State GOP Opens Drive to Thwart ‘3 Strikes’ Ruling

Moving swiftly to circumvent a pivotal state Supreme Court decision, state Republican officials convened Friday to ensure that the controversial “three strikes” sentencing law will continue to mean stiff, nonnegotiable prison terms for ex-convicts found guilty of a second or third felony.

Contending that the court ignored the intent of California voters, state legislators were reviewing a number of possible responses to the court’s unanimous decision to give judges discretion in sentencing “third strike” defendants to less than the mandated 25 years to life.

The court’s ruling Thursday gives judges authority to overlook a defendant’s prior convictions only “in furtherance of justice.” Early predictions were that it could apply to as many as 20,000 California inmates because the “three strike” law covers defendants convicted of a second or third felony. But on Friday, some judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys suggested that the decision’s long-term impact may be far lighter than the figure might suggest.

“This decision is not a major blow to ‘three strikes,’ ” said John H. Reid, assistant supervising judge for the Los Angeles County criminal courts. “A year from now, you will not find a great number of sentences have been modified.”

Despite such sentiments, Republican leaders in Sacramento were hurriedly weighing options to preserve much of the judicial discretion mandated by the court while returning the original bite to the law.

Aides to Gov. Pete Wilson, Secretary of State Bill Jones, Senate Republican Leader Rob Hurtt (R-Garden Grove), Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove) and attorney Mike Hiltachk, representing “three strikes” initiative proponent Mike Reynolds, met to devise a plan.

Despite some early discussion of a possible amendment to the state Constitution, the group agreed that such an amendment was not needed to restore the original intent of the law. Instead, they said, a change in the statute would suffice. And Hurtt planned to carry such legislation, expecting to amend a bill pending in an Assembly committee and to press for a vote as early as Tuesday.

The legislation now envisioned would limit the discretion of prosecutors and judges to throw out prior crimes. One possibility would be to require judges to impose maximum sentences for a serious or violent third strike, but grant them some leeway to ignore prior felonies when defendants are charged with relatively minor crimes on their third strike.

Another possibility would be to remove all discretion from prosecutors and judges, and require that they impose sentences of 25 years to life on anyone who commits a felony after having committed two serious or violent felonies.

“I suspect legislation will be drafted quickly,” said Assemblyman James Rogan (R-Glendale), a former Municipal Court judge. “Whether it can get out of the Senate depends on the leadership. If the Democratic leadership decides to defy the voters, they run the risk of feeling the wrath of those same voters.”

Hurtt said failure of the Legislature to restore the “three strikes” law to its voter-approved form would play into the hands of opponents of the statute.

“I think that is what they would like,” Hurtt said. “Under the guise of giving the judges their separation of power, it means a less effective ‘three strikes.’ They’ve always been in favor of a less effective ‘three strikes.’ We are in favor of a strong ‘three strikes’ as passed by 72% of the people.”

In San Bernardino County, Dist. Atty. Dennis Stout called the decision a “giant step backward” for public safety. “We were at a point where crimes were starting to drop dramatically and I believe the law had a lot to do with that,” Stout said.

Sean Walsh, Wilson’s press secretary, said: “Prisoners interviewed just prior to parole are saying they’re catching the first train eastbound because they don’t want to do ‘three strikes’ time. Why in God’s name do we want to take pressure off criminals, the sword of Damocles off their necks?”

But even as some chastised the court, others, including Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer of Hayward, the most powerful Democrat in the Legislature, noted that the majority of the state’s judges--including the justices who rendered the decision--have been appointed by Wilson and another Republican, former Gov. George Deukmejian.

“There is no evidence that I have yet seen that judges appointed by Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian, which are the bulk of the judges in California, are casual about the ways they deal with criminality,” Lockyer said.

The immediate attacks on the decision, Lockyer said, came from “politicians all wanting to prove they are tough on crime,” but who had not thoroughly studied the ruling.

Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco) agreed, predicting that any legislation that seeks to weaken the court’s ruling “wouldn’t get more than one vote” on the Senate Criminal Procedure Committee, which would have jurisdiction over any “three strikes” bills in the Senate.

“I vote for crime bills to increase sentences, but I don’t destroy the Constitution or practical policies and that’s what ‘three strikes’ did. It destroyed practicality,” said Kopp, a member of the criminal procedure panel.

Kopp also defended the court and leveled a harsh counterattack at Wilson and Republican legislative leaders who blasted the justices.

“Some of these statements by the executive and legislative leaders, who ought to know their civics better, are unworthy of them and their offices, and they’re damaging to our democracy,” Kopp said. “They’re threatening the judiciary.”

In Los Angeles, Assistant Public Defender Robert Kalunian reasoned that even with the restored discretion given to judges, the political pressure to impose tough sentences could lead to a great disparity in how the “three strikes” law is administered from county to county, and even courtroom to courtroom.

“The real solution to these potential inequities is for the ‘three strikes’ law to be modified so that only individuals whose present offense is a serious or violent felony come within the strike law,” Kalunian said. “So we don’t have individuals accused of petty crimes charged with strikes.”

At issue since the law was enacted has been the way in which many prosecutors focused almost exclusively on a criminal’s past, rather than on the severity of the most recent felony.

In its ruling, the justices did not address the issue of a defendant’s most recent conviction. But they concluded that the law did not eliminate a judge’s discretion in reviewing a defendant’s history. To do so would have been unconstitutional.

Given the focus of the ruling, “it shouldn’t open the floodgates to wide-open plea bargaining” and lesser sentences, said San Francisco Dist. Atty. Terence Hallinan, who broke with most district attorneys in the state by deciding only to apply three strikes when a final conviction involved a serious or violent felony.

Although the ruling’s full impact remains unclear, some law enforcement officials cautioned against tampering so much with the law that all judicial review is eliminated.

“That would be a real bad law, because there is no discretion,” said a deputy state attorney general who handles “three strikes” cases. “You would have a really drastic law.”

Morain reported from Sacramento, Krikorian from Los Angeles. Also contributing were Times staff writers Carla Rivera in Los Angeles, and Carl Ingram and Max Vanzi in Sacramento.