BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2088 Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Linder |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 6, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Vehicles: Hit-and-Run Accidents: Pleas
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:AB 534 (Linder) - failed ACoPS, 2015
AB 1532 (Gatto) - Vetoed, 2014
AB 2337 (Linder) - Vetoed, 2014
Support: American Motorcycle Association; The Association for
Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; California Association of
Highway Patrol; Crime Victims United; Forged By Fire
Foundation; Los Angeles Walks
Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union; California Public
Defenders Association
Assembly Floor Vote: 76 - 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require the court to suspend the
driving privilege for six months or impose an appropriate period
of community service for any person who pleads guilty or nolo
AB 2088 (Linder ) PageB
of?
contendere to hit and run with property damage if the charge is
a substitute or in satisfaction of the charge of hit and run
resulting in injury or death.
Existing law provides that a court may suspend, for not more
than six months, the privilege of a person to operate a motor
vehicle upon conviction of any of the following offenses: a)
Failure of a driver involved in an accident where property is
damaged to stop and exchange specified information; b) Reckless
driving proximately causing bodily injury; c) Failure of a
driver to stop at a railroad crossing as required; d) Evading or
fleeing from a peace officer in a motor vehicle or upon a
bicycle; and, e) Knowingly causing or participating in a
vehicular collision, or any other vehicular accident, for the
purpose of presenting or causing to be presented any false or
fraudulent insurance claim. (Vehicle Code, §13201)
Existing law states that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
immediately shall revoke the privilege of a person to operate a
motor vehicle upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of the
record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of
any of the following crimes or offenses: a) Failure of the
driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury
or death to stop or otherwise comply, as specified; b) A felony
in which a motor vehicle is used, except as specified; and, c)
Reckless driving causing bodily injury. (Vehicle Code, § 13350
(a).)
Existing law provides that the driver of any vehicle involved in
an accident resulting in damage to any property, including a
vehicle, shall immediately stop the vehicle and exchange
information, as specified, or leave in a conspicuous place on
the vehicle or other property damaged written notice giving the
name and address of the driver of the vehicle involved. The
failure to comply with these requirements is a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed six
months, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by both a fine and
imprisonment. (Vehicle Code, § 20002.)
Existing law requires the driver of any vehicle involved in an
accident resulting in injury to any person, other than himself
or herself, or in the death of any person to immediately stop
the vehicle at the scene of the accident and to fulfill
specified requirements. The failure to comply is punishable by
AB 2088 (Linder ) PageC
of?
imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, two, or three
years, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one
year, or by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than
$10,000, or by both a fine and imprisonment. If the accident
results in death or permanent, serious injury, the offense is
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three,
or four years, or in a county jail for not less than 90 days nor
more than one year, or by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor
more than $10,000, or by both a fine and imprisonment. (Vehicle
Code, § 20001 (a) & (b).)
Existing law provides that a person who flees the scene of the
crime after committing vehicular manslaughter with gross
negligence or vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, upon
conviction for that offense, in addition and consecutive to the
punishment prescribed, shall be punished by an additional term
of imprisonment of five years in the state prison. Existing law
provides that this additional term shall not be imposed unless
the allegation is charged in the accusatory pleading and
admitted by the defendant or found to be true by the trier of
fact. (Vehicle Code, § 20001 (c).)
Existing law provides that every person convicted of vandalism
or affixing graffiti, as specified, may be ordered by the court
as a condition of probation to perform community service not to
exceed 300 hours over a period not to exceed one year during a
time other than his or hers hours of school attendance or
employment. (Pen Code, § 594.6 (a).)
This bill provides that if the prosecution agrees to a plea of
guilty or nolo contender to a charge of fleeing the scene of an
accident in satisfaction or substitution for a charge of fleeing
the scene the prosecution shall state for the record the factual
basis for the satisfaction or substitution including whether the
defendant was involved in an accident in which a person was
injured.
This bill provides that the prosecution's statement shall occur
prior to the defendant's waiver of the right to a jury trial.
This bill provides that the judges shall inform the defendant of
the specified consequences before accepting the defendant's plea
of guilty.
AB 2088 (Linder ) PageD
of?
This bill provides that if the court accepts the defendant's
plea under the above circumstances and the prosecutor's
statement stipulates or does not contest the fact that the
defendant was driving the vehicle that caused the injury, the
court shall immediately issue an order to impose one of the
following consequences:
Suspend the convicted driver's privilege to operate a
motor vehicle for a period of six months.
