BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                             


 ------------------------------------------------------------ 
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                    SB 79|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
|(916) 445-6614         Fax: (916) |                         |
|327-4478                          |                         |
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 
  
                              
                       THIRD READING
                              

Bill No:  SB 79
Author:   Hayden (D)
Amended:  As introduced
Vote:     27 

  
  SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE  :  4-2, 4/6/99
AYES:  Vasconcellos, Burton, Johnston, Polanco
NOES:  McPherson, Rainey

  SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8
 

  SUBJECT :    Sentencing: prior convictions

  SOURCE  :     Author

 
  DIGEST  :    This bill would require that a defendant be  
convicted in the current case of a serious or violent  
felony before a life term can be imposed under the "Three  
Strikes" law (which does require the prior convictions be  
serious or violent).

  ANALYSIS  :    Existing law provides that a defendant, who is  
convicted of any current felony, with prior convictions of  
two or more "violent" or "serious" felonies, must receive a  
life sentence with a minimum term of 25 years.

Existing law further provides that where a defendant is  
convicted of any felony with a prior conviction for a  
single serious or violent felony, the sentence imposed must  
be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment.

                                                 CONTINUED





                                                       SB 79
                                                       Page  
2

Existing law further provides that affected defendants may  
not receive probation, there is no limitation on the  
aggregate term, conduct credits are limited to 20% of the  
term (instead of the usual 50%), and any additional  
convictions must be imposed consecutively.

Existing law, unlike five year serious felony enhancement  
provisions, does not require that prior qualifying  
convictions arise in separate cases, and qualifying prior  
"strike" convictions need not arise from separate  
transactions that can otherwise not be separately punished.

Existing law provides that a juvenile adjudication of a  
sixteen-year old must be counted as a prior "strike" if the  
offense otherwise qualifies as an adult strike or would  
establish presumptive unfitness for juvenile court under  
Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b), and the minor  
was declared to be a ward of juvenile court for commission  
of an offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code  
section 707(b).

This bill would require that a defendant be convicted in  
the current case of a serious or violent felony, with two  
or more prior serious or violent felony convictions, before  
a life term can be imposed.

"  Three Strikes" in More Detail  

The "Three Strikes" law was enacted by AB 971 (Jones/Costa)  
Chapter 12, Statutes of 1994 and by Proposition 184.   
Mandatory provisions of "Three Strikes" beyond those listed  
in "existing law," above include:

--A juvenile adjudication (a findings by a juvenile court  
  judge that the minor committed a crime) may constitute an  
  adult strike prior, although a juvenile cannot have a  
  jury trial of charges against him or her.

--A person sentenced under "Three Strikes" may not be  
  committed to any facility other than prison.

--"Three Strikes" prohibits plea-bargaining. 

--"Three Strikes" eliminates any "washout" period,  







                                                       SB 79
                                                       Page  
3

  requiring that any prior serious or violent felony  
  conviction be used regardless of when it occurred.

--Under "Three Strikes," the prosecuting attorney must  
  plead and prove each prior felony conviction. 

--"Three Strikes" may only be amended by a two-thirds vote  
  of the Legislature or a ballot measure approved by the  
  electorate. 

  Issues Related to Prior Juvenile Offenses (Adjudications)  
to Establish Prior "Strikes" in Adult Prosecutions  

The "Three Strikes" law defines a prior juvenile  
adjudication as a prior strike "conviction" where the  
following are shown:

--The minor was at least 16 years old.

--The minor was found to be fit for juvenile court  
  treatment.

--The prior offense was one which rendered him or her  
  presumptively unfit for juvenile court (Welfare and  
  Institutions Code Section 707(b)) or is defined as a  
  "serious" or "violent" felony for purposes of adult  
  sentencing;

--The minor was adjudged to be a ward of the juvenile court  
  for a crime of presumptive unfitness.

