Bill Would Limit Judges’ Leniency in ‘Three Strikes’ Cases

Gov. Pete Wilson and Republican leaders, responding to the state Supreme Court decision giving judges broad power to grant leniency in “three strikes” cases, have developed legislation that would significantly limit that discretion.

In a proposal to be unveiled today, Senate Republican Leader Rob Hurtt of Garden Grove plans to introduce legislation that would deny judges power to grant leniency in certain cases.

Under the plan, felons would face sentencing under the “three strikes” law in three instances. Felons would automatically face the full sentence of 25 years to life in prison if:

* Any of their prior felonies are violent crimes such as rape or homicide.

* Their final “strike” is defined in the Penal Code as being serious or violent, ranging from burglary and arson to rape and murder.

* They were freed from prison less than five years before committing the felony for which they are being sentenced.

Hurtt met with Wilson and Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove) for more than an hour Monday afternoon in an effort to respond to last Thursday’s state Supreme Court ruling that judges have authority to spare felons lengthy “three strikes” sentences by overlooking prior felonies.

While the legislation’s wording was still being refined late Monday, sources working on the proposal acknowledged that, in their effort to comply with the high court’s ruling, the lawmakers are contemplating a significant softening of the law approved by the Legislature and by an initiative vote two years ago.

Under the proposal, judges would have discretion to grant leniency if a felon’s prior strikes were so-called “serious” crimes, though not violent.

The original “three strikes” law required lengthy sentences for someone who had committed, for example, two prior burglaries, and then any felony for the third and final strike.

Residential burglary is the most common serious felony and has accounted for a large portion of the nearly 20,000 felons sentenced under the “three strikes” law.

In an abrupt softening of harsh rhetoric about last week’s Supreme Court decision, “three strikes” supporters seemed to be searching for a compromise.

Mike Reynolds, the main proponent of the “three strikes” initiative, said he intends to lobby for passage of the Hurtt legislation.

“Because the judge has the discretion doesn’t mean he’s going to use it,” said Reynolds, the Fresno photographer who pushed for the “three strikes” measure after his daughter was murdered outside a restaurant in his hometown.

Hurtt and the other GOP legislative leaders believe that the court ruling can be modified by a statute, not a change in the state Constitution, which would require a vote by the electorate.

Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, however, disagrees. He said Monday that he believes the Constitution has to be revised to alter the high court’s ruling.

Lungren pointed out that while the high court did not base its ruling on constitutional grounds, the justices wrote extensively about constitutional issues that would be raised if the Legislature revoked judges’ sentencing discretion.

“‘I don’t have to be hit in the face too many times to know where they’re coming from,” Lungren said.

But Lungren, among the measure’s strongest proponents, also said the ruling does little damage to the law, saying: “It does not destroy ‘three strikes.’ I cannot conceive judges . . . tossing out first and second strikes.”