Restrict the convicted driver's privilege to operate a
motor vehicle to necessary travel to and from that person's
place of employment and for work, if driving is necessary,
for not more than six months.
Require the convicted driver to complete community
service as the court deems appropriate.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
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.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
AB 2088 (Linder ) PageE
of?
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to
reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or
criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable,
appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous
to the physical safety of others for which there is no other
reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate,
and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably
appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Hit-and-runs have reached epidemic proportions in
California and unfortunately there's no sign of them
slowing down. CHP has cited an increase in hit-and-run
AB 2088 (Linder ) PageF
of?
incidents from 73,000 in 2014 to 79,000 in 2015. CHP
stats attached.
Current penalties for hit-and-runs do not reflect the
seriousness of the crime and do not act as an effective
deterrent. Hit-and-run drivers are seldom held
accountable for their crimes-either they are handed
lenient sentences or never even identified by police.
From 2009 through 2012, 87% of drivers who "left
victims dead or injured by the side of the road"
escaped conviction. Of those who were convicted, the
majority served less than a 2-month jail sentence.<1>
Under current law, it is possible for a driver who
commits a hit-and-run with injury to enter into a plea
bargain agreement and only have to pay a couple hundred
dollar fine. Driving a motor vehicle is a serious
responsibility and should be viewed as a privilege
rather than a right. Hit-and-run drivers abuse this
privilege and should be held fully accountable for
their actions.
2. Limits Court Discretion in a Plea Bargain
This bill requires the court to suspend the driving privilege
for six months with or without a two and from work restriction
or impose a an appropriate period of community service for any
person who pleads guilty or nolo contendere to hit and run with
property damage if the charge is a substitute or in satisfaction
of the charge of hit and run resulting in injury or death.
Vehicle Code Section 13201 authorizes a court to suspend, for
not more than six months, the privilege of a person to operate a
motor vehicle upon conviction for failure of a driver involved
in an accident where property is damaged to stop and exchange
specified information.
Additionally, the court may impose any condition of probation
---------------------------
<1> Mario Karon, "If You Hit Someone With a Car and Drive Away,
You're Probably Not Getting Punished," Voice of San Diego, 8
August 2014,
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/08/08/if-you-hit-someone-with-a-c
ar-and-drive-away-youre-probably-not-getting-punished/
AB 2088 (Linder ) PageG
of?
reasonably related to the offense and aimed at discouraging such
conduct in the future. (See People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal. 3d
481, 486.) The imposition of a period of community service would
be considered a valid condition of probation and well within the
courts discretion.
This bill limits the court's discretion in that it requires the
court to either suspend the defendant's driving privilege for
six months or impose a period of community service. Both of
which options the court may already exercise, in appropriate
cases, in its discretion.
3. Apprendi v. New Jersey
In this bill, in order for the court to impose the additional
sanction of, either, a six month license suspension or community
service, the prosecution must state on the record the factual
basis for the substitution for the original charge, including
whether the defendant was involved in an accident in which a
person was injured.
The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to any factual
finding, other than that of a prior conviction, necessary to
warrant any sentence beyond the presumptive maximum. (Apprendi
v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490; Blakely v. Washington
(2004) 524 U.S. 296, 301, 303-304.)
In Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, the United
States Supreme Court held California's Determinate Sentencing
Law (DSL) violated a defendant's right to trial by jury by
placing sentence-elevating fact finding within the judge's
province. (Id. at p. 274.) The DSL authorized the court to
increase the defendant's sentence by finding facts not reflected
in the jury verdict. Specifically, the trial judge could find
factors in aggravation by a preponderance of evidence to
increase the offender's sentence from the presumptive middle
term to the upper term and, as such, was constitutionally
flawed. The Court stated, "Because the DSL authorizes the judge,
not the jury, to find the facts permitting an upper term
sentence, the sentence cannot withstand measurement against our
Sixth Amendment precedent." (Id. at p. 293.)
In this bill, the additional punishment of a license suspension
or community service is triggered by a factual finding by the
AB 2088 (Linder ) PageH
of?
court, based on a statement by the prosecution that the
defendant was involved in an accident and a person was injured
appears to violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a
jury trial as to the finding of that particular fact.
-- END -