BILL ANALYSIS
AB 751
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2009
Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Jose Solorio, Chair
AB 751 (Garrick) - As Introduced: February 26, 2009
SUMMARY : Creates six new one-year enhancements for the theft
of a vehicle under specified circumstances. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Provides that any person convicted of auto theft or grand
theft auto shall be punished by an additional and consecutive
one year in the state prison if any of the following
circumstances exist:
a) The person takes a vehicle for consideration or the
purposes of sale.
b) The person takes a vehicle that is used in the
commission of a felony.
c) The person takes a vehicle with the intent to use the
vehicle to use it in the commission of a felony.
d) The person takes a vehicle that was the subject of a
police pursuit.
e) The person takes a vehicle that, prior to its recovery,
is involved in a collision; and provides for an additional
one year if any person, other than an accessory, suffers
personal injury as result of that collision.
2)Makes any person convicted of auto theft three times or more
ineligible for probation except in unusual case in which the
interests of justice would best be served by probation and
requires the court to specify on the record the circumstances
justifying the grant of probation.
3)Allows prior misdemeanor auto theft, grand theft auto, or
receiving stolen property conviction, rather than a felony
conviction for these crimes, to be used for the purpose of
AB 751
Page 2
increasing the state prison punishment for auto theft from 16
months, 2 or 3 years to two, three, or four years.
4)Deletes the requirements that a person have knowledge that a
vehicle is an ambulance, law enforcement or fire department
vehicle, and that it be on an emergency call before an
increased punishment can be imposed for the theft of those
vehicles.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that grand theft of an automobile is an alternate
felony/misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the state
prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years or by up to one year in the
county jail. [Penal Code Sections 487(d) and 489(b).]
2)Provides that any person previously convicted of felony
unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle or felony grand theft
involving an automobile regardless of whether the person
actually served a prior prison term for those offenses and
subsequently convicted of one of these offenses is punishable
by two, three or four years in the state prison; a fine of
$10,000; or by both a fine and imprisonment. (Penal Code
Section 666.5.)
3)Provides that the driving or taking a vehicle without the
owner's permission, with the intent to either permanently or
temporarily deprive the owner of title or possession of the
vehicle, with or without the intent to steal the vehicle, or
being an accessory or accomplice in the driving or
unauthorized taking or stealing, is an alternate/felony
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for
16 months, 2 or 3 years or by up to one year in the county
jail and/or a fine not to exceed $5,000. [Vehicle Code
Section 10851(a).]
4)Provides that if the vehicle is an ambulance or a
distinctively marked vehicle of a law enforcement agency or
fire department, taken while the ambulance or vehicle is on an
emergency call and this fact is known to the person driving or
taking, or any person who is party or an accessory to or an
accomplice in the driving or unauthorized taking or stealing,
or if the vehicle is one which has been modified for the use
of a disabled veteran or any other disabled person and which
displays a distinguishing license plate or placard and this
AB 751
Page 3
fact is known or should reasonably have been known to the
person driving or taking, or any person who is party or an
accessory in the driving or unauthorized taking or stealing,
the offense is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the
state prison for two, three or four years; by a fine of not
more than $10,000; or by both the fine and imprisonment.
[Vehicle Code Section 10851(b).]
5)Provides that any person previously convicted of felony
unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle or felony grand theft
involving an automobile regardless of whether the person
actually served a prior prison term for those offenses and
subsequently convicted of one of these offenses is punishable
by two, three or four years in the state prison; a fine of
$10,000; or by both a fine and imprisonment. (Penal Code
Section 666.5.)
6)Provides that except where a different punishment is
prescribed, an accessory is punished by a fine not exceeding
$5,000; by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, 2
or 3 years or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding
one year; or by both imprisonment and a fine. (Penal Code
Section 3.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Police chiefs
around the state have noticed that vehicle theft has become a
huge business associated with gangs and organized crime.
"In 1993, the year before the adoption of Three Strikes, there
were approximately 100,000 more burglaries than car thefts in
California. In 1994, the Three Strikes initiative designated
burglary as a 'strike', an offense that can be a predicate to
a 25-year-to-life sentence. In the 10 years since, the
incidence of vehicle theft has surpassed burglary, in part,
because vehicle theft is not a strike.
"The Attorney General's annual report 'Crime in California'
publishes the California Crime Index (CCI) chronicles the
annual number and rate of occurrence of both violent and
property crimes. For each of its first 51 years, the CCI
reported more burglaries than vehicle thefts. Since 2003,
AB 751
Page 4
vehicle thefts exceeded burglaries.
"Since 1999, informed criminals have made vehicle theft the
fastest growing crime reported in the CCI. Vehicle theft's
rate of increase is double that of the next category.
"The rate per 100,000 inhabitants between 1999 and 2005: The
rate of reported burglaries increased 2.5% (657 to 674.4).
The rate of reported vehicles stolen increased 40.3% (495 to
694.5).
"According to the 2005 version of 'Crime in the United States',
an annual report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
national rate for vehicle theft actually declined 1.4% during
the period from 1999-2005. In 1999, the national rate was
422.5 cars stolen per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2004, the rate
was 416.7.
"In California between 1999 and 2005, the number of vehicle
thefts increased by 88,533, a 52.5% increase that is four- and
one-half times the rate of increases in burglaries during the
same period. The number of burglaries between 1999 and 2005
in California increased by 25,735 an 11.5% increase."
