BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1016| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1016 Author: Monning (D) Introduced:2/11/16 Vote: 27 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/12/16 AYES: Hancock, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-1, 5/27/16 AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen NOES: Bates SUBJECT: Sentencing SOURCE: California District Attorneys Association DIGEST: This bill extends the sunset provisions from January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2022 on specified basic sentencing provisions on the factors a court shall consider and procedure the court shall follow in choosing to impose a lower, middle or upper term. ANALYSIS: Existing law and Rules of Court: 1) Provides that when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and t the statute specifies three possible terms, the choice of the appropriate term shall rest within the sound discretion of the court. (Pen. Code § 1170, subd. (b).) SB 1016 Page 2 2) Provides that prior to sentencing, either party or the victim, or the family of the victim if the victim is deceased, may submit a statement in aggravation or mitigation, as specified. In determining the appropriate term, the court may consider the record in the case, the probation officer's report, other reports including reports received pursuant to Section 1203.03, and statements in aggravation or mitigation and additional evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing. (Pen. Code § 1170, subd. (b).) 3) Provides that the court shall select the term that best serves the interests of justice and set forth on the record the reasons for imposing the term selected. The court may not impose an upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed under any provision of law. A term of imprisonment shall not be specified if imposition of sentence is suspended. The provision concerning the authority of the court to choose one of three prescribed sentencing terms upon sunsets on January 1, 2014. (Pen. Code § 1170, subd. (b).) 4) Provides that the Judicial Council shall seek to promote uniformity in sentencing under Section 1170, by: a) The adoption of rules providing criteria for the consideration of the trial judge at the time of sentencing regarding the court's decision to: i) grant or deny probation; ii) impose the lower, middle, or upper prison term; iii) impose concurrent or consecutive sentences; and iv) determine whether or not to impose an enhancement where that determination is permitted by law. b) The adoption of rules standardizing the minimum content and the sequential presentation of material in probation officer reports submitted to the court. (Pen. Code 1170.3.) 5) Provides that when a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, or the execution of a sentence of imprisonment is ordered suspended, the sentencing judge must select the upper, SB 1016 Page 3 middle, or lower term on each count for which the defendant has been convicted, as provided in section 1170(b) and these rules. 6) Provides that in exercising discretion to select one of the three authorized prison terms referred to in section 1170(b), the court may consider circumstances in aggravation or mitigation, and any other factor reasonably related to the sentencing decision. 7) Provides that to comply with section 1170(b), a fact charged and found as an enhancement may be used as a reason for imposing the upper term only if the court has discretion to strike the punishment for the enhancement and does so. The use of a fact of an enhancement to impose the upper term of imprisonment is an adequate reason for striking the additional term of imprisonment, regardless of the effect on the total term. 8) Specifies that a fact that is an element of the crime upon which punishment is being imposed may not be used to impose a greater term. 9) Requires that the reasons for selecting one of the three authorized prison terms referred to in section 1170(b) be stated orally on the record, including where the court imposes the middle term. (Cal. Rule of Court, 4.420.) 10)Establishes through a United States Supreme Court decision that California's determinate sentencing law prior to the enactment of SB 40 (Romero, Chapter 3, Statutes of 2007) in 2007 violated the right of the accused to a trial by jury, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270.) 11)Establishes through a United States Supreme Court decision law that to conform California's sentencing law to Constitutional requirements, California may either require juries "to find any fact necessary to the imposition of an elevated sentence" or "permit judges genuinely 'to exercise broad discretion . . . within a statutory range.'" (Cunningham v. California, supra, 549 U.S. 270 - Decision Syllabus.) SB 1016 Page 4 12)Includes amendments to Penal Code sections 1170 and 1170.3 to make the choice of lower, middle, or upper prison term one within the sound discretion of the court, in compliance with Cunningham. (SB 40, Romero) 13)Includes the following uncodified legislative findings in SB 40: "It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this provision to respond to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Cunningham v. California ? It is further the intent of the Legislature to maintain stability in California's criminal justice system while the criminal justice and sentencing structures in California sentencing are being reviewed. 14)Includes a "sunset" provision, declaring that the legislative response to Cunningham remains in effect until January 1, 2017. (SB 463, Pavley, Chapter 598, Statutes of 2013.) 15)Provides that certain sentencing enhancements carry an additional penalty of a lower, middle, or upper term of years. These sections were amended in response to the Cunningham decision, to make the choice of lower, middle, or upper prison term one within the sound discretion of the court. (SB 150, Wright, Chapter 171, Statutes of 2009; Penal Code §§ 186.22, 186.33, 12021.5, 12022.2, 12022.3, 12022.4.) SB 150 also included a "sunset" provision, declaring that its provisions would remain in effect only until January 1, 2011, unless a later enacted statute deletes or extends that date. The sunset date on enhancement triads has also been extended to January 1, 2017. (SB 463, Pavley, Chapter 598, Statutes of 2013.) 16)Provides that prior convictions used to enhance a defendant's sentence or subject the defendant to a special sentencing scheme, including the Three Strikes law, must be alleged in the charging document and proved the jury (or court in a court trial) beyond a reasonable doubt. (Pen. Code § 1025.) 17)Grants a court discretion to "bifurcate" trial of prior conviction allegations used to enhance a defendant's sentence, such that trial of the prior conviction allegations SB 1016 Page 5 is only held after the jury has convicted the defendant on the underlying criminal charges. (People v. Calderon (1994) 9 Cal.4th 69, 72-79.) 