BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1202
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1202
(Leno) - As Amended May 31, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill provides that aggravating factors relied upon by the
court to impose an upper term sentence must be tried to the jury
and found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. And provides
that trial of all facts pled in aggravation of sentence must be
bifurcated. During trial of the underlying charges and any
enhancement, the jury must not be informed of the facts alleged
as factors in aggravation unless that fact is admitted or
otherwise relevant to prove an element of a charge or
enhancement and not excluded as overly prejudicial.
SB 1202
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Potentially major increase in ongoing costs to the state trial
courts in the millions of dollars (General Fund/Trial Court
Trust Fund) annually to plead and prove aggravating facts in
bifurcated trials. To the extent 25 percent to 50 percent of
an estimated 5,000 felony trials involving a fact alleged in
aggravation takes an average of one court day (8 hours),
assuming an hourly court cost of $837, annual costs could
range between $8.4 million to $16.7 million. To the extent the
number and duration of bifurcated trials is greater or less
than assumed above, actual costs would be adjusted
accordingly. However, it should also be noted that most
criminal proceedings are resolved by plea. Therefore, while
jury trial on aggravating factors would impact the judicial
system, not all cases would result in these trials.
2)Unquantifiable, but potentially significant increases or
decreases in future state prison costs (General Fund) to the
extent this measure results in longer or shorter prison terms
than imposed under the existing determinate sentencing law.
Even a minor change to resulting sentences drives significant
costs or savings, given the large base of offenders and the
significant unit cost ($29,000 per year) to incarcerate an
offender.
3)Potentially significant increases or decreases in local jail
costs (Local Funds) to the extent this measure results in
longer or shorter felony jail terms as a result of bifurcated
trials.
COMMENTS:
SB 1202
Page 3
1)Background and Purpose. Current law, set to sunset on January
1, 2017, 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. SB 1016 (Monning) currently on this
Committee's Suspense file, extends the sunset date from
January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2022, for these provisions of
law which provide that the court shall, in its discretion,
impose the term or enhancement that best serves the interest
of justice.
SB 1202 also seeks to address the constitutional defect in our
California Felony Sentencing laws. In 2007, the United States
Supreme Court, in its decision in Cunningham v. California, 59
U.S. 270 (2007), found California's felony sentencing as
unconstitutional. The court found that judges in California
improperly sentenced persons to longer prison sentences based
on facts that were never presented to the jury and proven true
beyond a reasonable doubt. Following the Cunningham decision,
the legislature sought to cure this constitutional defect by
allowing judges to consider 'factors,' not 'facts' in
aggravation when imposing an enhanced sentence. This law,
implemented under SB 40 (Romero), Chapter 7, Statutes of 2007,
with a sunset provision, has been extended multiple times
since 2007.
The author states, "Given California's move towards more
thoughtful and innovative criminal justice reform, i.e.
Realignment, Propositions 36 and 47, 2016 is the year to make
a powerful stance on over-criminalization. Along with the
Governor's ballot measure, SB 1202 seeks to prevent the
SB 1202
Page 4
unilateral impositions of longer sentences by judges, absent a
finding of aggravating facts --- a principle that California
relied upon since 1979 but was interrupted by the court
decision. This bill would require any aggravating facts to be
presented to the jury, and proved true beyond a reasonable
doubt, before being presented to a judge for the sentencing
decision. In essence, this bill simply ensures facts are
vetted by a jury before a judge can rely on these facts to
impose a maximum sentence.
"The bill also restores California's practice of presuming the
middle term for all felonies -- this prevents arbitrariness
and promotes consistency from judge to judge and county to
county. Furthermore, this bill would require judges to state
on the record the reasons for its sentencing choice, including
specific facts of aggravation that led to an imposition of an
upper term. This bill would change California's focus from
addressing the issue of over-incarceration at the back end, to
providing a mechanism to lower sentences on the front end. The
time has come to make major sentencing reform changes. SB 1202
will help lead California."
2)Support. According to the California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice, the sponsor of this bill, "This bill prevents a judge
from unilaterally imposing an extended prison sentence based
on the facts that a jury never sees or finds to be true."
3)Opposition. According to the San Diego County District
Attorney's Office, "Requiring the People to plead and prove
aggravating facts supporting an upper term, and bifurcated
trials would unduly prolong trials and burden already stressed
judicial, prosecutorial, defense and law enforcement
resources. [Also,] many aggravated factors are ill-suited to
jury determination and have traditionally been entrusted to
the sound discretion of the sentencing judge. Indeed,
requiring aggravating factors to be pleaded by the People and
found true by a jury could result in the presumably unintended
outcome that the upper term might be imposed more frequently."
SB 1202
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081