardens. In all cases, defendants with big or 
          small gardens, and defendants caught helping process the 
          marijuana, "trimmers," are charged with felony cultivation (H&S 








                                                                  AB 1017
                                                                  Page  2

          §11358) and possession of marijuana for sale (H&S §11359). The 
          DA should be given the discretion to characterize the different 
          attributes of specific cultivation/processing cases and charge 
          the larger operations as felonious conduct and the smaller 
          gardens as misdemeanors. 

          "Making these crimes potentially wobblers would be the most 
          effective means for dealing with the class of marijuana 
          cultivation/processing cases in Mendocino County that are called 
          "trimmer" cases. These are the down-and-out, unemployed people 
          located throughout the county in need of income in a sour 
          economy with no prior criminal record who are arrested sitting 
          around a table earning money by trimming marijuana buds. To 
          some, they are field workers who are being used and victimized 
          by the people who set-up large-scale operations from a distance 
          and who then reap the financial benefits if the business 
          finishes the grow year without law enforcement detection. Given 
          that cultivation / processing is a straight felony, being 
          required to charge the trimmers with that straight felony is not 
          sensible.
           
          Opponents  , including the CA District Attorneys Association and 
          several law enforcement entities (no letters have been received 
          by the committee at this time) oppose the potential penalty 
          reduction for cultivation.
           

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081