BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó







                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                            Senator Loni Hancock, Chair              S
                             2013-2014 Regular Session               B

                                                                     9
                                                                     0
                                                                     5
          SB 905 (Knight)                                             
          As Introduced: January 17, 2014
          Hearing date:  March 25, 2014
          Penal Code
          JM:sl

                              ASSAULTS BY PRISON INMATES  

                                       HISTORY

          Source:  California District Attorneys Association

          Prior Legislation: AB 1026 (Knight) Ch. 183, Stats. 2011

          Support: Unknown

          Opposition:None known



                                         KEY ISSUE
           
          SHOULD THE CRIMES OF ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON BY A PRISON INMATE  
          AND ASSAULT BY A PRISON INMATE BY MEANS OF FORCE LIKELY TO PRODUCE  
          GREAT BODILY INJURY BE PLACED IN SEPARATE SUBDIVISIONS OF PENAL CODE  
          SECTION 4501?


                                       PURPOSE

          The purpose of this bill is to place the crimes of assault with  
          a deadly weapon by a prison inmate and assault by a prison  
          inmate by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury  
          in two separate subdivisions of Penal Code Section 4501, thereby  
          allowing prosecutors, defense counsel and judges to determine  


                                                                     (More)






                                                            SB 905 (Knight)
                                                                     Page 2



          the nature of a prior conviction under Section 4501 by reference  
          to the subdivision under which the defendant was convicted.
          
           

          Existing law  provides that any state prison inmate who assaults  
          another with a deadly weapon or instrument, or who assaults  
          another by means of force likely to produce bodily injury, is  
          guilty of a felony, punishable by a consecutive term of two,  
          four or six years in prison.  (Pen. Code § 4501.)
           
          Existing law provides that if a defendant is convicted of a  
          felony offense and the defendant has previously been convicted  
          of two or more serious or violent offenses, as specified, the  
          court shall impose an indeterminate term of life in prison with  
          the minimum term of 25 years.  Where the defendant has a single  
          serious prior serious or violent felony, the court shall double  
          the defendant's prison term.  (Pen. Code §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)  
          and 1170.12.)

           Existing law  provides that a defendant convicted of a serious  
          felony shall receive a five-year sentence enhancement for each  
          prior serious felony conviction.  (Pen. Code § 667, subd. (a).)

           Existing law  provides that assault with a deadly weapon by a  
          prison inmate is a serious felony.  (Pen. Code § 1192.7, subd.  
          (c)(13).)

           This bill  reorganizes Penal Code Section 4501 - defining two  
          forms of assault by prison inmates - by placing the crimes of 1)  
          assault by a prison inmate by means of force likely to produce  
          great bodily injury, and 2) assault with a deadly weapon by a  
          prison inmate in separate subdivisions of the section.  

                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

          For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's  
          prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation  
          relating to conditions of confinement.  On May 23, 2011, the  
          United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its  
          prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two  









                                                            SB 905 (Knight)
                                                                     Page 3



          years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the  
          state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.   

          Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to  
          hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the  
          prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony  
          prosecutions.  Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"  
          (which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis  
          Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new  
          felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or  
          otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner  
          which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis.  Under  
          these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,  
          provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did  
          not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by  
          passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.  
            

          In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the  
          historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of  
          California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the  
          federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison  
          population to 137.5 percent of design capacity.  The State  
          submitted that the, ". . .  population in the State's 33 prisons  
          has been reduced by over 

          24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment  
          went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the  
          2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006  
          . . . ."  Plaintiffs opposed the state's motion, arguing that,  
          "California prisons, which currently average 150% of capacity,  
          and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison, continue to  
          deliver health care that is constitutionally deficient."  In an  
          order dated January 29, 2013, the federal court granted the  
          state a six-month extension to achieve the 137.5 % inmate  
          population cap by December 31, 2013.  

          The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state  
          of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply  
          with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to  
          reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by  









                                                            SB 905 (Knight)
                                                                     Page 4



          December 31, 2013."  On September 16, 2013, the State asked the  
          Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016.  In  
          response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,  
          2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to  
          enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants  
          can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including  
          means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or  
          accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to  
          the prison crowding problem."

          The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the  
          meet-and-confer process.  As a result, the Court ordered  
          briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,  
          2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the  
          in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity  
          to February 28, 2016.  The order requires the state to meet the  
          following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:

                 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
                 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
                 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. 

          If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position  
          created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of  
          inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.   


          In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the  
          state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33  
          prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.   
          8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.

          The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison  
          capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement  
          remain unresolved.  While real gains in reducing the prison  
          population have been made, even greater reductions may be  
          required to meet the orders of the federal court.  Therefore,  
          the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills - bills that may  
          impact the prison population - will be informed by the following  
          questions:










                                                            SB 905 (Knight)
                                                                     Page 5



                 Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the  
               prison population;
                 Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly  
               dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there  
               is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; 
                 Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or  
               legislative drafting error; 
                 Whether a measure proposes penalties which are  
               proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other  
               reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
                 Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety  
               or criminal activity for which there is no other  
               reasonable, appropriate remedy.

