BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session SB 212 (Mendoza) - Controlled substances: factors in aggravation ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: April 28, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 6 - 0 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: May 28, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSPENSE FILE. AS AMENDED. Bill Summary: SB 212 would authorize the sentencing court to consider the following facts as factors in aggravation involving the offense of manufacturing a controlled substance by chemical extraction or synthesis: The violation involving methamphetamine occurred within 200 feet of an occupied residence or structure where another person was present, as specified. The violation involving the use of a volatile solvent to chemically extract concentrated cannabis occurred within 300 feet of an occupied residence or structure where another person was present, as specified. Fiscal Impact (as approved May 28, 2015): No fiscal impact. Background: Existing law provides that manufacturing, converting, SB 212 (Mendoza) Page 1 of ? producing, processing, or preparing any controlled substance by chemical extraction or synthesis is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or state prison in specified circumstances, for a term of three, five or seven years and a fine not to exceed $50,000. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 11379.6(a).) Existing law provides that the fact that a minor under the age of 16 years resided in a structure in which methamphetamine was manufactured by chemical extraction or synthesis is a factor in aggravation, indicating that the defendant should be sentenced to the upper term of seven years, unless an enhancement of two or five years is imposed under HSC § 11397.7 for manufacturing methamphetamine where a minor under the age of 16 resides or the crime caused great bodily injury to such a child. (HSC 11379.6(b).) Under existing law, the fines collected under this section are to be transferred to the State Treasurer for deposit in the Clandestine Drug Lab Clean-up Account, as specified. (HSC § 11379.6(d).) Proposed Law: This bill would require the sentencing court to consider the following facts as factors in aggravation involving the offense of manufacturing a controlled substance by chemical extraction or synthesis: The violation involving methamphetamine occurred within 200 feet of an occupied residence or structure where another person was present at the time the offense was committed. The violation involving the use of a volatile solvent to chemically extract concentrated cannabis occurred within 300 feet of an occupied residence or structure where another person was present at the time the offense was committed. Related Legislation: SB 305 (Bates) 2015 would authorize enhanced sentences for the commission or attempted commission of manufacturing controlled substances by chemical extraction or synthesis related to concentrated cannabis, as defined, when the offense occurs in a structure where a child under 16 years of age is present or causes the child to suffer great bodily injury. This bill is scheduled to be heard today by this SB 212 (Mendoza) Page 2 of ? Committee. Prior Legislation: AB 104 (Quackenbush) Chapter 551/1993 provided that a person who possesses for sale, manufactures, or sells methamphetamine on the grounds of, or within 1,000 feet of, a school, receive a sentence enhancement of three, four, or five years. Staff Comments: By adding the specified facts to be considered factors in aggravation in sentencing for felony violations of this measure, this bill could potentially result in an increase in costs to state and local agencies for longer sentences served in state prison and county jail. To the extent the facts specified in this measure could potentially be considered a factor in aggravation in sentencing under existing law, the potential fiscal impacts of this measure would be somewhat mitigated. The felony relevant to this measure is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to PC §1170(h) for three, five, or seven years. DOJ statistics indicate over 1,300 arrests and nearly 270 convictions for this offense in 2014. CDCR data indicates 58 admissions to state prison in 2014 for this offense. As the impacts of this measure depend on sentencing behavior, it is unknown with certainty how many sentences will be impacted by this measure. Pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Although Proposition 30 specifies that legislation defining a new crime or changing the definition of an existing crime is not subject to this provision, changing the penalty for a crime is not specifically exempted and could potentially require a subvention of funds from the state. While it is not known with certainty, to the extent it is determined that the provisions of this bill change the penalty for the existing crime by adding additional factors in aggravation, any SB 212 (Mendoza) Page 3 of ? increase in costs to local agencies attributable to provisions of this legislation could potentially require annual funding from the State. The Three-Judge Court has ordered the State to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of the prison system's design capacity by February 28, 2016. Pursuant to its February 10, 2014 order, the Court has ordered the CDCR to implement several population reduction measures, prohibited an increase in the population of inmates housed in out-of-state facilities, and indicated the Court will maintain jurisdiction over the State for as long as necessary to ensure that the State's compliance with the 137.5 percent final benchmark is durable, and that such durability is firmly established. Any future increases to the State's prison population challenge the ability of the State to reach and maintain such a "durable solution," and could require the State to pursue one of several options, including contracting-out for additional bed space or releasing current inmates early onto parole. Author amendments (as adopted May 28, 2015): make the specified factors in aggravation for the court to consider permissive instead of mandated. -- END --