BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 463
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 463 (Pavley)
As Amended September 6, 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
SB 463
Page 2
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 "[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).
SB 463
Page 3
Based on CDCR figures from 2008 through 2010, the number of
upper 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: 0002399