BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 164 (Beall) - Serial sexual predators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 7, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 20, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 164 would provide that where a defendant has been
convicted of more than one One-Strike qualifying offense on
charges brought and tried separately, he or she is subject to a
life term, as specified, irrespective of the order in which the
offenses were committed or the convictions obtained.
Fiscal
Impact: Potentially significant future costs (General Fund) for longer
prison sentences. While the number of defendants to be impacted
is unknown, to the extent even two cases per year are impacted
statewide, cumulative future costs after five to ten years would
be $340,000 to $680,000 annually, once the sentences that
otherwise would have been imposed under existing law have been
served. This estimate is based on an in-state contract bed cost
of $34,000 per year.
Background: Existing law includes the One Strike law, which applies to
rape, oral copulation, sodomy, sexual penetration committed by
SB 164 (Beall) Page 1 of
?
force, duress, or threats, lewd conduct with a child under the
age of 14, and continuous sexual abuse of a child. The court
must impose a term of 15 years to life, 25 years to life, or
life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for specified
crimes against a minor, based on the number and type of
aggravating factors attendant to the crime. (Penal Code (PC) §
667.61(a)-(o).)
Existing law provides that a defendant shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to life if
convicted of a One-Strike qualifying offense if certain
circumstances were present, including but not limited to the
circumstance that the defendant has been previously convicted of
a qualifying One-Strike offense. (PC § 667.61(d)(1).)
Additionally, under specified circumstances where the victim is
a minor, and the defendant has been previously convicted of a
qualifying One-Strike offense, an adult defendant is subject to
a life term without the possibility of parole.
In People v. Huynh (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1210, the court ruled
that in order for the provisions of PC § 667.61(d)(1) to be
applicable to a defendant, the commission of the currently
charged offense must have occurred after the conviction for
another qualifying offense. The court opinion succinctly
described the issue in the case:
The issue in this case is simply, what does
"previously convicted" in Penal Code section 667.61,
subdivision (d)(1), mean (all further statutory
references are to the Penal Code)? The Orange County
District Attorney argues "previously convicted" means
a defendant was convicted of a qualifying offense but
it is immaterial whether the qualifying offense
occurred before or after the currently charged offense
and the trial court erred in dismissing the section
667.61, subdivision (d)(1), allegation. Randy Thanh
Huynh responds "previously convicted" means a
defendant was convicted of a qualifying offense before
the commission of the currently charged offense and
the court properly dismissed the section 667.61,
subdivision (d)(1), allegation. We agree with Huynh
and affirm the trial court's order dismissing the
section 667.61, subdivision (d)(1), allegation.
SB 164 (Beall) Page 2 of
?
This bill seeks to essentially obviate the decision of the
court by specifying that a defendant is subject to the
specified sentence under PC § 667.61 if he or she has been
convicted of qualifying One Strike offenses in separate
prosecutions, irrespective of the order in which the
offenses were committed or the convictions obtained.
Proposed
Law: This bill would provide that where a defendant has been
convicted of more than one One-Strike qualifying offense, on
charges brought and tried separately, including an offense
committed in another jurisdiction, as specified, the defendant
shall be subject to a life term, as specified, under the One
Strike Law. This bill specifies that the sentence shall apply
irrespective of the order in which the offenses were committed
or the convictions obtained.
Prior
Legislation: AB 1844 (Fletcher) Chapter 219/2010, enacted the
Chelsea King Child Predator Prevention Act of 2010, also known
as "Chelsea's Law," which increases penalties for forcible sex
acts against minors, provides for life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole for specified sex offenses against minors
that include aggravating factors, mandates lifetime parole for
persons convicted of certain sex crimes against minors, and
creates safe zones around parks.
Proposition 83, November 2006 General Election, the Sexual
Predator Punishment and Control Act (Jessica's Law), provides
that a defendant shall be punished by imprisonment in state
prison for 25 years to life if convicted of specified sex
offenses, if certain circumstances were present, including if
the defendant has been previously convicted of a specified
offense. Proposition 83 provides that the Legislature may amend
its provisions to expand the scope or increase the punishment or
penalties by a statute passed by a majority of each house.
Staff
Comments: By expanding the circumstances under which a defendant would
be subject to a 25 years to life or LWOP term, this bill will
SB 164 (Beall) Page 3 of
?
result in longer prison sentences and significant out-year
General Fund cost increases. Costs would be dependent on the
details of each case and the prison term that otherwise would
have been served in the absence of this measure. While the
number of defendants to be impacted is unknown, to the extent
even two cases per year are impacted statewide, cumulative
future costs after five to ten years would be $340,000 to
$680,000 annually, once the sentences that otherwise would have
been imposed under existing law have been served. This estimate
is based on an in-state contract bed cost of $34,000 per year.
Indirectly, to the extent the provisions of this bill result in
additional cases being charged under the provisions of this
measure and plea bargained resulting in longer sentences than
otherwise would have occurred under existing law, would also
result in increases in future costs (General Fund) for extended
incarceration.
The Three-Judge Court has ordered the State to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of the prison system's design
capacity by February 28, 2016. Pursuant to its February 10, 2014
order, the Court has ordered the CDCR to implement several
population reduction measures, prohibited an increase in the
population of inmates housed in out-of-state facilities, and
indicated the Court will maintain jurisdiction over the State
for as long as necessary to ensure the State's compliance with
the 137.5 percent final benchmark is durable, and that such
durability is firmly established. Any future increases to the
State's prison population challenge the ability of the State to
reach and maintain such a "durable solution," and could require
the State to pursue one of several options, including
contracting-out for additional bed space or releasing current
inmates early onto parole.
Recommended
Amendments: As drafted, the provisions of this bill could
potentially be interpreted to require convictions for two
different offenses listed in paragraphs (1) through (9) of PC §
667.61(c) in order to apply the applicable life sentence. In
other words, a defendant convicted of the same offense twice
under PC § 667.61(c) could potentially be excluded from the
specified sentence by not meeting the definition of "convicted
of more than one offense specified in subdivision (c)," as the
SB 164 (Beall) Page 4 of
?
defendant was convicted twice but only of one offense specified
in subdivision (c). Staff recommends the following amendments to
PC 667.71(d):
(1) The defendant , on charges brought and tried separately, has
been convicted two or more times, including a conviction in the
current case, of more than one an offense or offenses specified
in subdivision (c) on charges brought and tried separately,
including an offense committed in another jurisdiction that
includes all of the elements of an offense specified in
subdivision (c). This paragraph shall apply irrespective of the
order in which the offenses were committed or the convictions
obtained. A qualifying offense includes an offense committed in
another jurisdiction that includes all of the elements of an
offense specified in subdivision (c).
-- END --