BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2052
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2016
Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
AB
2052 (Williams) - As Amended April 13, 2016
SUMMARY: Requires a person convicted of two or more violations
of animal cruelty, dog fighting, transporting an animal in a
cruel or inhuman manner, or cockfighting to be sentenced to
consecutive terms of imprisonment.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that every person who maliciously and intentionally
maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or
maliciously and intentionally kills an animal is guilty of a
criminal offense and as a felony is punishable by imprisonment
in a county jail for 16 months, two, or three years, or by a
fine up to $20,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or
alternatively, as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county
jail, or by a fine up to $20,000, or by both that fine and
imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd, (a).)
2)States that when a person overdrives, overloads, drives when
overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of
necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, cruelly beats,
mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal, or causes or procures
any animal to be so overdriven, overloaded, driven when
overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of
AB 2052
Page 2
necessary sustenance, drink, shelter, or to be cruelly beaten,
mutilated, or cruelly killed; and whoever, having the charge
or custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise,
subjects any animal to needless suffering, or inflicts
unnecessary cruelty upon the animal, or in any manner abuses
any animal, or fails to provide the animal with proper food,
drink, or shelter or protection from the weather, or who
drives, rides, or otherwise uses the animal when unfit for
labor is guilty of a criminal offense and as a felony is
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months,
two, or three years, or by a fine up to $20,000, or by both
that fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor
by imprisonment in a county jail, or by a fine up to $20,000,
or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 597,
subd. (b).)
3)Specifies that a person who maliciously and intentionally
maims, mutilates, or tortures any mammal, bird, reptile,
amphibian, or fish, is a criminal offense and as a felony is
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months,
two, or three years, or by a fine up to $20,000, or by both
that fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor
by imprisonment in a county jail, or by a fine up to $20,000,
or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 597,
subd. (c).)
4)Provides that any person that does any of the following is
guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail for 16 months, two or three years, or by a fine
not to exceed $50,000, or by both imprisonment and a fine:
a) Owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any dog, with the
intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of
fighting with another dog;
b) For amusement or gain, causes any dog to fight with
another dog, or causes any dogs to injure each other; and,
c) Permits any of the above acts to be done on any premises
under his or her control, or aid or abets that act. (Pen.
Code, § 597.5, subd. (a).)
AB 2052
Page 3
5)States that any person that intentionally causes injury to or
the death of any guide, signal or service dog, as defined,
while the dog is in the discharge of its duties, is guilty of
a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
to exceed one year, by a fine not exceeding 10,000, or by both
a fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 600.2.)
6)Provides that any person who maliciously strikes, beats,
kicks, stabs, shoots, or throws, hurls, or projects any rock
or object at any horse being used by a peace officer, or any
dog being supervised by a peace officer in the performance of
his or her duties is a public offense. If the injury
inflicted is a serious injury, as specified, the person shall
be punished as a felony by imprisonment in a county jail for
16 months, two or three years, and as a misdemeanor by
imprisonment in a county jail for a term not exceeding one
year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, or by
both a fine and imprisonment. If the injury inflicted is not
a serious injury, the person shall be punished by imprisonment
in the county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine
not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by both a fine and
imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 600, subd. (a).)
7)Requires that if a defendant is granted probation for a
conviction of animal cruelty, the court shall order the
defendant to pay for, and successfully complete, counseling,
as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat
behavior or conduct disorders. If the court finds that the
defendant is financially unable to pay for that counseling,
the court may develop a sliding fee schedule based upon the
defendant's ability to pay. The counseling shall be in
addition to any other terms and conditions of probation,
including any term of imprisonment and any fine. If the court
does not order custody as a condition of probation for a
conviction under this section, the court shall specify on the
court record the reason or reasons for not ordering custody.
This does not apply to cases involving police dogs or horses
as described in Section 600. (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (h).)
8)Provides that any person who causes any animal, not including
a dog, to fight with another animal, or permits the same to be
done on any property under his or her control, or aids or
AB 2052
Page 4
abets the fighting of any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by up to one year in the county jail or by a fine
not to exceed $10,000, or both imprisonment and a fine. (Pen.
Code § 597b, subd. (a).)
9)Provides that any person who causes a cock to fight with
another cock, or permits the same to be done on any property
under his or her control, and any person who aid or abets the
fighting of any cock or is present as a spectator is guilty of
a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail
not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed $10,000, or
by both imprisonment and a fine. (Pen. Code, § 597b, subd.
(b).)
10)Provides that any person who owns, possesses, keeps or trains
any bird or other animal with the intent that that it be used
an exhibition of fighting is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed
one year; by a fine not to exceed $10,000, or by both
imprisonment and a fine. (Penal Code Section 597j.)
11)States that it is misdemeanor for any person to tie or attach
or fasten any live animal to any machine or device propelled
by any power for the purpose of causing such animal to be
pursued by a dog or dogs and the offense is punishable by up
to one year in a county jail, by a fine not to exceed $2,500,
or by both imprisonment and a fine. (Pen. Code, § 597h.)
