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