BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2765 Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Weber |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 19, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JM |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Proposition 47: Sentence Reduction
HISTORY
Source: Californians for Safety and Justice; Conference of
California Bar Associations; Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors; San Diego County District Attorney
Prior Legislation:Proposition 47, 2014 November General Election
Support: Alameda County Board of Supervisors; Alameda County
District Attorney; American Civil Liberties Union;
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Calls; California Council of Community Behavioral
Health Agencies; California Catholic Conference;
California Public Defenders Association; California
Police Chiefs Association; California State
Association of Counties; Center on Juvenile and
Criminal Justice; Community Coalition; Judicial
Council of California; Legal Services for Prisoners
with Children; Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce;
Los Angeles County District Attorney; Mental Health
America in California; National Association of Social
Workers; San Diego County Board of Supervisors; County
of San Diego; Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors;
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors; Urban Counties
of California
AB 2765 (Weber ) Page
2 of ?
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 58 - 19
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to eliminate the deadline to file
petitions for relief for persons seeking reductions of prior
felony convictions to misdemeanors under Proposition 47.
Existing law 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. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (a).)
Existing law 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. (Pen. Code, §
1170.18, subd. (b).)
Existing law 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,
AB 2765 (Weber ) Page
3 of ?
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.(Pen Code, § 1170.18, subd. (b)(1)-(3).)
Existing law defines "unreasonable risk of danger to the public
safety" to mean an unreasonable risk the petitioner will commit
a new "violent" felony, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18,
subd. (b).)
Existing law 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.
Existing law 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. (Pen.
Code, § 1170.18, subd. (f).)
Existing law 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. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (j).)
Existing law 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. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (k).)
Existing law provides that when the trial court reduces an
offense from a felony to a misdemeanor, it is "a misdemeanor for
all purposes." (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (b).)
This bill removes the three year 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 reduced in accordance
with the Act.
AB 2765 (Weber ) Page
4 of ?
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
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
AB 2765 (Weber ) Page
5 of ?
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:
California voters passed the Safe Neighborhoods and
Schools Act of 2014, otherwise known as Proposition 47
by over 60% on November 4, 2014. Proposition 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
AB 2765 (Weber ) Page
6 of ?
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 enforcement agencies and
petitioners alike have adequate time to complete the
process of record changing envisioned by Prop 47.
2.Proposition 47 and Reclassification of Prior Felony
Convictions for Offenses Defined as Misdemeanors under
the Initiative
AB 2765 (Weber ) Page
7 of ?
Proposition 47 of the 2014 General Election - the Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act - reclassified drug possession
felonies and alternate felony-misdemeanors (wobblers) as
misdemeanors, except for defendants with specified disqualifying
circumstances and criminal records. The proposition extended
changes to the classification of grand theft, as determined by
the value of the property taken in the theft and made related
changes to other property crimes.
Proposition 47 also authorized defendants who were serving
sentences for felonies that were now misdemeanors under the
proposition could petition for resentencing, with prohibitions
on relief that apply to persons with specified prior sex crimes
for which registration is required and especially egregious
serious felonies. Persons who had completed a sentence for such
an offense were authorized to petition to reduce the convictions
to misdemeanors. The initiative required persons seeking relief
to file a petition within three years of the effective date of
the initiative. The deadline is November 5, 2017.
The Legislative Analyst's ballot summary explained this
portion of the initiative:
This measure allows offenders currently serving felony
sentences for the above crimes to apply to have their
felony sentences reduced to misdemeanor sentences. In
addition, certain offenders who have already completed
a sentence for a felony that the measure changes could
apply to the court to have their felony conviction
changed to a misdemeanor. However, no offender who has
committed a specified severe crime could be
resentenced or have their conviction changed. In
addition, the measure states that a court is not
required to resentence an offender currently serving a
felony sentence if the court finds it likely that the
offender will commit a specified severe crime.
Offenders who are resentenced would be required to be
on state parole for one year, unless the judge chooses
to remove that requirement.
3.Additional Background from the San Diego County District
Attorney - Time Limit for Filing for Relief under Proposition
47
AB 2765 (Weber ) Page
8 of ?
The San Diego County District Attorney explains the problems
created for prosecutors, defense attorneys and courts by the
pending deadline for filing petitions for relief under
Proposition 47:
Proposition 47 requires defendants to file a "petition
to recall" their felony sentences by November 5, 2017.
This seemingly arbitrary deadline now gives eligible
defendants a slim window to file for relief.
Apparently the proposition drafters simply
underestimated the number of defendants who may be
eligible to file for relief. AB 2765 will alleviate
the problems created by the current deadline
.
Our office has worked with the San Diego County Office
of the Public Defender to process as many petitions as
possible. To date, we have processed over 25,000 Prop
47 petitions. However, we believe there is the
potential for up to 150,000 more requests to be filed
before the November 5, 2017 deadline. This deadline
will create an unnecessary burden on eligible
defendants to meet that deadline, and a needless
"tsunami" of paperwork for prosecutors, public
defenders and the court.
-- END -