BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 576
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 576 (Ron Calderon)
As Amended September 2, 2011
2/3 vote. Urgency
SENATE VOTE :40-0
PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Knight, Cedillo, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Hagman, Hill, Mitchell, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Skinner | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| | | |Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Solorio, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends provisions of law relating to criminal
sentencing, and corrects an inadvertent drafting error in the "one
strike" sex law. Specifically, this bill :
1)Extends the sunset date from January 1, 2012, to January 1,
2014, for provisions of law which provide that 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 U.S.
270.
2)Restores the penalty of 15-years-to-life under the "one strike"
sex law for great bodily injury committed during the course of a
rape in concert which was inadvertently deleted in a prior
legislative session as a result of a drafting error.
3)Makes other conforming changes.
4)Contains an urgency clause.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed
and the statute specifies three possible terms, the choice of
SB 576
Page 2
the appropriate term shall rest within the sound discretion of
the court.
2)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.
3)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."
4)Requires the sentencing judge to consider relevant criteria
enumerated in the Rules of Court.
5)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."
6)Enumerates circumstances in aggravation, relating both to the
crime and to the defendant, as specified.
7)Enumerates circumstances in mitigation, relating both to the
crime and to the defendant, as specified.
8)Provides a "one-strike" sex law which states that if a
qualifying sex offense is committed and one or more enumerated
aggravating circumstances are found to be present, the mandatory
punishment is an indeterminate term of either 25-years-to-life
or 15-years-to-life, depending on the number and type of
enumerated aggravating factors present.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, unknown annual General Fund increase or decrease to the
extent this measure 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 term drives significant costs
or savings, given the large base of offenders (some 60,000
offenders received determinate prison sentences in 2009-10).
SB 576
Page 3
Based on CDCR figures from 2006 through 2010, the number of upper
terms per the number of determinate sentences increased slightly,
from about 15% to about 17%. These figures appear to belie the
contention of some that current law, which this bill extends,
results in significantly more upper-term sentences.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "SB 576 simply extends the
sunset on California's current sentencing law to January 1, 2016
California's current sentencing procedures were established by
Senate Bill 40 (Romero) of 2007 and Senate Bill 150 (Wright) of
2009.
"This legislation was in response to a United States Supreme Court
decision that held California's sentencing law to be
unconstitutional because the law at that time required judges to
make factual findings in order to impose a maximum sentence
Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 US 270. The Supreme Court
stated that the above problem could be corrected by either
providing for a jury trial on the sentencing issue or by giving
the judge discretion to impose the higher prison term without
additional findings of fact. SB 40 (Romero) of 2007 corrected the
constitutional problem by giving judges the discretion to impose a
minimum, medium or maximum term, without additional finding of
fact.
"For the past four years judges have given the minimum prison
terms in 55% to 60% of all cases. Medium terms were ordered an
additional 25% to 28% of the time. Judges ordered maximum prisons
terms only 12% to 17% of all cases California's current sentencing
procedures works well and is fair to defendants."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of
this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0002636