BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1016 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1016 (Monning) As Introduced August 18, 2016 2/3 vote SENATE VOTE: 39-0 -------------------------------------------------------------------- |Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+-----------------------+---------------------| |Public Safety |7-0 |Jones-Sawyer, | | | | |Melendez, Lackey, | | | | |Lopez, Low, Quirk, | | | | |Santiago | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+-----------------------+---------------------| |Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | | | | |Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, | | | | |Calderon, Chang, Daly, | | | | |Eggman, Gallagher, | | | | |Eduardo Garcia, | | | | |Holden, Jones, | | | | |Obernolte, Quirk, | | | | |Santiago, Wagner, | | | | |Weber, Wood, McCarty | | | | | | | | | | | | SB 1016 Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Extends the sunset date from January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2022 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. EXISTING LAW: 1)Declares that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment; that this purpose is best served by terms proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offense under similar circumstances; and that the elimination of disparity, and the provision of uniformity, of sentences can best be achieved by determinate sentences fixed by statute in proportion to the seriousness of the offense, as determined by the Legislature, to be imposed by the court with specified discretion. 2)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. 3)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. 4)Provides that sentencing choices requiring a statement of a reason include "[s]electing one of the three authorized prison terms referred to in section 1170(b) for either an offense or an enhancement." SB 1016 Page 3 5)Requires the sentencing judge to consider relevant criteria enumerated in the Rules of Court. 6)Provides that, in exercising discretion to select one of the three authorized prison terms referred to in statute, "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." 7)Prohibits the sentencing court from using a fact charged and found as an enhancement as a reason for imposing the upper term unless the court exercises its discretion to strike the punishment for the enhancement. 8)Prohibits the sentencing court from using a fact that is an element of the crime to impose a greater term. 9)Enumerates circumstances in aggravation, relating both to the crime and to the defendant, as specified. 10)Enumerates circumstances in mitigation, relating both to the crime and to the defendant, as specified. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, unknown annual GF increase or decrease to the extent this measure results in longer or shorter prison 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 SB 1016 Page 4 costs or savings, given the large base of offenders. However, the fiscal impact of extending the sentencing provisions is unclear because the costs are determined by the behavior and decisions of individual judges in sentencing hearings. COMMENTS: According to the author, "In 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the Cunningham v. California decision that California's determinate sentencing statutes violated the Sixth Amendment and were therefore unconstitutional. The determinate sentencing scheme, in place since the 1970's, allowed the courts with a three-tiered sentencing option consisting of a higher, more-severe term, a middle term, and a lower, less-severe term. "The Supreme Court suggested two possible remedies to deal with the constitutional issues outlined in the Cunningham decision. Through SB 40 (Romero), [Chapter 3,] Statutes of 2007, the Legislature chose to implement a change that would allow for judicial discretion in determining which of the three terms to impose based on the best interest of justice, rather than requiring any specific fact finding by a judge outside of the jury trial. The measure also removed the statutory requirement that judges use the middle term as the presumptive sentencing term. "Many of the concerns presented in the initial vetting of SB 40 (Romero) have never materialized, and the Legislature has not yet found a more effective fix then to continue to allow for judicial discretion. This can be seen in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Upper Term Sentencing Reports, which show that in the eight years since SB 40 (Romero) became law, Judges have only sentenced defendants to the upper term 16% of the time, opting for the middle or lower term in 84% of convictions. SB 1016 Page 5 "The legislative fix put in place by SB 40 (Romero) included a sunset date which has been extended and approved by the Legislature through four different bills, almost all of which received no opposition votes by members of the Legislature. The current determinate sentencing laws will sunset on January 1, 2017, and if the sunset date is not extended, California's entire sentencing scheme will become unconstitutional once again. SB 1016 (Monning) will extend the sunset to January 1, 2022, and continue to allow the choice of which of the three determinate sentencing options apply to an offender to rest within the sound discretion of the court." Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill. Analysis Prepared by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004442