2)Proposal Rejected by the Voters : The identical provisions of
this bill which creates six new one-year enhancements for the
theft of a vehicle under various circumstances and other
changes related to automobile theft were contained in
Proposition 6: "Police Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal
Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.", which was on the
November 4, 2008 election ballot. Proposition 6 was soundly
rejected by the voters by a margin of 30.8% for, and 69.2%
against. Should the Legislature adopt a proposal that was
part of an Initiative rejected by almost 70% of the voters of
the State?
3)Increased Incarceration Costs : This bill is identical to AB
998 (Garrick) of the 2007-08 Legislative Session. AB 998 was
held on the Assembly Appropriation Committee's Suspense File.
According to the Appropriations Committee analysis, AB 998 had
"major annual General Fund (GF) costs, conservatively in the
range of $80 million, for increased state prison commitments.
In 2006-07, 5,688 offenders were committed to state prison for
auto theft under the section this bill would amend for
purposes of the enhancements. The proposed enhancements cover
AB 751
Page 5
most of the circumstances under which vehicles are stolen.
For purposes of extrapolation and illustration, if only 50% of
the persons committed in 2007-08 received a 1-year
enhancement, with day-for-day sentence credits, the annual GF
cost would be about $65.5 million. Similarly, in 2006-07,
1,100 offenders were committed to state prison under the
section this bill would amend to delete the requirement that
prior vehicle theft commitments resulting in a 2, 3, or 4 year
prison sentence be felonies. If only an additional 100
offenders received a 3-year prison term, with day-for-day
credits, the annual cost would be about $7 million. Making
offenders with two or more related priors ineligible for
probation will also increase state prison costs. If only an
additional 100 offenders received a 3-year prison term, wit
day-for-day credits, the annual cost would be about $7
million." Given the fact that the State already spends in
excess of $10 billion on it's prison system, and that in the
fiscal year 2009-10 it is estimated that the State will have
at least an $8 billion dollar deficit, should the Legislature
pass a bill that will cost the General Fund an additional $80
million?"
4)Prison Overcrowding and a Court-Ordered Population Cap . The
California Policy Research Center (CPRC) recently issued a
report on the status of California's prisons. The report
stated, "California has the largest prison population of any
state in the nation, with more than 171,000 inmates in 33
adult prisons, and the state's annual correctional spending,
including jails and probation, amounts to $8.92 billion.
Despite the high cost of corrections, fewer California
prisoners participate in relevant treatment programs than
comparable states, and its inmate-to-officer ratio is
considerably higher. While the nation's prisons average one
correctional officer to every 4.5 inmates, the average
California officer is responsible for 6.5 inmates. Although
officer salaries are higher than average, their ranks are
spread dangerously thin and there is a severe vacancy rate."
(Petersilia, "Understanding California Corrections",
California Policy Research Center, May 2006). California's
prison population will likely exceed 180,000 by 2010.
According to the Little Hoover Commission, "Lawsuits filed in
three federal courts alleging that the current level of
overcrowding constitutes cruel and unusual punishment ask that
the courts appoint a panel of federal judges to manage
AB 751
Page 6
California's prison population. United States District Judge
Lawrence Karlton, the first judge to hear the motion, gave the
State until June 2007 to show progress in solving the
overpopulation crisis. Judge Karlton clearly would prefer not
to manage California's prison population. At a December 2006
hearing, Judge Karlton told lawyers representing the
Schwarzenegger administration that he is not inclined 'to
spend forever running the state prison system.' However, he
also warned the attorneys, 'You tell your client June 4 may be
the end of the line. It may really be the end of the line.'
"Despite the rhetoric, thirty years of 'tough on crime' politics
has not made the state safer. Quite the opposite: today
thousands of hardened, violent criminals are released without
regard to the danger they present to an unsuspecting public.
Years of political posturing have taken a good idea -
determinate sentencing - and warped it beyond recognition with
a series of laws passed with no thought to their cumulative
impact. And these laws stripped away incentive s for offenders
to change or improve themselves while incarcerated.
"Inmates, who are willing to improve their education, learn a
job skill or kick a drug habit find that programs are few and
far between, a result of budget choices and overcrowding.
Consequently, offenders are released into California
communities with the criminal tendencies and addictions that
first led to their incarceration. They are ill-prepared to do
more than commit new crimes and create new victims . . . . "
[Little Hoover Commission Report, "Solving California's
Corrections Crisis: Time is Running Out", pg. 1, 2 (2007).]
On February 9, 2009, a United States district court three-judge
panel issued a tentative ruling mandating the State of
California to resolve chronic prison overcrowding. In the
tentative ruling, the judges state "[t]he evidence is
compelling that there is no relief other than a prisoner
release order that will remedy the unconstitutional prison
conditions." Given the fact that our prisons are housing
twice the population they were built to accommodate, and with
the prospect of early release of inmates imminent, should the
Legislature further contribute to the state's mounting
overcrowding problem by creating new enhancements for the
theft of a vehicle?
5)Prior Legislation : AB 998 (Garrick), of the 2007-08
AB 751
Page 7
Legislative Session, was identical to this bill in that it
created six one-year enhancements for the theft of a vehicle
under specified circumstances. AB 998 was held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee's Suspense File.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California District Attorneys Association
California District Attorneys Association
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Personal Insurance Federation of California
San Diego County Sheriff's Association
Opposition
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Analysis Prepared by : Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744