BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 576
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 576 (Ron Calderon)
As Amended September 8, 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.
5)Double-joints this bill with SB 9 (Yee), AB 17 X1
(Blumenfield), SB 5 X1 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee),
and AB 116 (Budget Committee) to avoid chaptering out issues.
SB 576
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)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
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
SB 576
Page 3
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).
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: 0002842
SB 576
Page 4