Justices Restrict Rights of Victim to Affect Penalty : Supreme Court: Restitution is allowed, but a suit seeking to prevent a reduced sentence is rejected.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday refused to allow a shooting victim to bring suit to prevent a reduced sentence for a convicted defendant who allegedly threatened him further harm.

The justices acknowledged that crime victims are entitled to restitution and may speak in court before a sentencing. But permitting them to intervene as a party in such proceedings would have “ominous implications,” undermining the authority of prosecutors and disrupting the judicial system, the high court said.

The court overturned a ruling by a state appellate panel that had allowed victims to challenge a sentence reduction in the “public interest” under the 1982 Crime Victims Bill of Rights initiative.

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, writing for a unanimous high court, declared: “Neither a crime victim nor any other citizen has a legally enforceable interest, public or private, in the commencement, conduct, or outcome of criminal proceedings against another.”

In another key issue, the justices held that trial courts hold broad power to reduce the sentence of a defendant who has decided to cooperate with authorities in another case.

The law permits a judge, within 120 days of the original sentence, to reconsider the penalty imposed “for any reason rationally related to lawful sentencing,” the court said.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Enid A. Camps said that if the appellate ruling had been upheld, it would have “greatly diminished” a trial judge’s power to set aside a sentence in return for key testimony in separate cases.

“Today’s decision is significant because it gives district attorneys the opportunity to obtain testimony critical in prosecuting important cases,” Camps said.

State Deputy Public Defender Philip M. Brooks, lawyer for the defendant in the case, also welcomed the high court ruling. If crime victims were allowed to sue over sentences, Brooks said, “the courts would have been clogged with victims who felt they knew more than the judge about what the sentence ought to be.” The attorney for the victim in the dispute could not be reached.

The case arose in 1988 when Alan Dale Bradley was sentenced to seven years in prison for aggravated assault after shooting William Edward Dix in the head in a dispute over drugs and money in Humboldt County.

Bradley, in return for a reduced sentence, agreed to testify against a reputed drug kingpin in a separate, murder-for-hire case. The killer in that case had refused to testify, and Bradley said he would testify that the kingpin had previously hired him to carry out the task. At the prosecution’s request, the trial judge agreed to set aside Bradley’s sentence and consider a lesser term.

That action alarmed Dix. Claiming that Bradley had threatened him when he testified at the trial, Dix filed suit, seeking to have Bradley’s original term reinstated. The resentencing was delayed while the case went to a Court of Appeal in San Francisco.

The appellate court, in a 2-1 ruling, agreed with Dix that the judge could reconsider a sentence only to correct a “disparity,” but not because of events that occur after the original sentence is imposed. The panel also said that Dix had the legal standing to challenge a resentencing.”

On Thursday, the high court reversed the appellate ruling in a 35-page opinion by Baxter, his first since joining the court in January.

While the Victims Bill of Rights and other laws give victims some rights, they do not empower victims to bring suit challenging the sentences of their assailants, the court said. Giving victims the right to sue would be poor public policy, the court said. “It would undermine the (prosecution’s) status as exclusive party in criminal actions, interfere with the prosecutor’s broad discretion in criminal matters and disrupt the orderly administration of justice,” Baxter wrote.

In other action, the high court, in a brief order, let stand an appellate court ruling that apparently will require many urban counties to recalculate how much they pay recipients of general-assistance welfare.

A state Court of Appeal in February held that Alameda County’s payments of $340 a month failed to take into account the actual needs of grant recipients. The county had pegged general assistance grants at $1 below the monthly grant per individual in Aid to Families With Dependent Children cases. Alameda authorities estimated that more than 20 other counties use a similar system for calculating general assistance grants.

The appeal court held that the county had “abdicated all responsibility” for setting a standard of aid by basing its payments on AFDC figures. Attorneys who brought the case said the ruling would require Alameda County to raise its payments by $170 per month.