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 --