BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 463|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 463
Author: Pavley (D)
Amended: 9/6/13
Vote: 27
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/2/13
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Block, De León, Knight, Liu, Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/23/13
AYES: De León, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
SENATE FLOOR : 38-0, 5/29/13
AYES: Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Calderon, Cannella,
Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Emmerson, Evans, Fuller,
Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff,
Jackson, Knight, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Monning, Padilla,
Pavley, Price, Roth, Steinberg, Torres, Walters, Wolk, Wright,
Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nielsen, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Sentencing
SOURCE : Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
DIGEST : This bill extends the sunset date on specified
sentencing provisions from January 1, 2014, to January 1, 2017,
allowing courts to select a lower, middle, or upper term for
both base term sentences and enhancements by exercise of the
CONTINUED
SB 463
Page
2
court's discretion.
Assembly Amendments address a chaptering issue with SB 76
(Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 32, Statutes
of 2013).
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.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. In determining the appropriate term, the court may
consider the records in the case, as specified. The court
shall select the term which, in the court's discretion, best
serves the interests of justice, as specified. The provision
concerning the authority of the court to choose one of three
prescribed sentencing terms sunsets on January 1, 2014.
2.Provides that when a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, or
the execution of a sentence of imprisonment is ordered
suspended, the sentencing judge must select the upper, middle,
or lower term on each count for which the defendant has been
convicted.
This bill extends the sunset date on specified sentencing
provisions from January 1, 2014, to January 1, 2017, allowing
courts to select a lower, middle, or upper term for both base
term sentences and enhancements by exercise of the court's
discretion.
Background
SB 40 (Romero, Chapter 3, Statutes of 2007) amended California's
determinate sentencing law (DSL) to satisfy constitutional
requirements. While the Supreme Court, in its Cunningham
decision, found that California's DSL violates the Sixth
Amendment, the Court also provided clear direction as to what
steps California's Legislature could take to address the DSL's
constitutional infirmities.
As to the adjustment of California's sentencing system in
light of our decision, the ball lies in California's court.
CONTINUED
SB 463
Page
3
We note that several states have modified their systems in
the wake of Apprendi and Blakely to retain determinate
sentencing. They have done so by calling upon the jury,
either at trial or in a separate sentencing proceeding, to
find any fact necessary to the imposition of an elevated
sentence. California already employs juries in this manner
to determine statutory sentencing enhancements. Other
states have chosen to permit judges genuinely to exercise
broad discretion within a statutory range, which, everyone
agrees, encounters no Sixth Amendment shoal. California
may follow the paths taken by its sister states or
otherwise alter its system, so long as the state observes
Sixth Amendment limitations declared in this court's
decisions. (Cunningham v. California, supra, 549 U.S. 270,
293-294, citations and footnotes omitted.)
Because, as the court stated in Blakely, "The relevant statutory
maximum, is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after
finding additional facts, but the maximum he/she may impose
without any additional findings," and, because, prior to SB 40,
under California's DSL, a judge could only impose the upper term
after making additional findings of fact, the court in
Cunningham found that, absent any amendment along the lines
stated above, the statutory maximum a judge would be authorized
to impose in California is the middle term. (Cunningham v.
California, supra, 549 U.S. 270.)
SB 40 amended California's DSL to give judges the discretion to
impose the lower, middle, or upper term without the need for
additional fact-finding. In addition, SB 40 included
legislative intent language stating that its purpose was to
address Cunningham, and to stabilize the criminal justice system
while sentencing and correctional policies in California are
being reviewed.
Prior Legislation
The provisions of SB 40 (Romero, Chapter 3, Statutes of 2007),
concerning imposition of the base term for the crime of
conviction originally were due to sunset on January 1, 2009, but
were later extended to January 1, 2011, in SB 1701 (Romero,
Chapter 416, Statutes of 2008).
SB 150 (Wright, Chapter 171, Statutes of 2009), authorized
CONTINUED
SB 463
Page
4
courts to impose any term where a sentence enhancement included
a penalty triad, also included a sunset date of January 1, 2011.
In 2011, the Legislature extended the sunset provisions
concerning both base term and enhancement terms from January 1,
2011, to January 1, 2012. AB 2263 (Yamada, Chapter 256,
Statutes of 2010.)
SB 576 (Calderon, Chapter 361, Statutes of 2011), extended the
sunset on these sentencing provisions to January 2, 2014. This
bill extends those sunset dates to January 2017.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, potentially
major costs or savings to the extent the extended sentencing
provisions result in longer or shorter prison terms than would
have occurred under the presumptive middle term. A 1% increase
in upper term sentences, assuming an additional two years per
upper term sentence, would result in additional costs in excess
of several million dollars (General Fund). The additional costs
will likely not be incurred until after the middle term is
served of the sentence, the enhancement, or both.
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/11/13)
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office (source)
California District Attorneys Association
California Judges Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Crime Victims Action Alliance
Crime Victims United of California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/11/13)
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Los Angeles District Attorney's
Office states:
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 sentence. This system is not only fair
CONTINUED
SB 463
Page
5
but it saves money as a jury trial for sentencing would
require that we hire additional prosecutors, public
defenders and judges. California cannot afford this
alternative at a time when courthouses are closing and the
budget for the judiciary is so severely strained.
SB 463 maintains the current sentencing procedures by
extending the sunset on SB 40 (Romero) and SB 150 (Wright)
to January 1, 2017. Without SB 463, the current law, would
sunset and we would be required to conduct a jury trial on
sentencing issues whenever an upper term sentence is
sought. Under SB 463, we will avoid this costly and
unnecessary alternative.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Attorneys for
Criminal Justice write:
This bill continues a push towards keeping persons in state
prison rather than following the state's plan for criminal
justice realignment. The stated goal of realignment was to
reduce spending on incarceration and reduce recidivism. The
proposed legislation gives the court a three year extension in
its discretion to impose heavier punishment while keeping more
people in state prison. Not only is the extension unnecessary,
it also lacks clarity in giving the court absolute discretion to
impose an enhancement that "best serves the interest of
justice."
JG:n:e 9/11/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED