BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 327
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 19, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 327 (Davis) - As Amended: January 4, 2012
Policy Committee: Public SafetyVote:4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
NoReimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill amends the three strikes law, subject to voter approval via the
November 2012 ballot, to require the current conviction be a serious or
violent felony in order to subject a third-striker to a life sentence.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Major out-year GF savings from reduced incarceration - likely in the
tens of millions of dollars depending on the number of sentences
reduced. Through September, 148 third-strikers had been committed to
state prison in 2011. Annualizing this figure, assuming 30% have a
non-violent, non-serious third strike (based on the current percentage
of 8,813 third-strikers whose third strike was a non/non), requiring a
third strike offense to be violent or serious could reduce the lifer
population by about 60 inmates per year, and about 1,000 in 20 years,
resulting in annual savings in the range of $15 million in 10 years,
increasing annually to about $50 million in 20 years.
2)These savings would be offset to a minor degree, potentially in the low
millions of dollars, by increased local post-supervision caseload
costs.
3)Significant out-year GF savings, likely in the low millions of dollars,
from a decrease in the number of third-strikers supervised by state
parole, and in the number of state parole hearings.
4)Significant out-year capital outlay savings to the extent prison
construction is avoided. An inmate population reduction of 500 could
result in construction cost avoidance in the range of $150 million.
Assuming 30-year debt, annual savings could be in the range of $10
million.
AB 327
Page 2
5)Unknown, potentially significant state and local savings from reduced
court costs and local jail time, as defendants facing third strike
charges generally spend more time in local jails pending dispositions
that require more court time than non-strike charges.
6)One-time GF costs of about $220,000 for ballot-related costs, based on
a cost of $55,000 per ballot page.
COMMENTS
1) Rationale. According to proponents, requiring life sentences for
current offenses that are neither serious nor violent, is neither just
nor fiscally responsible.
The author states, "The original intent of Three Strikes was to protect
the public from violent offenders by extending the sentences of violent
offenders. Current policy however, has gone beyond this intent by
extending the sentences of all third time felony offenders, not simply
those for violent or serious felony offenders. Ultimately, this has led
to unfair sentencing as well as prison overcrowding. The solution is
simple; amend Three Strikes so that the third strike must be a
'serious' or 'violent' felony. This will help California direct its
resources toward the real threat to public safety."
2) Proponents , including the defense bar and prison reform advocates, cite
studies that indicate three-strikes has not resulted in lower violent
crime rates, but has resulted in a significant redirection of fiscal
resources to state prisons. For example, proponents point to a 2011
research brief by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ)
(Striking Out: California's "Three Strikes And You're Out" Law Has Not
Reduced Violent Crime. A 2011 Update), which concludes that any
positive effects of longer terms on crime rates should be the greatest
in counties where three strikes sentences are imposed most, yet, as the
following chart illustrates, there is no evidence this is the case.
Strike imprisonments per 100,000 2010 county population (CJCJ, 2011)
All strikes 2nd strikes 3rd strikes Change in violent crime
rate from 1993-2009
Highest Frequency
Kern 160.7 111.6 49.1 -31%
Sacramento 158.6 119.3 39.3 -33%
Los Angeles 155.3 122.9 32.5 -63%
Tulare 149.0 124.8 24.2 -33%
San Bernardino 136.1 105.6 30.5 -48%
AB 327
Page 3
Riverside 133.9 111.0 23.0 -69%
San Diego 123.0 101.1 21.9 -54%
Stanislaus 115.5 93.9 21.6 -45%
Average of 8 highest 141.5 111.3 30.2 -47%
Lowest Frequency
Fresno 105.5 84.5 21.1 -59%
San Joaquin 98.1 82.2 15.9 -23%
Santa Clara 91.2 62.1 29.1 -51%
Orange 60.2 47.1 13.1 -55%
Ventura 52.7 43.6 9.1-48%
Alameda 40.7 31.6 9.1 -39%
Contra Costa 30.1 21.6 8.5 -45%
San Francisco 25.3 20.0 5.3 -49%
Average of 8 lowest 63.0 49.1 13.9
-46%
3) Opposition . The CA District Attorneys Association contends the three
strikes law has been used carefully, appropriately, and effectively.