12)Directs that any person who owns, possesses, or trains any
bird or animal with the intent that the cock or other bird
shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting by his or her
vendee or any other person is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceed one
year, by a fine not to exceed $10,000; or by both imprisonment
and a fine. (Pen. Code, § 597j.),
13)States that ever person who willfully abandons any animal is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county
jail not to exceed six months, by a fine not to exceed $1,000,
AB 2052
Page 5
or by both a fine and imprisonment (Penal Code Section 597s.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "This bill was
sparked by a shocking case of animal cruelty and domestic
violence in Santa Barbara where a 19-year old foreign exchange
student strangled his girlfriend and beat, burned and raped
her five-month old puppy. The community was outraged that the
suspect only received one year in jail and six months of
probation when the maximum sentence allowed under state law is
seven and a half years. This sentence also included domestic
violence and other mental health treatment.
"AB 2052 will ensure that animal cruelty cases are
appropriately sentenced. Far too many times we hear cases
where repeat animal abusers get slaps on the wrist and
continue to hurt animals. This bill would require a person who
sentenced for two or more current convictions for animal abuse
offenses to be sentenced to consecutive terms. Consecutive
sentencing reflects the violent nature of these actions that
all too often spill over from violence to animals to violent
actions towards other humans including loved ones."
2)Limits Court's Discretion: When a person is convicted of two
or more crimes whether in the same proceeding or court or in
different proceedings or courts, and whether by judgment
rendered by the same judge or by different judges, the second
or other subsequent judgment upon which sentence is ordered to
be executed shall direct whether the terms of imprisonment or
any them to which he or she is sentenced shall run
concurrently or consecutively (Penal Code Section 669). This
bill contradicts this section by limiting the court's
discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentence
in order to achieve a just and appropriate sentence.
By limiting the court's discretion, this bill could lead to
wildly disproportionate sentences. For example, Penal Code
Section 597 (b) (animal neglect) makes it a felony punishable
by 16 months, two, or three years in a county jail, or a
AB 2052
Page 6
misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail to
fail to provide an animal with "proper food, drink, or
shelter, or protection from the weather". A person could fail
to properly care for twenty cats and be charged and convicted
of twenty counts of animal abuse and neglect. This bill, by
requiring that each conviction be sentenced consecutively,
would result in a minimum sentence of twenty years in a county
jail, and that would be if the crimes were charged as a
misdemeanor. Is it a good policy to limit the court's
discretion in these types of cases?
3)Double Punishment for the Same Act. An act or omission that
is punishable in different way by different provisions of law
shall be punished under the provision that provides for the
longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall
the act or omission be punished by more than one provision
(Penal Code Section 654). An example, where this provision
would a be applicable, is if a person convicted under the
general animal abuse statute (Penal Code Section 597 subd. a)
was, also, convicted of the more specific statute prohibiting
dog fighting (Penal Code Section 597.5) for fighting a dog.
Penal Code Section 654 prohibits sentencing for more than one
of these provisions because it would be an unconstitutional
double punishment for the same act (dog fighting) made
punishable by different code sections. This bill requires
that these crimes be sentenced consecutively which, in this
instance, would be an unconstitutional double punishment.
4)Argument in Opposition: According to the American Civil
Liberties Union, " Penal Code section 654 states in relevant
part:
(a) An act or omission that is punishable in different ways
by different provisions of law shall be punished under the
provision that provides for the longest potential term of
imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be
punished under more than one provision.
AB 2052
Page 7
"The courts have held "[t]he purpose of the statute is 'to
prevent multiple punishment for a single act or omission, even
though that act or omission violates more than one statute and
thus constitutes more than one crime.'" (People v. Davey (2005)
133 Cal.App.4th 384, 389.) In addition, Penal Code section 654
"has long been interpreted also to preclude multiple punishment
for more than one violation of a single Penal Code section, if
the violations all arise out of a single criminal act." (Ibid.)
Thus, in Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19, the
California Supreme Court held that section 654 precluded
consecutive sentence for arson committed for the purpose of
killing people in the building. And in Wilkoff v. Superior Court
(1985) 38 Cal.3d 345, 349, the Court held that section 654 bars
multiple convictions for driving under the influence based on one
incident, even if driver causes injury to several people.
"In addition, the U.S. Constitution also protects against double
punishment for the same criminal conduct. "The Fifth Amendment
guarantee against double jeopardy protects not only against a
second trial for the same offense, but also 'against multiple
punishments for the same offense.'" ( Whalen v. U.S. (1980) 445
U.S. 684, 688 [quoting North Carolina v. Pearce (1969) 395 U.S.
711, 717.])
"AB 2052 is contrary to the basic due process protections
provided by the Fifth Amendment and Penal Code section 654 by
mandating consecutive sentences for the same course of conduct.
"Judges already have discretion to impose consecutive sentences
in appropriate cases when it does conflict with due process.
Specifically, "multiple crimes that arise from a single course
of criminal conduct may be punished separately, notwithstanding
section 654 , if the acts constituting the various crimes serve
separate criminal objectives." (People v. Davey, 133
Cal.App.4th at 390.) Similarly, there is an exception to the
bar on multiple punishments "for acts of violence against a
person with multiple victims." (Ibid.). Under these exceptions,
the courts currently have jurisdiction to impose concurrent
sentences when warranted and consistent with due process. By
mandating consecutive sentences even when these exceptions do
AB 2052
Page 8
not apply, AB 2052 will lead to sentencing errors, additional
litigation and ultimately reversals of sentences found to be
barred by Penal Code section 654 and unconstitutional under the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Analysis Prepared
by: Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744