Officials Brace for Onslaught on Judicial System

Girding for a rush of appeals from inmates sentenced under the state’s “three strikes” law, Los Angeles County judges and lawyers Friday struggled with procedural, financial and security questions to ensure that convicts get a fair deal--without swamping the court system.

A California Supreme Court ruling that gives judges the power to soften the “three strikes” law by overlooking a defendant’s prior convictions is expected to prompt thousands of criminals convicted under the law to appeal for reduced sentences.

Each appeal will take time--and cost money--to evaluate. No one yet knows how much, but “it’s obviously going to tax our resources,” said Judge Robert W. Parkin, assistant presiding judge of Los Angeles County Superior Court.

First on the firing line are defense lawyers, primarily from the county public defender’s office, which represented 75% of the people sent to state prison under the “three strikes” law.

“I guarantee you that on Monday we’ll start getting calls and letters from clients wanting to come back for hearings,” said Assistant Public Defender Robert E. Kalunian. Los Angeles courts already have sent more than 8,000 inmates to prison under the “three strikes” law (652 on a third strike and 7,493 on a second), and “the logistics are a nightmare when you’re talking about that many people,” he said.

Since it could take up to 18 months just to file all the appeals, the public defender’s office is scrambling to prioritize.

It already has decided to focus on prisoners who could be sprung from jail within months if a judge decides on appeal to overlook a prior strike.

For instance, a criminal sentenced to life in prison for crack possession under “three strikes” might argue that he would have received a scant 32-month sentence if the judge had disregarded a prior conviction for armed robbery. If the judge agreed to reconsider the case in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, the offender could find himself close to freedom.

Although “three strikes” prisoners must by law serve at least 80% of their sentences, other inmates usually serve just half. So if the drug offender succeeded in having his sentence slashed to 32 months, he could be out in 16 months or less, depending on how long he already had been incarcerated.

But Kalunian said the appeals process would not release huge numbers of convicted criminals onto the streets.

“This ruling is going to affect a minimal number of cases,” said Bruce A. Hoffman, the alternate public defender. “The judges are a fairly conservative group, just as the Supreme Court justices are. They’re not going to act rashly on this thing.”

Instead of mass prison releases, Hoffman said, the appeals process would “hopefully take care of a few outrageous cases.” Some judges have expressed great discomfort in sentencing people to 25 years in state prison for shoplifting or possessing a small amount of drugs. Hoffman said the appeals process mainly would help in these and similar cases, when the current crime is relatively minor and prior felony convictions are decades old.

Even then, judges cannot slash sentences simply because they feel sorry for the defendant.

The Supreme Court ruling “gives the judge discretion, but it’s not unbridled discretion,” Kalunian said.

The appeal will be sent to the judge who heard the original “three strikes” case. So criminals cannot shop around for judges they believe will sympathize with their plight. In considering appeals, judges must take into account the nature of the crime and the defendant’s history. If they choose to accept the appeal, they must state on the record their reasons for disregarding the stiff mandatory sentences spelled out under “three strikes.”

Evaluating the appeals could take as little as 30 minutes. In the case of a defendant three times convicted of brutal assaults, a judge might dismiss the appeal after a quick reading of the court file and appeal papers.

More compelling appeals could stretch out much longer. First, the judge formally would accept the appeal. Then he or she would schedule a resentencing hearing to listen to lawyers’ arguments. All told, the process probably would eat up just an hour or two of court time, but it would require steps spread over a month or longer.

One “three strikes” expert, Placer County Superior Court Judge J. Robert Couzens, predicted that it would carry “a pretty stiff price tag” because of administrative and personnel costs.

The costs would rise higher if inmates insist on exercising their constitutional right to be present at sentencing hearings. Those inmates would have to be transported--at taxpayer expense--from far-off state prisons to the Los Angeles County jails, and from there to the courthouse.

Ferrying convicted felons to Los Angeles courthouses raises potential security concerns as well. Some of the judges who heard the original “three strikes” trials--and will be required to preside over the appeals--work in the downtown civil courthouse, which does not have the metal detectors, guard presence or lockup facilities required for high-security defendants.

“It’s going to create a security problem,” Parkin said. To solve it, he added, he may have to temporarily assign civil judges hearing “three strikes” cases to the Criminal Courts Building, which is more secure.

Another potential burden will fall on the Sheriff’s Department, which must find room in packed jails to house state prison inmates moved to Los Angeles for the hearings. Sheriff Sherman Block said that if too many convicts arrive at once, he may have to ask the Department of Corrections to house them in state prisons in Chino or Lancaster.

But Block expressed hope that the Supreme Court ruling may prompt some criminal suspects now awaiting trial in county jails to accept a plea bargain.

Defendants facing a third strike previously had no incentive to plead guilty, because they still would draw a mandatory 25-year-to-life sentence. Instead, they insisted on a jury trial--clogging the courts and jails. Now, Block said, he hopes prosecutors might cut a deal with defendants charged with nonviolent crimes. Those who pleaded guilty would be transferred to state prison to serve out their sentences, freeing up precious space in the county jails.

Civil lawyers also voiced optimism that more plea bargains might be forthcoming. The Los Angeles Superior Court has been so overwhelmed with “three strikes” jury trials that civil trials have been delayed month after month.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti pledged to continue filing all cases eligible for “three strikes” prosecution under the law.

Garcetti’s policy does allow deputy district attorneys to exercise discretion in deciding whether to reduce a potential third strike to a misdemeanor--and in 44% of cases, they do, he said. At a news conference held after huddling with top deputies, Garcetti expressed confidence that those cases prosecuted as “three strikes” largely would be upheld on appeal. Only in 10% to 15% of the “three strikes” cases, he said, would judges be likely to reduce sentences.

“This is not going to result in the wholesale release” of state prison inmates, he said.

Still, even those inmates with little chance probably will try their luck with appeals. After all, they have nothing to lose--especially if they are indigent and their defense is being funded by taxpayers. The first appeals should start landing in Los Angeles courts in about three weeks, as it will take time for public defenders to pull their motions together.

As they prepare for the appeals, judges and lawyers said the task will be bearable only if it unfolds over several months. The straining-at-the-seams court system simply could not handle the thousands of appeals expected to materialize if they landed at once.

With the appeals staggered, however, judges and “three strikes” experts said the courts should be able to dispose of them briskly.

“It’s going to be another strain on our system, but we’ll deal with it,” Parkin said. “You have to do what you have to do. There’s no point getting big ulcers about it.”

Anticipating the Supreme Court decision, the public defender had started planning for appeals long before this week.

Some of the 562 lawyers in the office have begun drafting letters to clients, and supervisors have organized two training sessions for next month. The office also is considering helping clients who pleaded guilty under “three strikes” to appeal, although it remains unclear whether judges will accept such cases.

An internal memo obtained by the Times indicates that the district attorney’s office also expected that the Supreme Court would vote to give judges more discretion in “three strikes” cases. And prosecutors, like defenders, were worried about handling the increased workload.

Times staff writer Alan Abrahamson contributed to this story.