BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 305 (Bates) - Enhancements: concentrated cannabis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 27, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 6 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 11, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 305 would add an enhanced sentence in state prison,
of two years or five years, as specified, for the commission or
attempted commission of manufacturing a controlled substance by
chemical extraction or synthesis, as those crimes relate to
"concentrated cannabis," as defined, if a child under 16 years
of age was present or suffered great bodily injury. If an
enhancement is not imposed pursuant to the above, this bill
would require the court to consider the fact that a child under
16 years of age resided in a structure in which a violation
occurred involving concentrated cannabis a factor in
aggravation.
Fiscal
Impact:
State prisons : Potential increase in state costs (General
Fund) to the extent the added enhancement or factor in
aggravation for future felony convictions results in longer
prison sentences. CDCR data indicates 58 commitments in 2014
SB 305 (Bates) Page 1 of
?
for this offense. While it is unknown how many offenders will
be impacted prospectively, even one or two cases annually will
result in costs in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars.
To the extent the five-year enhancement is imposed, cumulative
costs would increase substantially.
County jails : Potential increase in non-reimbursable local
costs (Local or General Fund*) to the extent the added factor
in aggravation results in longer jail sentences for jail
felony convictions. DOJ indicates over 1,300 arrests and
nearly 270 felony convictions for this offense in 2014. Any
increased costs to local agencies could potentially require a
subvention of funds from the State (General Fund*).
*Proposition 30 (2012) provides that legislation enacted after
September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the
costs already borne by a local agency for public safety
services, as defined, are not subject to mandate reimbursement,
however, apply to local agencies only to the extent the State
provides annual funding for the cost increase. Legislation
creating a new crime or changing the definition of an existing
crime is exempt from this funding provision, however,
legislation changing the penalty for a crime is not similarly
exempted. 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 increase in costs to
local agencies attributable to provisions of this legislation
could potentially require annual funding from the State.
Background: Existing law provides that manufacturing, converting,
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 or phencyclidine where a minor under the age of
SB 305 (Bates) Page 2 of
?
16 resides or the crime caused great bodily injury to such a
child. (HSC § 11379.6(b).)
Under existing law, a person convicted of manufacturing or
attempting to manufacture a controlled substance involving
methamphetamine or phencyclidine by chemical extraction or
synthesis, where the commission of the crime occurs in a
structure where a child under 16 years of age is present, shall
in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the
underlying felony, be punished by an additional term of two
years. (HSC § 11379.7(a).)
Under existing law, a person convicted of manufacturing or
attempting to manufacture a controlled substance involving
methamphetamine or phencyclidine by chemical extraction or
synthesis, where the commission of the crime causes a child
under 16 years of age to suffer great bodily injury, shall in
addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the
underlying felony, be punished by an additional term of five
years. (HSC § 11379.7(b).)
Proposed Law:
This bill would add an enhanced sentence in state prison, of
two years or five years, as specified, for the commission or
attempted commission of manufacturing a controlled substance by
chemical extraction or synthesis, as those crimes relate to
"concentrated cannabis," as defined, if a child under 16 years
of age was present or suffered great bodily injury.
Additionally, this bill:
Provides that if an enhancement is not imposed pursuant
to the above, this bill would require the court to consider
the fact that a child under 16 years of age resided in a
structure in which a violation occurred involving
concentrated cannabis a factor in aggravation.
Defines "concentrated cannabis" as concentrated cannabis
that is chemically extracted through use of a volatile
solvent.
Related
Legislation: SB 212 (Mendoza) 2015 would require the sentencing
court to consider two additional factors in aggravation
involving the offense of manufacturing a controlled substance by
SB 305 (Bates) Page 3 of
?
chemical extraction or synthesis, as specified. This bill is
scheduled to be heard today by this Committee.
Staff
Comments: By adding a factor in aggravation to be considered in
sentencing and sentence enhancements for felony violations
meeting specified factors, this bill could potentially result in
increased costs to state and local agencies for longer sentences
served in state prison and county jail.
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 sentence enhancements and an additional
factor in aggravation, any 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
SB 305 (Bates) Page 4 of
?
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.
-- END --