BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2263
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2263 (Yamada)
As Amended March 22, 2010
2/3 vote
PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Hagman, Beall, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, |
| |Gilmore, Hill, | | |
| |Portantino, Skinner | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Coto, |
| | | |Davis, Monning, Ruskin, |
| | | |Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, Nielson, Norby, |
| | | |Skinner, |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends to January 1, 2012 provisions of law that
state 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 40, Statutes of 2007, SB 150
(Wright), Chapter 171, Statutes of 2009 and Cunningham vs.
California (2007) 549 US 270 and makes other conforming changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States the Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of
imprisonment for crime is punishment. 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. The Legislature further finds and declares
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 in any case in which the punishment prescribed
by statute for a person convicted of a public offense is a
term of imprisonment in the state prison of any specification
AB 2263
Page 2
of three time periods, the court shall sentence the defendant
to one of the terms of imprisonment specified unless the
convicted person is given any other disposition provided by
law, including a fine, jail, probation, or the suspension of
imposition or execution of sentence or is sentenced pursuant
to existing law, or because he or she had committed his or her
crime prior to July 1, 1977. In sentencing the convicted
person, the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the
Judicial Council. The court, unless it determines that there
are circumstances in mitigation of the punishment prescribed,
shall also impose any other term that it is required by law to
impose as an additional term. Nothing in this article shall
affect any provision of law that imposes the death penalty,
that authorizes or restricts the granting of probation or
suspending the execution or imposition of sentence, or
expressly provides for imprisonment in the state prison for
life. In any case in which the amount of pre-imprisonment
credit under existing law or any other provision of law is
equal to or exceeds any sentence imposed pursuant to this
chapter, the entire sentence shall be deemed to have been
served and the defendant shall not be actually delivered to
the custody of the secretary.
3)Requires that when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed
and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court
shall order imposition of the middle term unless there are
circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime. At
least four days prior to the time set for imposition of
judgment, either party or the victim, or the family of the
victim if the victim is deceased, may submit a statement in
aggravation or mitigation to dispute facts in the record or
the probation officer's report, or to present additional
facts. In determining whether there are circumstances that
justify imposition of the upper or lower term, the court may
consider the record in the case, the probation officer's
report, 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, and any
further evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing. The
court shall set forth on the record the facts and reasons for
imposing the upper or lower term. The court may not impose an
upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which
sentence is imposed under any provision of law. A term of
imprisonment shall not be specified if imposition of sentence
AB 2263
Page 3
is suspended.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis, unknown moderate annual General Fund 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 the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation 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
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 : According to the author, "AB 2263 extends the sunset
date for current statutes authorizing courts to impose the
maximum term on sentences and sentence enhancements. This bill
is necessary because courts need this authority for sentencing
procedures until a more permanent and constitutional fix is
established. The statutes that allow a court to impose the
upper term in a defendant's base sentence or for sentence
enhancements that include a sentencing range are set to sunset
on January 1, 2011. Unless legislation is enacted to extend the
sunset of these statutes, California's sentencing laws will be
deemed unconstitutional as found by the United States Supreme
Court in Cunningham v. California."
Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this
bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
AB 2263
Page 4
FN: 0004591