Arguably, these provisions are internally inconsistent or  
vague.  The California Supreme Court in  People v. Davis   
(1997) 15 Cal.4th 1096, a 4 to 3 decision, held that no  
special "fitness" hearing was necessary to render a  
juvenile adjudication a "strike" in a later adult  
prosecution, as such a finding is implied in every juvenile  
adjudication.  The ruling in Davis was contrary to the  
belief of many practitioners.  Some district attorneys  
sought specific findings of fitness by judges or admissions  
of fitness as part of plea agreements in juvenile cases to  
insure that a juvenile offense would later constitute a  
prior "strike" conviction.   








                                                       SB 79
                                                       Page  
4

The court in Davis left "for another day" the determination  
of whether juvenile serious felonies such as first degree  
burglary, which are not listed as crimes of presumptive  
unfitness in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 707(b),  
constitute strikes.  That day will apparently dawn with the  
issuance of the ruling in  People v. Gentry  , S069817.  The  
appellate court in Gentry held that a prior juvenile  
offense must be listed in Welfare and Institutions Code  
section 707(b) in order to constitute a strike in a later  
adult prosecution.  

The Supreme Court has let stand an appellate decision  
contrary to Gentry, in  People v. Griggs  (1997) 53  
Cal.App.4th 57, that held that failure of the "Three  
Strikes" law to clearly state that all juvenile serious  
felonies constitute strikes in later adult cases was a  
"drafting error."  If the Supreme Court so finds, the  
drafting error will be momentous.  

Many, if not most, practitioners believed that juvenile  
crimes such as first degree burglary did not constitute  
strikes, and thousands of juveniles admitted such offenses  
upon advice of counsel consistent with that belief.  Even  
where minors did not admit the commission of serious  
felonies, they were not entitled to jury trials.

  Violent and Serious Felonies Defined  

"Three Strikes" incorporates the definitions of violent and  
serious felonies as they existed on June 30, 1993.  For all  
practical purposes, all "violent" felonies are "serious"  
felonies.  Thus the eligible "strikes" are aptly  
demonstrated by the serious felony list, with additional  
notations for violent offenses.  

Serious and violent felonies, as defined by Penal Code  
section 667.5(b) and section 1192.7, as they existed on  
June 30, 1993, include the following: 

--Murder or voluntary manslaughter (serious and violent).
 
--Mayhem (serious, and violent if by force or threat of  
  retaliation).
 







                                                       SB 79
                                                       Page  
5

--Rape (serious and violent).
 
--Sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of  
  bodily injury (serious and violent).
 
--Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or  
  fear of bodily injury (serious and violent).
 
--Lewd act with child under fourteen years of age (serious  
  and violent).
 
--Any felony punishable by death or life imprisonment  
  (serious and violent).

--Any felony in which defendant inflicts great bodily  
  injury on defendant or personally uses a firearm (serious  
  and violent).
 
--Attempted murder (serious and violent).
 
--Assault with intent to commit rape/robbery  (serious).
 
--Assault with a deadly weapon on peace officer (serious).
 
--Assault by life prisoner on a non-inmate (serious).
 
--Assault with a deadly weapon by inmate (serious).
 
--Arson (serious, and violent if causes great bodily  
  injury).
 
--Exploding a destructive device with intent to injure  
  (serious).
 
--Explosion causing great bodily injury or mayhem  
  (serious).
 
--Explosion with intent to murder (serious and violent).
 
--Burglary of inhabited dwelling (serious, and violent if  
  resident is present and weapon used).
 
--Robbery or bank robbery (serious, and violent if the  
  robbery was a residential robbery with the use of a  







                                                       SB 79
                                                       Page  
6

  weapon).

--Kidnapping (serious, and violent if for purposes of sex  
  crimes against a child).

--Inmate taking a hostage (serious).

--Attempted death or life crime (serious).
 
--Any felony where defendant personally uses a dangerous or  
  deadly weapon (serious).
 
--Sale or furnishing heroin, cocaine, PCP, or  
  methamphetamine to a minor (serious).
 
--Forcible foreign object rape (serious, and violent in  
  most cases).
 
