BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 966|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 966
Author: Mitchell (D)
Introduced:2/8/16
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-3, 4/5/16
AYES: Hancock, Leno, Liu, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Glazer, Stone
SUBJECT: Controlled substances: sentence enhancements:
prior convictions
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill repeals the current enhancement for specified
drug commerce crimes under which a defendant receives an
additional term of three years for each prior conviction of any
one of the listed crimes.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Classifies controlled substances in five schedules according
to their medical utility and potential for abuse. Schedule I
controlled substances are deemed to have no accepted medical
uses and cannot be prescribed. Examples of drugs in the
California Schedule include the following:
Cocaine, heroin and marijuana are Schedule I drugs.
SB 966
Page 2
Methamphetamine, oxycodone and codeine are Schedule II
drugs.
Barbiturates (tranquilizers, anabolic steroids and
specified narcotic, pain medications are Schedule III
drugs.
Benzodiazepines (Valium) and phentermine (diet drug) are
Schedule IV drugs.
Specified narcotic pain medications with active
non-narcotic active ingredients are Schedule V drugs.
(Health & Saf. Code §§ 11054-11058.)
1)Provides penalties for possession, possession for purposes of
sale, and manufacturing of controlled substances. Sentences
for drug offenses are typically subject to Penal Code Section
1170 (h). Convicted defendants serve felony sentences in
county jails, unless disqualified by prior serious felony
convictions or by being a registered sex offender. (Health &
Saf. Code §§ 11350-11401.)
2)Includes a myriad of enhancements for controlled substance
crimes. These include enhancements for drug crimes that
involve or affect minors, for the weight or volume of the
substance and prior drug-crime convictions. (See. Health &
Saf. Code §§ 11370.2, 11370.4, 1353.4, 11353.6, subd. (b), and
11379.7.)
3)Provides that where a person is convicted in a current case of
one of a list of specified drug commerce crimes, and the
person has been previously convicted of any of these crimes,
he or she shall receive a sentence enhancement of three years
for each prior conviction, to be served in jail unless the
defendant is disqualified from a jail term by prior serious
felony convictions or sex offender registration, or another
statute requires a prison term. (Health & Saf. § 11370.2.)
The enhancement covers a conviction for conspiracy to commit
any of the listed crimes. The qualifying offenses are as
follows. All statutory references in the list are to the
Health and Safety Code:
SB 966
Page 3
Possession for sale of cocaine, heroin, specified
opiates or other specified drugs - § 11350
Possession for sale of cocaine base - § 11351.5
Possession for sale of cocaine, heroin, specified
opiates and other specified drugs - § 11351
Sale, distribution or transportation of cocaine, cocaine
base heroin, specified opiates - § 11352
Possession for sale of methamphetamine or specified
other drugs - § 11378
Sale, distribution or transportation of methamphetamine
or specified other drugs - § 11379
Possession for sale of PCP - § 11378.5
Sale, distribution or transportation of PCP - § 11379.5
Manufacturing any controlled substance through chemical
extraction or synthesis - § 11379.6
Manufacturing any controlled substance through chemical
extraction or synthesis, with an enhancement based on the
weight of the substance containing the drug - § 11379.8
Using a minor in the commission of specified drug
offenses - § 11380
Possession of precursor chemicals with intent to
manufacture PCP - § 11383
This bill repeals the three-year sentence enhancement for each
of a defendant's prior convictions for one of a list of drug
commerce crimes, where the defendant is convicted in the current
case of another such crime.
Background
SB 966
Page 4
The enhancement for prior drug crime convictions was enacted
through AB 2320 (Condit, Chapter 1398, Statutes of 1985). The
bill included legislative intent "to punish more severely those
persons who are in the regular business of trafficking in, or
production of, narcotics and those persons who deal in large
quantities of narcotics as opposed to individuals who have a
less serious, occasional, or relatively minor role in this
activity."
The bill - called "The Dealer Statute" - was sponsored by the
Los Angeles District Attorney and also included enhancements
based on the weight of the drug involved in specified drug
commerce crime. The sponsor explained that the bill was modeled
on particularly harsh federal drug crime laws. The sponsor
argued that the bill was necessary to eliminate an incentive for
persons "to traffic [in drugs] in California where sentences are
significantly lighter than in federal law." The federal laws to
which the sponsor referred were those enacted in the expansion
of the so-called war against drugs during the Reagan
administration. These laws included reduced judicial discretion
through mandatory minimum sentences. The current administration
has begun to pull back on some of the harshest policies and
Congress has passed some sentence reductions, most notably
reducing the disparity between cocaine powder crimes and cocaine
base crimes.
Extensive research has found that raising penalties generally do
not deter potential perpetrators from committing crimes. The
most effective deterrent is certainty of being arrested. In the
context of drug commerce, researchers noted that drug sellers
who were prosecuted and incarcerated were quickly replaced in
the community. It could thus be argued that enhancements such
as those repealed by this bill could increase the number of
persons involved in drug crimes. (Valerie Wright, Ph.D.,
Deterrence in Criminal Justice Evaluating Certainty vs. Severity
of Punishment (November 2010), The Sentencing Project
-(http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.p
df.) The Growth of Incarceration in the United States (2014),
SB 966
Page 5
Jeremy Travis, Bruce Western and Steve Redburn, Editors,
Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of
Incarceration, The National Research Council, p. 131 (citations
omitted)
(http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS_report_on_incarceration.pdf
.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified4/6/16)
A New Way of Life
American Civil Liberties Union of California
American Friends Service Committee
Arts for Incarcerated Youth Network
Bay Area Black Worker Center
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Partnership
California Public Defenders Association
Californians for Safety and Justice
Center for Health Justice
Center for Living and Learning
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Centro Legal de la Raza
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
Contra Costa County Public Defender's Office
Courage Campaign
Critical Resistance Los Angeles
Fathers & Families of San Joaquin
Forward Together
Friends Committee on Legislation
Harm Reduction Services
HealthRIGHT360
Healthy Communities Inc.
HIV Education and Prevention Project of Alameda County
Human Rights of the Incarcerated Coalition
Islamic Shura Council of Southern California
SB 966
Page 6
Justice Now
Justice Policy Institute
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, S.F
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Community Action Network
Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Mortgage Personnel Services
National Association of Social Workers
National Center for Youth Law
Oakland Rising
Prison Activist Resource Center
Prison Law Office
Prison Policy Initiative
Project Inform RYSE
Reentry Success Center
San Diego Organizing Project
San Francisco Public Defender
Silicon Valley Debug
Transgender, Gender-variant, Intersex Justice Project
United Against Violence
W. Haywood Burns Institute
Women's Council of the California Chapter, National Association
of Social Workers
Women's Foundation of California
Young Women's Freedom Center
2 individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/6/16)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys;
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
International Faith Based Coalition
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
SB 966
Page 7
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author argues, "Sentence
enhancements based on prior convictions target the poorest
and most marginalized people in our communities - those
with substance use and mental health needs, and those who ?
have struggled to integrate into free society. Counties?
are building new jails to imprison more people with long
sentences, funneling money away from community-based
programs and services. People with drug issues,
particularly those in low-income communities of color, are
increasingly left with the choice of seeking help in a jail
or not seeking help at all."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Police Chiefs
Association argues that it is wrong to treat repeat drug
offenders the same as a person convicted of his first offense.
The Association notes the current opioid epidemic and states,
"Clearly there is an enhanced level of seriousness posed to [the
public] by career opioid traffickers and the enhanced
sentence?under current law should be retained."
Prepared by:Jerome McGuire / PUB. S. /
4/6/16 14:48:52
**** END ****