Justices Open Way to Longer Sentences for Repeat Felons

The new conservative state Supreme Court on Thursday reversed what it called a “patently erroneous” 1986 ruling by the old court and opened the way for longer prison terms for repeat criminals.

In a decision that could affect scores of cases, the justices held 5 to 1 that trial judges now may review a wider range of court records to determine whether a convicted felon previously committed a residential burglary--and thus must be given an additional five years in prison.

Justice Stanley Mosk, writing for the majority, said the ruling would “further the evident intent of the people” in adopting provisions of Proposition 8, the 1982 Victims Bill of Rights initiative, mandating harsher sentences for habitual criminals.

It marked the third time the new court has overturned a major ruling by the court under then-Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird.

Ruling on Confessions

Last week, the court, rejecting a 1987 decision, voted to allow improperly obtained confessions to be used against a defendant who testifies at a trial. Last October, the justices, overturning a 1983 decision, held that a defendant in a felony murder case could be sentenced to death without a finding of intent to kill.

In a stinging dissent, Justice Allen E. Broussard, author of the October, 1986, ruling the court overturned Thursday, assailed the decision as “totally lacking in credibility” and a “radical departure” from the judiciary’s traditional obligation to follow precedent.

“We should not reconsider the issue. . .,” he said. “There are no new arguments, no intervening precedents, to justify reconsideration of a matter heard, discussed and decided by this court so recently.”

Referring to the sharp realignment of the court following the defeat of Bird and two other liberal justices in the fall, 1986, election, Broussard declared:

“The different result today is solely attributable to a change in the membership of this court, an insufficient reason to justify a departure from precedent.”

The court majority, however, noted that even the defendant in the case had agreed that “patently erroneous” rulings should be overruled. The 1986 ruling, Mosk wrote, “is such a case.”

Prosecutors and defense attorneys agreed that Thursday’s holding will likely have far-reaching impact because burglary is an often-committed crime and many offenders have previous burglary convictions.

According to the state Bureau of Criminal Statistics, in 1986 alone there were 457,743 burglaries reported with 78,089 arrests and 17,494 convictions.

‘An Important Ruling’

“This is definitely an important ruling,” said state Deputy Atty. Gen. Frederick R. Millar Jr. “Burglary is probably the most common serious felony . . . and given the high percentage of repeat burglars, this will affect a very large number of cases.”

A spokesman for state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp said the attorney general was “pleased with the decision” and that it would aid efforts to “lock up career criminals.”

State Deputy Public Defender Richard Lennon agreed that the decision could have wide effect, estimating that even now there are 100 or more cases involving defendants with contested prior burglary convictions pending in the courts.

Currently, Lennon said, many burglars are drawing sentences of 15 years or more.

“We’re already locking up burglars for an extremely long period of time,” he said. “This decision will just make it easier. Prosecutors will go for all they can.”

The issue before the court arose from a section in the anti-crime initiative requiring judges, in sentencing convicted felons, to add another five-year term for each time the defendant has been convicted of a serious felony, including residential burglary.

In most instances, as in cases involving a previous murder, rape or robbery, it was clear whether there was a prior serious felony conviction.

1983 Change in Law

However, a problem arose when there was a prior conviction for burglary because the law previously had classified the offense only as illegal entry of a structure to commit theft, but did not draw a distinction between residences and non-residences. The law was changed in 1983 to make residential burglary a specific crime.

Prosecutors, seeking to lengthen the terms of defendants previously convicted of burglary, sought to use a wide range of court records, such as indictments or other charging papers, to show prior convictions involved residential burglary.

But in October, 1986, the state Supreme Court held that only a court judgment, stating the conviction itself, could be used to determine prior convictions.

Broussard, writing for the majority, said it would be improper to use other records of a past case when at the time neither the prosecution nor defendant had any reason to prove or disprove the burglary involved a residence. Therefore, he said, the question of whether the burglary was residential had not been legally resolved.

Soon after, however, Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin--who had joined Broussard to form a majority in the 4-3 ruling--were voted out of office.

Van de Kamp then asked the justices to reconsider the issue in another case involving Raymond Ramirez Guerrero, a twice-convicted burglar who was convicted anew of burglarizing a home in Riverside in 1985.

The court agreed to hear the case and decide whether additional records could be reviewed to determine whether Guerrero’s two previous burglary convictions involved residences and thus could be used to lengthen his sentence from six to 16 years in prison.

‘Look to the Entire Record’

On Thursday, the majority agreed that in making such determinations, trial courts could “look to the entire record of conviction.” The court did not spell out exactly which items could be examined, but lawyers said it was likely that such documents as indictments and transcripts of court proceedings will be allowed.

In Guerrero’s case, the court said, a state Court of Appeal had erred in holding that the trial judge should not have reviewed the “entire record” of the defendant’s previous convictions. The justices sent the case back to the appeal court for further proceedings.

Mosk’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and Justice Edward A. Panelli--who had joined Mosk in dissent in the previous ruling--and Justices John A. Arguelles and David N. Eagleson, who took office last March. The third recent appointee to the court, Justice Marcus M. Kaufman, did not participate.