BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2263
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2263 (Yamada) - As Amended: March 22, 2010
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill extends, from Jan.1, 2011 to Jan. 1, 2012, the sunset
on provisions of law first adopted in 2007 designed to address
the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Cunningham vs.
California that California's determinate sentencing law (DSL)
violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because it
authorizes the court to increase a defendant's sentence by
finding facts not decided by a jury.
FISCAL EFFECT
Unknown moderate annual GF costs or savings, potentially in the
low millions of dollars, for increased or decreased state prison
terms to the extent more offenders receive the upper or lower
sentence and/or enhancement rather than the presumptive middle
term and/or enhancement.
While many judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors suggest
this measure will not 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 (some 60,000
offenders will receive determinate prison sentences in 2009-10).
Based on CDCR figures from 2006 through 2009, the number of
upper terms per the number of determinate sentences has in
creased slightly, from about 15% to about 18%, though in actual
AB 2263
Page 2
numbers, there were fewer 250 fewer upward deviations in 2009
than in 2006. These figures support the contention that the
"Cunningham fix" will not result in a major deviation from the
presumptive middle terms/enhancements.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . In 2007, in Cunningham vs. California, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that California's DSL violated a
defendant's right to a jury trial because it authorized the
court to increase a defendant's sentence by finding facts not
reflected in the jury verdict. Specifically, because a trial
judge could find factors in aggravation, beyond a
preponderance of evidence, to increase the offender's sentence
from the presumptive middle term to the upper term, the scheme
is constitutionally flawed. The Court suggested this problem
could be corrected by either providing a jury trial on the
sentencing issue or by giving judges discretion to impose the
higher term without additional findings of fact.
SB 40 (Romero), Statutes of 2007, corrected the constitutional
problem by giving judges the discretion to impose a minimum,
medium or maximum term, without additional findings of fact.
SB 150 (Wright), Statutes of 2009, applied the same solution
to sentence enhancements. These bills were designed as
temporary fixes to maintain stability in California's criminal
justice system while broader sentencing issues in California
were reviewed. The provisions of SB 40 sunset January 1, 2009,
but were extended to January 1, 2011 by AB 1071 (Romero),
Statutes of 2007. Likewise, SB 150 sunsets Jan. 1, 2011.
This bill extends the sunsets for the SB 40 fix and the AB 150
fix until Jan. 1, 2012.
2)California's DSL uses a triad scheme comprising a presumptive
middle term, a mitigated - or lower - term, and an aggravated
- or upper - term. The triad sentencing structure provides the
court three sentencing options for each crime. For example, a
first-degree burglary offense is punishable by a prison
sentence of two, four, or six years. The upper and lower terms
provided in statute can be given if circumstances concerning
the crime or offender warrant more or less time in state
prison. In determining whether there are circumstances
AB 2263
Page 3
warranting the upper or lower term, the court may consider the
record in the case, the probation officer's report, other
reports, including reports received pursuant to existing law
and statements in aggravation or mitigation submitted by the
prosecution, the defendant, or the victim, or the family of
the victim if the victim is deceased. The court must state for
the record the facts and reasons for imposing an upper or
lower term.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081