BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 543 (Block) - Petty theft: enhancements for prior
convictions.
Amended: April 10, 2013 Policy Vote: Public Safety 7-0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: April 22, 2013
Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 543 would specify a conviction for theft,
embezzlement, forgery, fraud, or identity theft against an elder
or dependent adult as a prior qualifying offense in the crime of
petty theft with a specified prior conviction.
Fiscal Impact:
Potential increase in annual local incarceration costs
(Local/Local Revenue Fund) for additional county jail
sentences to the extent additional convictions of petty
theft with a prior conviction are charged utilizing a
conviction for elder financial abuse as a qualifying prior
offense.
Potential increase in state prison costs of $150,000 to
$300,000 (General Fund) per year for increased state prison
commitments to the extent additional convictions for petty
theft with a prior for persons required to register as sex
offenders or with serious or violent prior convictions
utilize a conviction for elder financial abuse as a
qualifying prior offense.
Background: Existing law provides that every person convicted of
petty theft in the current case, and who has previously been
convicted on three or more occasions of petty theft, grand
theft, auto theft, burglary, carjacking, robbery, or receiving
stolen property, is guilty of an alternate felony-misdemeanor,
and subject to imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year
for a misdemeanor, or in a county jail for a felony for 16
months, or two or thee years. (Penal Code (PC) § 666(a))
In addition, existing law provides that a person required to
register as a sex offender, or with a prior serious or violent
SB 543 (Block)
Page 1
felony conviction, who has been convicted and imprisoned for the
commission of any of the aforementioned offenses and who is
subsequently convicted of petty theft, is subject to
imprisonment in a county jail for one year for a misdemeanor or
in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three years for a
felony with one prior qualifying offense. (PC § 666(b))
Current law does not specifically list the crime of theft from
an elder or dependent adult as a prior qualifying offense,
creating ambiguity as to whether elder theft qualifies as a
prior offense for sentencing purposes under PC § 666.
Existing law under subdivisions (d) and (e) of PC § 368
establishes the fines and punishment for theft, embezzlement,
forgery, fraud, or identity theft against an elder or dependent
adult. This bill would specifically add convictions under
subdivisions (d) or (e) of PC § 368 to the list of qualifying
prior convictions in the crime of petty theft with a prior
conviction.
Proposed Law: This bill would make a conviction for financial
abuse against an elder or dependent adult as specified under
subdivisions (d) and (e) of PC § 368, a prior qualifying offense
in the crime of petty theft with a specified prior conviction,
as follows:
A person convicted three or more times of petty theft,
grand theft, auto theft, elder financial abuse, burglary,
carjacking, robbery, or receiving stolen property, is guilty
of an alternate misdemeanor, and subject to imprisonment in
a county jail for up to one year for a misdemeanor, or in a
county jail for a felony for 16 months, or two or thee
years.
A person required to register as a sex offender, or with a
prior serious or violent felony conviction, who has been
convicted and imprisoned for the commission of any of the
aforementioned offenses, including elder or dependent adult
financial abuse and who is subsequently convicted of petty
theft, is subject to imprisonment in a county jail for one
year for a misdemeanor or in a state prison for 16 months,
or two or three years for a felony with one prior qualifying
offense.
Staff Comments: This bill specifically adds the crime of
financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult pursuant to PC §
SB 543 (Block)
Page 2
368 to the list of crimes qualifying as a prior conviction for
the crime of petty theft with a prior theft conviction. By
expanding the list of qualifying prior offenses, this bill could
result in increased convictions for petty theft with a prior
conviction than otherwise would have occurred under existing
law.
While there may be numerous cases of elder financial abuse
charged in conjunction with additional offenses that qualify as
a prior qualifying offense, or successfully proven to have
involved theft in a conviction under PC § 368, to the extent the
existing ambiguity in the law results in a small percentage of
cases resolved in favor of the defendants charged under PC §
666, the clarification proposed in this measure could result in
additional misdemeanor and felony convictions than otherwise
would have occurred under existing law.
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) annual
reports indicate approximately 3,000 inmates were released in
both 2009 and 2010 for the crime of petty theft with a prior
conviction, with an average length of stay (LOS) of less than 10
months. In 2011, the number of inmates released decreased to
2,000 inmates with an average LOS of 12.8 months, and the number
released dropped even lower to 55 inmates with an average LOS of
19 months in 2012. The significant difference in the number of
releases and average time served may be attributable to the
impact of 2011 Public Safety Realignment. As a result, the
impact to local jails is likely to be considerably greater than
to state prisons. However, a 10 percent increase in state prison
commitments would equate to 5 or 6 new admissions per year
statewide, increasing state incarceration costs in excess of
$150,000 (General Fund) in any one year to $300,000 (General
Fund) due to the effect of overlapping sentences assuming a
two-year average sentence. This estimate is based on a cost of
$28,000 per inmate to the extent the CDCR must utilize
contracted space to accommodate the additional inmates in order
to avoid aggravating prison overcrowding. Depending on the
state's actions to address the overcrowding issue, the per
inmate cost could be higher or lower than that utilized in this
estimate.
California's prison system continues to operate under federal
oversight as it addresses the issues of prison overcrowding and
constitutionally adequate health care in its 33 facilities. In
SB 543 (Block)
Page 3
January 2013, the state requested the court vacate or modify its
order requiring the state to reduce the inmate population. On
April 11, 2013, the three-judge panel denied the state's motion
to vacate/modify the population cap and ordered the state to
provide a list of proposed population reduction measures within
21 days of the order (May 2, 2013). Therefore, any legislative
proposals potentially exacerbating prison overcrowding create
future cost pressure (General Fund) to the extent additional use
of contract beds, out-of-state facilities, or capital outlay
will be required in order to comply with the court-ordered
population limit.