BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 463
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 463 (Pavley)
As Introduced February 21, 2013
2/3 vote
SENATE VOTE :38-0
PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Melendez, |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow, |
| |Jones-Sawyer, Mitchell, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Quirk, Skinner, Waldron | |Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| | | |Hall, Holden, Linder, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends the sunset date from January 1, 2014, to January
1, 2017, for provisions of law which provide that 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 U.S. 270.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Declares that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment;
that 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; and 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 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
SB 463
Page 2
within the sound discretion of the court.
4)Provides that sentencing choices requiring a statement of a reason
include "[s]electing one of the three authorized prison terms
referred to in 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
unknown annual General Fund increase or decrease to the extent this
bill results in longer or shorter prison terms. While it is
unlikely this bill will 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 85,000 offenders received determinate
prison sentences in 2011 and 2012 combined).
Based on CDCR figures from 2008 through 2010, the number of upper
SB 463
Page 3
terms per the number of determinate sentences increased slightly,
from about 14% to about 17%, though in actual numbers, there were 44
fewer upward deviations in 2010 than in 2006. These figures appear
to belie the contention of proponents of AB 765 that current law,
which does not require that aggravating sentencing factors be pled
and proved, results in significantly more upper-term sentences.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "SB 463 continues our state's
sentencing procedures which give judges the right to impose a
minimum, medium, or maximum term, without additional findings of
fact. California's current determinant sentencing law works well
and is fair to defendants. According to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitations Report on New Prison Admissions, in
the five years since Senate Bill 40 (Romero) was enacted, judges
have given minimum or medium terms in over 83% of all cases.
Maximum terms have been ordered in only 16.9 percent of cases.
"California provides for a jury trial to determine if a defendant is
guilty or not guilty of the crime, but relies upon the sound
discretion of the judge to determine an appropriate prison system.
This system is not only fair, but saves money as an additional jury
trial for sentencing would require the hiring of more prosecutors,
public defenders and judges. Our courts have had four successive
years of reductions; we have 'closed' signs on courtrooms and clerks
offices in 24 counties around the state. In LA County alone, 8
courthouses have closed completely, including Malibu in my district.
California can ill afford this alternative at a time when judicial
budgets are so severely strained."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of
this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN:
0002090