BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1016 (Monning) - Sentencing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: February 11, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 6 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 25, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1016 would extend the sunset date on specified
sentencing provisions from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2022,
allowing courts to select a lower, middle, or upper term for
both base term sentences and enhancements by exercise of the
court's discretion.
Fiscal
Impact: Potentially major costs or savings to the extent the
extended sentencing provisions result in longer or shorter
prison terms than otherwise would have occurred under a
presumptive middle term. A one percent increase in upper term
sentences, assuming an additional two years per upper term
sentence, would result in additional costs in excess of several
million dollars (General Fund). The additional costs would
likely not be incurred until after the middle term is served of
the sentence, the enhancement, or both.
Background: California's existing sentencing procedures were initially
established by SB 40 (Romero) Chapter 3/2007 and SB 150 (Wright)
SB 1016 (Monning) Page 1 of
?
Chapter 171/2009, that sought to conform the state's determinate
sentencing laws to the findings in Cunningham v. California
(2007) 549 U.S. 270. The Cunningham decision found a portion of
California's determinate sentencing laws unconstitutional on the
grounds that they violated an individual's right to a jury
trial.
The former version of the state's basic determinate sentencing
statute provided that, for crimes punishable by three possible
terms, the court had to impose the middle term of imprisonment
unless it found circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. If
the court found that there were aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, it could impose an upper or lower term.
However, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held upper term
sentencing, under California's determinate sentencing law,
invalid under the Sixth Amendment. In Apprendi v. New Jersey
(2000) 530 U.S. 466, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the
constitutional right to a jury trial proscribes a sentencing
scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the
statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior
conviction, not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant.
The U.S. Supreme Court clarified in Blakely v. Washington (2004)
542 U.S. 296, that in order to comport with the Sixth Amendment,
any fact (other than a prior conviction) that exposes a
defendant to a sentence beyond the relevant statutory maximum
must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by
the defendant.
Subsequently, in the Cunningham decision, the U.S. Supreme Court
held that California's determinate sentencing law violated
Blakely because the middle term was the statutory maximum for
the crime, but the law allowed the court to impose the upper
term based on circumstances in aggravation found by the court by
a preponderance of the evidence.
In light of Cunningham, the Legislature amended Penal Code §
1170(b) to fix the constitutional defect inherent in the statute
with regard to the term imposed for the crime. Accordingly,
under current law, the court is afforded discretion to choose
the appropriate term, based on the interests of justice, from
the three-term range provided as punishment for the crime. Since
the middle term is no longer the presumptive term of
imprisonment, the defendant has no right to a jury trial, with
proof beyond a reasonable doubt, on circumstances in aggravation
that would support the imposition of the upper term.
SB 1016 (Monning) Page 2 of
?
Chapter 171/2009 addressed the same constitutional issue for
sentence enhancements, some of which are punishable by three
possible terms. It deleted the requirement that the court impose
the middle term unless it found circumstances in aggravation or
mitigation and instead provided that the choice of term to be
within the court's discretion when a sentence enhancement called
for the court to select either a lower, middle, or upper term.
This approach to sentencing was expressly approved by the
California Supreme Court in People v. Sandoval (2007) Cal.4th
825, 844-845.
Proposed Law:
This bill would extend the sunset on specified sentencing
provisions from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2022, allowing
courts to select a lower, middle, or upper term for both base
term sentences and enhancements by exercise of the court's
discretion.
Related
Legislation: SB 463 (Pavley) Chapter 508/2013 extended the
sunset date on existing sentencing provisions to January 1,
2017.
SB 576 (Calderon) Chapter 361/2011 extended the sunset date on
existing sentencing provisions from January 1, 2012, to January
1, 2014.
AB 2263 (Yamada) Chapter 256/2010 extended the sunset date on
base term and enhancement sentencing provisions from January 1,
2011, to January 1, 2012.
SB 150 (Wright) Chapter 171/2009 established the provisions
requiring the court, in its discretion, to impose the
enhancement that best serves the interests of justice.
SB 1701 (Romero) Chapter 416/2008 extended the sunset date on
base term sentencing provisions established in SB 40 to January
1, 2011.
SB 1342 (Cogdill) 2008 would have extended the sentencing
provisions established in SB 40 indefinitely. This bill was held
in the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
SB 1016 (Monning) Page 3 of
?
SB 40 (Romero) Chapter 3/2007 established the provisions
requiring the court, in its discretion, to impose the base term
sentence that best serves the interests of justice.
Staff
Comments: The fiscal impact of extending the sentencing
provisions is unclear because the costs are determined by the
behavior and decisions of individual judges in sentencing
hearings. This bill poses potentially significant annual General
Fund costs for longer state prison terms to the extent that more
offenders receive aggravated base and/or enhancement terms than
the presumptive middle term.
In the absence of a sunset extension, the court would no longer
be able to go above the middle term of a base sentence or an
enhancement. By giving judges this discretion, there is a
potential for increased incarceration time which is a cost to
the General Fund in future years.
This bill also, however, gives judges the authority to impose
the lower limit of enhancement. Even a minor change in the
number of offenders deviating from the middle term would drive
significant costs or savings, given the large base of offenders.
Based on the CDCR Upper Term Sentencing Report figures from 2006
through mid-2011, the number of upper terms per the number of
determinate sentences increased slightly, from about 15 percent
to about 17 percent. More recent data for the last 18 months
ending in June 2015 indicates a higher percentage of state
prison inmates with upper terms of 21.5 percent. This higher
percentage potentially reflects the impact of 2011 Public Safety
Realignment which became effective on October 1, 2011. The
realignment of lower level felony offenders to county
supervision has significantly reduced the state's prison
population, leaving a higher proportion of inmates convicted of
serious or violent felony offenses over a reduced base of
offenders.
CDCR population estimates reflect over 34,000 offenders will be
admitted to state prison in each of the next three fiscal years
(2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19). Based on prior year percentages,
approximately 25,000 offenders could potentially be committed
under a determinate prison sentence. A one percent increase in
SB 1016 (Monning) Page 4 of
?
upper term sentences represents approximately 250 cases.
Assuming an additional two years per upper term sentence would
result in additional costs in excess of several million dollars
(General Fund) per year. The additional costs resulting from
this bill would likely not be incurred until after the middle
term is served of the sentence, the enhancement, or both.
-- END --