BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2765
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
2765 (Weber)
As Amended May 19, 2016
2/3 vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
|Public Safety |5-2 |Jones-Sawyer, Lopez, |Melendez, Lackey |
| | |Low, Quirk, Santiago | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
|Appropriations |14-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Calderon, Daly, |Obernolte, Wagner |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, McCarty, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Extends, for an additional five years, the time
limitation in which a person currently convicted of a felony,
who would have been convicted of a misdemeanor if Proposition 47
were in effect, may petition the court to have the sentenced
AB 2765
Page 2
reduced in accordance with the Act.
EXISTING LAW:
1)States that a person currently serving a sentence for
conviction of a felony, who would have been guilty of a
misdemeanor had Proposition 47 been effect at the time of the
offense may petition for a recall of sentence before the trial
court that entered the conviction in his or her case to
request resentencing, as specified.
2)Provides that upon receiving the petition for recall and
resentencing, the court shall determine whether the petitioner
meets specified criteria. If the petitioner satisfies the
criteria, the petitioner's felony sentence shall be recalled
and the petitioner resentenced to a misdemeanor. Requires the
court to deny resentencing if the petitioner has a prior
disqualifying conviction, is required to register as a sex
offender under section, or if the court, in its discretion,
determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an
unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.
3)Authorizes a court to deny a petition for a recall of
sentence, if the court in the exercise of its discretion,
determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an
unreasonable risk of danger to the public safety. In
exercising its discretion, the court may consider all of the
following:
a) The petitioner's criminal conviction history, including
the type of crimes committed, the extent of injury to
victims, the length of prior prison commitments, and the
remoteness of the crimes;
b) The petitioner's disciplinary record and record of
rehabilitation while incarcerated; and,
c) Any other evidence the court, within its discretion,
determines to be relevant in deciding whether a new
sentence would result in an unreasonable risk of danger to
public safety.
4)Defines "unreasonable risk of danger to the public safety" to
AB 2765
Page 3
mean an unreasonable risk the petitioner will commit a new
"violent" felony, as specified.
5)Provides that a person that is currently serving a sentence
for conviction of a felony and who is resentenced shall be
given credit for time served and shall be subject to parole
for one year following completion of his or her sentence,
unless the court, in its discretion, as part of the
resentencing order, releases the person from parole.
6)Allows a person who has completed his or her sentence for a
conviction of a felony who would have been guilty of a
misdemeanor under the provisions of Proposition 47 if it would
have in effect at the time of the offense, to apply to have
the felony conviction designated as a misdemeanor.
7)States that any petition filed for recall and resentencing
shall be filed within three years after the effective date of
Proposition 47, or at later date upon a showing of good cause.
8)Provides that any felony conviction that is recalled and
resentenced or designated as a misdemeanor shall be considered
a misdemeanor for all purposes, except for the right to own or
possess firearms. 9)Provides that when the trial court reduces
an offense from a felony to a misdemeanor, it is "a
misdemeanor for all purposes." FISCAL EFFECT: According to
the Assembly Appropriations Committee, potential cost to the
courts after November 2017 for petitions filed past the current
deadline, which will be offset by savings if the elimination of
the deadline reduces last minute petitions in fiscal year
2017-18.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "California voters passed
the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014, otherwise known
as Proposition 47 by over 60% on November 4, 2014. Proposition
AB 2765
Page 4
47 reduced the criminal penalties for five non-violent,
low-level property offenses and minor drug possession from
felonies to misdemeanors. One provision of the measure allowed
an individual who was either currently serving or who had
completed his or her sentence for a Prop 47 offense and was not
otherwise excluded on account of having other, violent offenses
on their record, to have their sentence or record reduced to a
misdemeanor. This provision called for this relief to sunset
three years from the date the measure passed, on November 4,
2017.
"Some have estimated that nearly one million Californians are
eligible for some type of Prop 47 relief. A felony record, even
for a very old offense, serves as a barrier to self-sufficiency
for the formerly incarcerated. People are routinely denied
employment, housing and other rights because of their felon
status. For non-violent offenders, the inability to obtain
self-sufficiency contributes to higher rates of recidivism,
incarceration and poverty in our communities.
"Law enforcement officials and courts that are working
diligently to comply with the law have been inundated with
petitions from individuals seeking relief. The influx of
petitions has forced many agency offices scrambling to comply
with the voter mandate while fulfilling other regularly assigned
tasks. The imposition of the three-year deadline for filing has
created a sense of urgency among eligible petitioners that can
be reduced by removing the existing time limit.
"In passing Proposition 47, voters called for change. To deny
an eligible individual a form of relief that could help make
them a contributing and self-sufficient member of our community
while simultaneously imposing immense pressure on law
enforcement to work within the parameters of the law would
create inequitable results for many. The proper solution for
all involved is to remove the time limit and ensure that law
AB 2765
Page 5
enforcement agencies and petitioners alike have adequate time to
complete the process of record changing envisioned by Prop 47."
Analysis Prepared by:
Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN:
0002987