BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1633
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 7, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1633 (Ammiano) - As Amended: March 28, 2014
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Board of State and Community Corrections
(BSCC) to collect and analyze criminal sentencing data,
establish a database, and issue recommendations after
collaborating with specified stakeholders and experts.
Specifically, this bill requires BSCC to:
1)Develop date collection processes and perform analysis to
ensure that the state's sentencing structure is based on
sound, data-driven, and rational sentencing policy.
2)Establish a public database to serve as a clearinghouse for
compiled sentencing-related data.
3)Recommend sentencing changes via its annual report to the
Legislature and the governor.
4)Publish a sentencing manual for judges, prosecutors, the
defense bar, and the public.
5)Select and consult with stakeholders and experts, as
specified, in order to fulfill its duties.
FISCAL EFFECT
Annual GF costs for staff and informational technology
infrastructure would likely be in the range of $2 million.
This bill charges BSCC with significant tasks: developing date
collection processes and detailed analysis, creating a public
database as a clearinghouse for sentencing-related data,
AB 1633
Page 2
devising and recommending specific sentencing changes, and
publishing a sentencing manual.
Prospective costs/savings due to recommendations of the body
cannot be determined, though it is likely a non-politicized
sentencing commission, using evidence-based practices and
models, could recommend a sentencing/parole scheme that results
in significant net state savings.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to lay the groundwork for a
nonpoliticized sentencing commission to apply data and
practicality to the state's sentencing structure.
According to the author, "California's correctional crisis is
far from over. We seem to be content with putting bandaids on
the back end problems when more front end solutions are
needed. Sentencing reform has been called for time and again
but efforts continue to be stymied. Experts on sentencing
policy, and not just law enforcement need to be involved in
sentencing reform. The state currently lacks a means to
facilitate this discussion, and the Board of State and
Community Corrections appears to be charged with looking at
criminal justice best practices, and is the most appropriate
place to discuss this issue if we are ever to be serious about
criminal justice reform."
2)Sentencing history/background . Until 1976, California operated
under the indeterminate sentencing law (ISL). Judges had
considerable discretion to impose sentences within broadly
defined ranges, and parole authorities had almost complete
discretion to release inmates before the expiration of the
imposed sentence.
In 1976, academics and policymakers, conservatives and
liberals, united in their opposition to this system,
condemning it for a lack of uniformity, proportionality, and
transparency. The left contended no one could get out of
prison; the right contended anyone could get out of prison. In
reaction to ISL discontent, in 1976, California enacted a
determinate sentencing law (DSL), which grouped crimes into
categories, with each category tied to a sentencing 'triad'
containing a high, middle, and low sentence. The law directed
judges presumptively to impose the middle sentence or, if
AB 1633
Page 3
justified by aggravating or mitigating factors, the higher or
lower sentence. The DSL also abolished discretionary parole
release.
Forty years later, there seems to be increasing sentiment
among policymakers and academics that California's DSL has
created a correctional system plagued by overcrowding and
unsafe conditions. The right contends DSL releases inmates who
are not ready; the left contends DSL prevents the release of
inmates who are ready. As evidenced by dozens of states that
have formed or are in the process of forming sentencing
commissions, with varying degrees of authority and success,
the current policy direction appears to favor an independent,
depoliticized commission, drawing on a broad spectrum of
policy expertise. Some commissions have created or recommended
sentencing systems that use both ISL and DSL; for example, ISL
for the most serious and violent offenders, and DSL for
property offenders.
(In 1980, Minnesota pioneered the sentencing guideline
structure. Minnesota's sentencing commission was tasked with
developing guidelines that would take effect unless voted down
by the Legislature. Minnesota's commission specifies
presumptive sentences through legally binding guidelines. The
guidelines, also, however, authorize substantial trial court
discretion to deviate from presumptive sentences in cases with
extraordinary circumstances. When judges deviate from the
presumptive sentence, they must explain for the record why
they deviated from the guidelines and there is an appellate
review mechanism for these cases.)
3)Support includes CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which
states, "California is facing a serious crisis with its prison
system, overcrowding, and years of determinate sentencing for
minor and low level crimes. After the three-judge panel's
mandate to lower the prison population, the legislature must
consider a new and fresh approach towards sentencing in hopes
of reversing the trend."
4)Opposition includes the CA State Sheriffs' Association, which
states, "Given that California is still adapting to one of the
largest changes in the history of criminal justice sentencing,
now is not the time to undertake another massive review of
California's sentencing laws. Moreover, based on the proposed
composition of this sentencing commission, we are concerned
AB 1633
Page 4
that any recommendations made by a majority of the members
would not be reflective of protecting public safety. Indeed,
this new commission would be charged with many things, but
apparently not with taking into account the concerns of
victims' rights, interests of justice, the seriousness of
certain crimes or offenses, or the impacts on public safety.
Finally, we must also express our concerns regarding another
in a long line of measures that task the BSCC with new duties,
but without any additional funding."
5)A more phased-in and staged start-up process for this
sentencing commission-like effort may be appropriate . BSCC is
a fledgling department, created in 2012, that finds itself
immersed in correctional realignment, including attempting to
create practical and relevant data systems and administering
about $2 billion in local jail bond efforts. While the data
collection and analytical efforts seem appropriate to the
board's mission, it may be more realistic, given the
department's budget and existing challenges, to create a
phased-in approach should this bill move forward.
6)Prior Legislation. There have been multiple attempts to form a
sentencing commission in the past decade:
a) AB 1376 (Bass), 2009, established an independent,
multi-jurisdictional body to provide a forum for statewide
policy development, research, and planning concerning
criminal sentencing law. AB 1376 was never heard in the
Senate.
b) AB 160 (Lieber), 2007, established the California
Sentencing Commission (CSC). AB 160 failed on the Senate
floor.
c) SB 110 (Romero), 2008, created a CSC to revise rules and
penalties imposed for specified crimes unless rejected by
the Legislature in statute. SB 110 failed on the Assembly
Floor.
d) ABx2 14 (Lieber), 2006 Second Extraordinary Session on
Prison Overcrowding, established a CSC. ABx2 was never
heard.
e) AB 2152 (Goldberg), 2004 Legislative Session,
established a CSC. AB 2152 was amended to a non-related
AB 1633
Page 5
subject in the Senate.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081