BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2765|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2765
Author: Weber (D), et al.
Amended: 5/19/16 in Assembly
Vote: 27
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/28/16
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Nielsen
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-19, 5/31/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Proposition 47: sentence reduction
SOURCE: Californians for Safety and Justice
Conference of California Bar Associations
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
San Diego County District Attorney
DIGEST: This bill eliminates the deadline to file petitions for
relief for persons seeking reductions of prior felony
convictions to misdemeanors under Proposition 47 and authorizes
the filing of a petition until November 4, 2022, or later upon a
showing of good cause.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
AB 2765
Page 2
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. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18,
subd. (a).)
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. (Pen. Code, §
1170.18, subd. (b).)
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.(Pen Code, § 1170.18, subd. (b)(1)-(3).)
4)Defines "unreasonable risk of danger to the public safety" to
mean an unreasonable risk the petitioner will commit a new
AB 2765
Page 3
"violent" felony, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd.
(b).)
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. (Pen.
Code, § 1170.18, subd. (f).)
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.
(Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (j).)
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. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (k).)
9)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. The bill sets the deadline at November 4, 2022
and authorizes later filing upon a showing of good cause.
Background
According to the author:
AB 2765
Page 4
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
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
AB 2765
Page 5
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.
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. Proposition 47 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. Proposition 47 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
AB 2765
Page 6
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.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Trial court workload: Potentially significant cost savings
(General Fund*) to the courts in FY 2017-18 due to fewer
petitions being filed than otherwise would have occurred under
the impending filing deadline in November 2017, followed by a
temporary increase in court workload (General Fund*) in FY
2018-19 through November 4, 2022, to review additional
petitions for relief. While the extension is likely to temper
the surge of petitions that otherwise would have been filed in
advance of the November 2017 deadline, this bill is likely to
result in a net increase in court workload to review
additional petitions during the five-year extension that would
not have been filed by the current deadline given the
substantial number of cases outstanding (in LA County alone,
it is estimated that up to 800,000 qualifying cases may exist
for which petitions have not yet been filed). To the extent
AB 2765
Page 7
the extension serves to reduce the number of good cause
hearings that otherwise would have been prompted after the
existing filing deadline, would serve to offset in whole or in
part the additional court workload generated by new filings
during the extension period.
State parole: Potential increase in CDCR parole supervision
costs (General Fund) to the extent additional persons petition
for resentencing and are subject to one year of parole. While
a court may release a resentenced defendant from the
imposition of parole, it is not required. CDCR has determined
that the majority of prison inmates and parolees eligible for
resentencing have already petitioned or will file prior to the
existing deadline, however, persons convicted of a felony
currently under county-level supervision, either PRCS or
traditional probation, may still have petitions outstanding.
Thus, CDCR may experience an increase in the number of people
committed to parole supervision, however, the amount of that
increase is unknown. For every 10 additional petitioners
subject to parole supervision, costs are estimated at $150,000
per year, based on the average supervision cost per parolee
under Proposition 47 to date.
Local agencies: Potential future cost savings in averted
local supervision costs (Local Funds) resulting from a
potential increase in the number of resentencing petitions
filed through the extension period, resulting in a greater
number of persons serving less time under county supervision.
Additionally, significant near-term workload relief for
district attorneys and public defenders working under the
impending filing deadline.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
SUPPORT: (Verified8/11/16)
Californians for Safety and Justice (co-source)
AB 2765
Page 8
Conference of California Bar Associations (co-source)
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (co-source)
San Diego County District Attorney (co-source)
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
San Diego County
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Urban Counties of California
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/11/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-19, 5/31/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia,
Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove,
Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer,
Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low, Mathis, McCarty, Medina, Mullin,
Nazarian, O'Donnell, Olsen, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wilk,
AB 2765
Page 9
Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang,
Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gatto, Harper, Linder,
Maienschein, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Steinorth,
Wagner, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooper, Kim, Mayes
Prepared by:Jerome McGuire / PUB. S. /
8/22/16 9:21:25
**** END ****