BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1016
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
1016 (Monning)
As Introduced February 11, 2016
2/3 vote
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Public Safety |7-0 |Jones-Sawyer, | |
| | |Melendez, Lackey, | |
| | |Lopez, Low, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Obernolte, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood, | |
| | |McCarty | |
| | | | |
SB 1016
Page 2
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Extends the sunset date from January 1, 2017, to
January 1, 2022, for provisions of law which provide that the
court shall, in its discretion, impose the term or enhancement
that best serves the interest of justice, as required by SB 40
(Romero), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2007; SB 150 (Wright), Chapter
171, Statutes of 2009; and Cunningham vs. California (2007) 549
U.S. 270.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Declares that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is
punishment; that this purpose is best served by terms
proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision
for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the
same offense under similar circumstances; and that the
elimination of disparity, and the provision of uniformity, of
sentences can best be achieved by determinate sentences fixed
by statute in proportion to the seriousness of the offense, as
determined by the Legislature, to be imposed by the court with
specified discretion.
2)Provides that when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed
and the statute specifies three possible terms, the choice of
the appropriate term shall rest within the sound discretion of
the court.
3)Provides that when a sentencing enhancement specifies three
possible terms, the choice of the appropriate term shall rest
within the sound discretion of the court.
4)Provides that sentencing choices requiring a statement of a
reason include "[s]electing one of the three authorized prison
SB 1016
Page 3
terms referred to in [Penal Code] Section 1170(b) for either
an offense or an enhancement."
5)Requires the sentencing judge to consider relevant criteria
enumerated in the Rules of Court.
6)Provides that, in exercising discretion to select one of the
three authorized prison terms referred to in statute, "the
sentencing judge may consider circumstances in aggravation or
mitigation, and any other factor reasonably related to the
sentencing decision. The relevant circumstances may be
obtained from the case record, the probation officer's report,
other reports and statements properly received, statements in
aggravation or mitigation, and any evidence introduced at the
sentencing hearing."
7)Prohibits the sentencing court from using a fact charged and
found as an enhancement as a reason for imposing the upper
term unless the court exercises its discretion to strike the
punishment for the enhancement.
8)Prohibits the sentencing court from using a fact that is an
element of the crime to impose a greater term.
9)Enumerates circumstances in aggravation, relating both to the
crime and to the defendant, as specified.
10)Enumerates circumstances in mitigation, relating both to the
crime and to the defendant, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, unknown annual General Fund increase or decrease to
SB 1016
Page 4
the extent this measure results in longer or shorter prison
terms. While it is unlikely this bill will significantly alter
current sentencing patterns, even a minor increase in the number
of offenders deviating from the middle term drives significant
costs or savings, given the large base of offenders. However,
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.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "In 2007, the Supreme Court
of the United States ruled in the Cunningham v. California
decision that California's determinate sentencing statutes
violated the Sixth Amendment and were therefore
unconstitutional. The determinate sentencing scheme, in place
since the 1970's, allowed the courts with a three-tiered
sentencing option consisting of a higher, more-severe term, a
middle term, and a lower, less-severe term.
"The Supreme Court suggested two possible remedies to deal with
the constitutional issues outlined in the Cunningham decision.
Through SB 40 (Romero), Statutes of 2007, the Legislature chose
to implement a change that would allow for judicial discretion
in determining which of the three terms to impose based on the
best interest of justice, rather than requiring any specific
fact finding by a judge outside of the jury trial. The measure
also removed the statutory requirement that judges use the
middle term as the presumptive sentencing term.
"Many of the concerns presented in the initial vetting of SB 40
(Romero) have never materialized, and the Legislature has not
yet found a more effective fix then to continue to allow for
judicial discretion. This can be seen in the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Upper Term
Sentencing Reports, which show that in the eight years since SB
40 (Romero) became law, Judges have only sentenced defendants to
the upper term 16% of the time, opting for the middle or lower
SB 1016
Page 5
term in 84% of convictions.
"The legislative fix put in place by SB 40 (Romero) included a
sunset date which has been extended and approved by the
Legislature through four different bills, almost all of which
received no opposition votes by members of the Legislature. The
current determinate sentencing laws will sunset on January 1,
2017, and if the sunset date is not extended, California's
entire sentencing scheme will become unconstitutional once
again. SB 1016 (Monning) will extend the sunset to January 1,
2022, and continue to allow the choice of which of the three
determinate sentencing options apply to an offender to rest
within the sound discretion of the court."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S.
/ (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003996