"The simple fact of the matter is that California's Three Strikes law
is working. This statute, passed by overwhelming majorities in the
Legislature in 1994 and approved by a wide margin by the electorate
later that same year, has provided a powerful and effective tool to
prosecutors and the courts to target habitual felons. We have been
able to remove from our communities recidivist criminals who have
multiple prior convictions for serious and/or violent felonies, thus
preventing them from further committing crimes, thereby increasing
public safety."
4) Judicial Discretion authorizes a strike to be stricken. The CA Supreme
Court held in People v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Romero,
1996) that for the purposes of three strikes, the court on its own
motion may strike a prior felony in the interests of justice. Also, a
trial court has the discretion to deem an alternate felony/misdemeanor
offense a misdemeanor.
5) Current Law . Under three strikes, enacted by Prop 184 in 1994, and also
by the Legislature the same year:
a) A defendant with one strike who commits any felony must be
sentenced to twice the base term of the current felony.
b) A defendant with two or more strikes who commits any felony, must
be sentenced to 25-years-to-life.
(As a practical matter, under AB 327, offenders with two violent or
AB 327
Page 4
serious priors, whose current offense is a non-violent or non-serious
offense, would likely receive a minimum penalty of double the base term
for the current offense.)
Violent felonies, defined in Penal Code Section 667.5, include:
Murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter
Mayhem
Rape by force
Sodomy by force
Oral copulation by force
Lewd acts with a child under 14
Any felony punished by death or life imprisonment
Any felony in which great bodily injury is inflicted or in which a gun
is used
Robbery in an inhabited dwelling where a dangerous or deadly weapon is
used
Continuous sexual abuse of a child
Serious felonies, defined by Penal Code Section 1192.7, include violent
felonies and:
Assault with intent to commit rape/robbery
Assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate or on a peace officer
Assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate
Burglary of an inhabited dwelling
Robbery or bank robbery
An inmate taking a hostage
Any felony where the defendant personally uses a weapon
Sale or furnishing heroin, cocaine, PCP, or methamphetamine to a minor
Forcible foreign object rape
Grand theft involving a firearm
Attempts to commit any felony listed in this section other than assault
6) The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 Initiative . A proposed ballot
measure for the November 2012 ballot is pending signature collection.
This initiative is similar to AB 327 as it reduces prison sentences -
from 25-to-life to twice the base terms - for specified third-strikers
whose current offenses are neither serious nor violent felonies.
The initiative goes further than AB 327, however, with retroactive
application, authorizing the resentencing of third-strikers serving
life sentences for non-serious, non-violent felonies.
7)Second and third-strikers in state prison as of September, 2011 (CDCR
AB 327
Page 5
figures):
8)Numerous efforts to change the three strikes law have failed .
a) Proposition 66 (2004) would have required that third strike be a
serious or violent crime and reduced the number of offenses deemed
serious under state law. Proposition failed, receiving 47% support.
b) AB 1751 (Ammiano), 2009-2010, would have deleted a prior juvenile
adjudication from the definition of prior felony conviction for
purposes of sentencing under the three strikes law. AB 1751 failed
passage on the Assembly floor.
c) SB 1642 (Romero), 2005-2006, would have, contingent upon a vote
of the people, amended the three strikes law to limit cases in which
a life term could be imposed for a non-serious or non-violent crime.
SB 1642 was not taken up on the Senate Floor.
d) AB 112 (Goldberg), 2003-2004, would have amended three strikes to
require the current conviction be a serious or violent felony in
order to subject a defendant to an enhanced sentence. AB 112 was
moved to the Inactive File on the Assembly floor.
e) AB 1790 (Goldberg), 2001-2002, would have amended three strikes
to require that the current conviction be a serious or violent
felony in order to subject a defendant to an enhanced sentence. AB
1790 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
f) SB 1517 (Polanco), 2001-2002, would have amended three strikes to
exempt certain felonies from triggering application of the law. SB
1517 was placed on inactive file on the Senate Floor.
g) AB 2447 (Wright), of the 1999-2000, would have amended three
strikes to require the current conviction be a serious or violent
felony in order to sentence a defendant to a minimum term of
25-years-to-life in the state prison. AB 2447 failed passage on the
Assembly Floor.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 327
Page 6