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