18)Provides that neither the defendant not the prosecution has a right to "unitary" trial on the prior conviction allegations conducted before the jury in conjunction with the underlying criminal charges. (Id., at p. 72; People v. Cline (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1332-1335.) 19)Includes state constitutional provisions stating that prior convictions can be used without limitation for impeachment or enhancement of sentence. "When a prior felony conviction is an element of any offense, it shall be proven to the jury in open court." (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 28 (d).) This bill extends the sunset dates in these sentencing provisions to January 1, 2022. Background California's determinate sentencing law (DSL) provides that crimes may be punished by one of three prison terms in a "triad," referred to as the lower, middle, or upper term. Prior to SB 40, Section 1170 stated that, ". . . when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall order imposition of the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime." (Pen. Code § 1170, subd. (b).) Having established this system of sentencing "triads," the Legislature delegated to the Judicial Council the duty to adopt rules to guide the trial judge in making a decision to impose the lower, middle, or upper prison term. (Pen. Code § 1170.3.) According to the Rules of Court established by the Judicial Council prior to SB 40, in sentencing a defendant under the DSL, "[t]he middle term must be selected unless imposition of the upper or lower term is justified by circumstances in aggravation or mitigation." (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 4.420(a).) Prior to SB 40, the Rules of Court, Rule 4.420(b) further required that, "[c]ircumstances in aggravation and mitigation must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Selection of the upper term is justified only if, after a consideration of all the relevant facts, the circumstances in SB 1016 Page 6 aggravation outweigh the circumstances in mitigation. The relevant facts are included in the case record, the probation officer's report, other reports and statements properly received, statements in aggravation or mitigation, and any further evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing. Selection of the lower term is justified only if, considering the same facts, the circumstances in mitigation outweigh the circumstances in aggravation." In 2000, in the landmark ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, "the Federal Constitution's jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant." (Cunningham v. California, supra, 549 U.S. 270, 274-275, citing Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466; Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296; and United States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220.) The Supreme Court clarified this principle in Blakely v. Washington as follows: "The relevant statutory maximum, is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings." (Blakely, supra, 542 U.S., at 303-304, emphasis in original.) The United States Supreme Court has recently extended Apprendi to clarify that it applies to any fact that authorizes imposition of a sentence in excess of the statutory minimum or maximum. (Alleyne v. United States (2013) 186 L.Ed.2nd 314 Prior to SB 40, in finding that California's DSL violated the right to a trial by jury, the Supreme Court stated, "California's DSL, and the rules governing its application, direct the sentencing court to start with the middle term, and to move from that term only when the court itself finds and places on the record facts - whether related to the offense or the offender - beyond the elements of the charged offense." (Cunningham v. California, supra, 549 U.S. 270, 279.) Because the DSL required the judge, in order to impose the upper term, to find facts that were not elements of the offense found true by the jury, and because the court could find those facts by a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, the DSL did exactly what was forbidden under Apprendi, namely, it "allow[ed] a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, SB 1016 Page 7 other than a prior conviction, not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant." (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466.) "This Court has repeatedly held that, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence." (Cunningham v. California, supra, 549 U.S. 270, 281.) The Supreme Court in Cunningham provided clear direction as to what steps California's Legislature could take to address the DSL's Constitutional infirmities. "As to the adjustment of California's sentencing system in light of our decision, the ball . . . lies in [California's] court. ? [S]everal States have modified their systems ? to retain determinate sentencing ?. by calling upon the jury - either at trial or in a separate sentencing proceeding - to find any fact necessary to the imposition of an elevated sentence. As earlier noted, California already employs juries in this manner to determine statutory sentencing enhancements. Other States have chosen to permit judges genuinely to exercise broad discretion . . . within a statutory range, which, everyone agrees, encounters no Sixth Amendment shoal. California may follow the paths taken by its sister States or otherwise alter its system, so long as the State observes Sixth Amendment limitations declared in this Court's decisions. (Cunningham v. California, supra, 549 U.S. 270, 293-294, citations and footnotes omitted.) SB 40 amended California's DSL to give judges the discretion to impose the lower, middle, or upper term without the need for additional fact-finding. In addition, SB 40 included legislative intent language stating that its purpose was to address Cunningham, and to stabilize the criminal justice system while sentencing and correctional policies in California are being reviewed. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Potentially major costs or savings to the extent the extended SB 1016 Page 8 sentencing provisions result in longer or shorter prison terms than otherwise would have occurred under a presumptive middle term. A one percent increase in upper term sentences, assuming an additional two years per upper term sentence, would result in additional costs in excess of several million dollars (General Fund). The additional costs would likely not be incurred until after the middle term is served of the sentence, the enhancement, or both. SUPPORT: (Verified5/27/16) California District Attorneys Association (source) California Police Chiefs Association California State Sheriffs' Association Professional Peace Officers Association OPPOSITION: (Verified5/27/16) California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Prepared by:Jerome McGuire / PUB. S. / 5/28/16 17:15:13 **** END ****