                                      COMMENTS

          1.  Need for this Bill  

          According to the author:

            Penal Code Section 4501 deals with assaults committed by  
            prison inmates.  The section currently contains one  
            paragraph that covers both the crimes of assault on a  
            person with a deadly weapon and assault by means of force  
            likely to produce great bodily injury. Under California  
            law, assault with a deadly weapon is a serious felony and  
            thus a strike under the Three Strikes law, while an  
            assault by force is not.  Because Section 4501 does  
            include separate subdivisions for each form of assault,  
            prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges often cannot  
            efficiently determine whether a defendant's prior prison  
            assault conviction constitutes a serious felony.  

            When the prosecutor files criminal charges, he or she  
            reviews the defendant's criminal history to determine if  
            the defendant has any prior convictions that can or must  
            be alleged to support enhanced sentencing.  Both CCHRS  
            and CII (databases that contain arrest and conviction  
            information) list prior convictions by code section.   
            Prosecutors see "PC §4501" on a defendant's rap sheet,  
            not knowing if it qualifies as a serious felony or not.   









                                                            SB 905 (Knight)
                                                                     Page 6



            While the rap sheet often includes some description of  
            the offense, that provides no certainty, as the  
            descriptions often refer to both forms of assault, such  
            as "ASSAULT GBI W/DEADLY WEAPON."

            If a prosecutor cannot determine the specific form of a  
            defendant's prior prison assault conviction from criminal  
            history databases, the defendant could be incorrectly  
            charged with a strike allegation.  This clogs the court  
            system with cases that cannot be settled at an early date  
            because the nature of the prior conviction cannot be  
            determined until the date of trial, when a transcript,  
            minute order, or California Department of Corrections and  
            Rehabilitation (CDCR) record is obtained.

            In 2011 Governor Brown signed AB 1026 (Knight), which  
            provided the same clarification to crimes committed in  
            the public sector (PC §245).  SB 905 follows suit by  
            making the same change to the corresponding Penal Code,  
            preventing the same confusion and court delays when a  
            crime occurs in a California state prison.

































            SB 905 does not create new felonies, nor does it expand  
            the punishment for any existing felonies.  It merely  
            splits Section 4501 into two subdivisions.   Subdivision  
            (a) will define the serious felony of assault with a  
            deadly weapon.  Subdivision (b) will define the  
            non-serious felony of assault by force likely to produce  
            great bodily injury.  These changes will make assessment  
            of prior Section 4501 conviction much more efficient,  
            leading to more accurate and earlier dispositions of  
            criminal cases.  


































                                                                     (More)











          2.  Three Strikes Law Determinations and other Issues Concerning  
          Serious Felonies  

          Assault by a prison inmate by means of force likely to produce  
          great bodily injury is not classified as a serious felony.   
          Assault with a deadly weapon by a prison inmate is classified as  
          a serious felony.  (Pen. Code § 1192.7, subd. (c)(13).)  A  
          serious felony constitutes a prior strike conviction for  
          purposes of the Three Strikes law.  (Pen. Code § 667, subds.  
          (b)-(i).)  A defendant who is convicted in the current case of a  
          serious felony is subject to receive an additional five-year  
          sentence enhancement for each prior serious felony conviction.   
          (Pen. Code § 667, subd. (a).)  Plea bargaining is limited for  
          serious felonies.  (Pen. Code § 1192.7, subd. (c).)  Certain  
          sentencing and parole options are not available to defendants  
          convicted of serious felonies.  (Pen. Code § 3003.03.)

          Myriad non-penal consequences flow from the classification of a  
          felony as serious.  For example, a person convicted of a serious  
          felony faces employment restrictions, including employment as a  
          teacher.  (Ed. Code § 44332.6.)  A prior serious felony  
          conviction may affect restraining orders.  (Fam. Code § 6306.)   
          It is thus important for prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges  
          and others who must make decisions based on whether or not a  
          defendant was convicted of a serious felony to confidently  
          determine whether or not a person has been convicted of such a  
          crime.  Under existing law the serious felony of assault with a  
          deadly weapon by a prison inmate and the non-serious offense of  
          assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury  
          by a prison inmate are described together in one paragraph of  
          Penal Code Section 4501.  One typically cannot determine the  
          nature of a person's prior prison assault conviction from a  
          review of the person's criminal record.  This bill would allow  
          the determination of the nature of a prior assault conviction to  
          be made on the basis of the statutory designation of each crime.  


          SHOULD THE CRIMES OF ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON BY A PRISON  
          INMATE AND ASSAULT BY A PRISON INMATE BY MEANS OF FORCE LIKELY  
          TO PRODUCE GREAT BODILY INJURY BE PLACED IN SEPARATE  
          SUBDIVISIONS OF PENAL CODE SECTION 4501?


                                                                     (More)






                                                            SB 905 (Knight)
                                                                     Page 9



          3.  Related Prior Bill - AB 1026 (Knight) Chapter 183,  
            Statutes of 2011 - Organization of General Assault  
            Statute (Applicable to Persons not in Prison)  

          This bill essentially makes the same changes to the statute  
          concerning assaults by prison inmates that were made to the  
          general assault statutes in 2011 by AB 1026 (Knight).  As  
          with AB 1026 in 2011, this bill does not change the  
          elements of the applicable crimes, the penalty for the  
          crime or the collateral consequences of the conviction.   
          This bill simply reorganizes Penal Code Section 4015 to  
          allow interested parties to determine the nature of the  
          prior conviction by determining the specific statutory  
          provision under which the conviction occurred.


                                   ***************