--Grand theft involving a firearm (serious).
 
--Attempts to commit any felony listed in a-z except  
  assault (serious).

  Prior legislation
  
SB 2048 (Vasconcellos - 1998) passed the Senate 23-12  
(Noes:  Brulte, Haynes, Hurtt, Johannessen, Johnson,  
Kelley, Knight, McPherson, Monteith, Mountjoy, Rainey,  
Wright) but was vetoed by the Governor (as study bill).

SB 1317 (Lee - 1997), failed passage on the Senate Floor  
13-25 (Noes:  Alpert, Brulte, Calderon, Costa, Dills,  
Haynes, Hurtt, Johannessen, Johnson, Karnette, Kelley,  
Knight, Leslie, Lewis, Lockyer, Maddy, McPherson, Monteith,  
Mountjoy, O'Connell, Peace, Rainey, Schiff, Thompson,  
Wright).

  FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
Local:  No


  SUPPORT  : (Verified  4/19/99)

ACLU







                                                       SB 79
                                                       Page  
7

California Public Defenders Association
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California NORML
Lutheran Office of Public Policy
Families to Amend California's Three Strikes
numerous individuals

  OPPOSITION  : (Verified  4/19/99)

California District Attorneys Association
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
Committee on Moral Concerns
California State Sheriff's Association
Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau

  ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author, "Senate  
Bill 79 does not undo 'Three Strikes.'  Nor does it renege  
on the promise made to voters in 1994 to get violent  
criminals off of our streets.  What SB 79 does is to revise  
current law to require a third 'strike' be a serious or  
violent felony -- as the first two must be.

"In order to achieve any sense of justice, sentences must  
be proportionate to the crime.  "Three Strikes" fails in  
this sense because relatively minor criminals are unjustly  
receiving sentences of 25-years-to-life.  Under "Three  
Strikes," drug addicts and petty thieves are seen in the  
same light as cold-blooded, first-degree murderers.  Should  
the punishment for possession of any amount of cocaine be  
the same as for premeditated murder?"

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice writes, "the  
proposal to amend the "Three Strikes" law to require that  
the third strike be a serious or violent crime has grown in  
acceptance in recent years as the effect of the current law  
has become clear to more and more people, both criminal  
justice professionals and lay people.  In a recent  
editorial, Joseph P. Charney, a deputy district attorney in  
Los Angeles and an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School  
wrote in support of this bill:  "Justice must be measured,  
rational and proportionate or it isn't justice.  Any  
legislation that promotes a punishment scheme not in  
conformity with this basic principal of fairness is unjust.  
 California's "Three Strikes" law, providing life sentences  







                                                      SB 79
                                                       Page  
8

for relatively minor offenses is such a law . . . Besides  
disproportionate incarceration, the "Three Strikes" law  
diminishes our system of justice in other ways.  By  
permitting lifetime incarceration for both minor and  
heinous crimes, punishment loses its moral compass." (Los  
Angeles Times, March 8, 1999)"

  ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    California District Attorneys  
Association writes, "[This] measure would require that the  
third strike against a person be a violent or serious  
felony.  Even though in 1994 CDAA supported a version of  
the "Three Strikes" law which would have required a violent  
of serious felony for a strike, we do not believe that the  
law now needs to be amended.  We feel that five years of  
the "Three Strikes" law has shown that the current law, as  
passed by the voters, is working.  In addition, we believe  
that two recent court decisions,  People v. Romero  (1996)  
and  People v. Alvarez  (1997) have provided sufficient  
safety valves for the "Three Strikes" law.  These decisions  
allowed judges to throw out previous strikes or reduce a  
third strike from a wobbler to a misdemeanor.  CDAA  
strongly believes that these court decisions, coupled with  
a prosecutor's right 
to not pursue a third strike, remove much of the argued  
necessity of a measure such as your SB 79."  
  
RJG:sl  4/22/99   Senate Floor Analyses 

               SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                      ****  END  ****