BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2690
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 7, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2690 (Mullin) - As Amended: March 20, 2014
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill changes the term "prior violation" to "separate
violation" in the statute that authorizes enhanced penalties if
the current offense occurred within 10 years of a prior
conviction that was punished as a felony for specified driving
under the influence (DUI) offenses.
FISCAL EFFECT
Unknown, potentially moderate annual GF costs for increased
state prison commitments. Based on the 4,641 persons committed
to state prison for DUI from 20011-13, inclusive, if this bill
results in a 0.2% increase - 3 commitments - annual costs would
be about $180,000, assuming per capita costs.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to conform this section with
other statutes relating to multiple DUI offenses to make
explicit the Legislature's intent to punish multiple DUIs more
severely, whether or not an additional offense occurred before
or after the present offense.
2)Legislative intent regarding repeat offenders . A non-injury
DUI offense is normally punished as a misdemeanor. A DUI
offense may be charged as a felony, however, if the defendant
has a prior violation within 10 years of a DUI offense that
was punished as a felony, or the defendant has a prior
conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated,
or the defendant has been previously convicted within the last
10 years of three or more separate DUI violations.
AB 2690
Page 2
The Legislature states its intent (in Vehicle Code Section
232167) to subject an offender to an enhanced penalty for
multiple offenses within 10 years, regardless of whether the
convictions are obtained in the sequence of the offenses:
"The Legislature finds and declares that some repeat offenders
of the prohibition against driving under the influence of
alcohol or drugs, when they are addicted or when they have too
much alcohol in their systems, may be escaping the intent of
the Legislature to punish the offender with progressively
greater severity if the offense is repeated one or more times
within a 10-year period. This situation may occur when a
conviction for a subsequent offense occurs before a conviction
is obtained on an earlier offense.
"The Legislature further finds and declares that the timing of
court proceedings should not permit a person to avoid
aggravated mandatory minimum penalties for multiple separate
offenses occurring within a 10-year period. It is the intent
of the Legislature to provide that a person be subject to
enhanced mandatory minimum penalties for multiple offenses
within a period of 10 years, regardless of whether the
convictions are obtained in the same sequence as the offenses
had been committed."
3)Support . The CA District Attorneys Association, the sponsor of
this bill, writes, "Courts have repeatedly recognized that the
use of the word 'prior' to describe an offense has a
particular meaning and signifies that the alleged prior
conviction must occur prior to the conduct of the currently
charged offense. People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210 and
People v. Baez (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 197.
"Thus, despite the Legislature's clear intent to the contrary,
when the order of an offender's DUI convictions does not
follow the order of the offenses, the offender escapes more
severe penalties."
4)There is no known opposition .
AB 2690
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081