BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 520
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 520 (Ammiano)
As Amended May 31, 2011
Majority vote
PUBLIC SAFETY 4-3 APPROPRIATIONS 11-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Cedillo, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Mitchell, Skinner | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Davis, Gatto, |
| | | |Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Knight, Hagman, Hill |Nays:|Harkey, Campos, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends the sunset date from January 1, 2012, to
January 1, 2013, for provisions of law giving the court
discretion to impose the term or enhancement that best serves
the interest of justice as required by SB 40 (Romero) Chapter 3,
Statutes of 2007, SB 150 (Wright), Chapter 171, Statutes of
2009, and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 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 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
AB 520
Page 2
the court.
3)Provides that when a sentencing enhancement specifies three
possible terms, the choice of the appropriate term shall rest
within the sound discretion of the court.
4)Provides that sentencing choices requiring a statement of a
reason include "�s]electing one of the three authorized prison
terms referred to in Penal Code section 1170(b) for either an
offense or an enhancement."
5)Requires the sentencing judge to consider relevant criteria
enumerated in the Rules of Court.
6)Provides that, in exercising discretion to select one of the
three authorized prison terms referred to in Penal Code
Section 1170(b), "the sentencing judge may consider
circumstances in aggravation or mitigation, and any other
factor reasonably related to the sentencing decision. The
relevant circumstances may be obtained from the case record,
the probation officer's report, other reports and statements
properly received, statements in aggravation or mitigation,
and any evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing."
7)Prohibits the sentencing court from using a fact charged and
found as an enhancement as a reason for imposing the upper
term unless the court exercises its discretion to strike the
punishment for the enhancement.
8)Prohibits the sentencing court from using a fact that is an
element of the crime to impose a greater term.
9)Enumerates circumstances in aggravation, relating both to the
crime and to the defendant, as specified.
10)Enumerates circumstances in mitigation, relating both to the
crime and to the defendant, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, unknown annual General Fund increase or decrease to
the extent the extension of current law results in longer or
shorter prison terms. While it is unlikely this bill will
significantly alter current sentencing patterns, even a minor
increase in the number of offenders deviating from the middle
AB 520
Page 3
term could drive significant costs or savings; given the large
base of offenders (some 60,000 offenders received determinate
prison sentences in 2009-10).
Based on California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
figures from 2004 through 2010, however, the number of upper
terms per the number of determinate sentences fluctuated
negligibly, from about 15% to about 17%. These figures appear
to belie the contention that current law, which does not require
that aggravating sentencing factors be pled and proved, results
in significantly more upper-term sentences. Though there has
been a minor increase in the number of upper term sentences,
without additional data and analysis of specific cases, it is
not possible to conclude that this increase is the result of
current law
COMMENTS : According to the author, "In 2007, the United States
Supreme Court held that California's determinate sentencing law
violated a defendant's right to a jury trial as the judge was
required to make factual findings in order to justify imposing
the maximum term of a sentencing triad. �Cunningham vs.
California (2007) 549 U.S. 270.] The Supreme Court suggested
that this problem could be corrected by either providing for a
jury trial on the sentencing issue or by giving judges
discretion to impose a higher term without additional findings
of fact. SB 40 corrected the constitutional problem by giving
judges the discretion to impose a minimum, medium or maximum
term, without additional findings of fact. AB 520 extends the
sunset date from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2013 for these
sentencing provisions."
Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this
bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0001152