Panel OKs Bill to Curb ‘3 Strikes’ Leniency

Rushing to respond to last week’s California Supreme Court ruling limiting the state’s “three strikes” sentencing law, an Assembly committee Wednesday approved legislation to significantly curtail situations where judges can grant leniency.

Backing the bill were Senate and Assembly Republican leaders, joined by Gov. Pete Wilson and Mike Reynolds, the Fresno photographer who sponsored the original “three strikes” initiative after his daughter was murdered.

In urging the bill’s approval, Senate Republican Leader Rob Hurtt of Garden Grove, the measure’s lead author, charged that the high court’s decision “has turned our successful ‘three strikes’ law upside down, and presents us with the horrifying reality that liberal judges can resume their practice of failing to get tough on ‘three strikes’ offenders.”

The Assembly Public Safety Committee approved Hurtt’s bill by an 11-3 vote, with Democrats John Vasconcellos of Santa Clara, Barbara Lee of Oakland and Grace F. Napolitano of Norwalk voting against it. The bill must clear another Assembly committee and the full Assembly before heading to the state Senate, where its fate is uncertain.

Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) on Wednesday called the bill unnecessary, adding: “We need more thoughtful analysis, not a rushed, panicky reaction designed to grab tough-guy headlines.”

As approved by the Legislature and by voters in 1994, the “three strikes” initiative and law required judges to impose sentences of 25 years to life on those convicted of any felony if they already had been convicted of two prior serious or violent felonies.

The law also required judges to double sentences for people convicted of any felony if they had already been convicted of one prior violent or serious felony.

But in its unanimous ruling last week, the California Supreme Court restored to judges broad discretion to overlook prior crimes when sentencing third-strike defendants. As a result, trial judges probably will review the cases of more than 18,000 felons now serving “three strikes” sentences.

Hurtt’s measure ran into significant opposition Wednesday, primarily from the California District Attorneys Assn., which warned that the quick fix could result in a future high court ruling overturning thousands more sentences.

The association opposed the original “three strikes” legislation, contending that it was poorly drafted and would face tough scrutiny in the appellate courts.

“Do not repeat history,” said San Mateo County Dist. Atty. Jim Foxx, the association’s president. “Two or three years down the road, it could be . . . deja vu all over again, with 18,000 cases on remand. It’s fiscally irresponsible.”

The association urged lawmakers to take more time in fashioning a response.

California Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, one of the earliest backers of the “three strikes” measure, remained neutral on Hurtt’s bill. Earlier in the week, Lungren said a state constitutional revision, not a statute, may be required to modify the court’s ruling.

For now, however, the Legislature’s GOP leaders are pushing for a statute, one that would take effect as soon as it is signed into law. As it now stands, Hurtt’s bill would require judges to impose maximum sentences if:

* Any of the felons’ past crimes were “violent.”

* The latest charge is a serious or violent offense.

* The felon commits any felony less than five years after being released from prison. Proponents say this provision is specifically aimed at recidivists.

The hearing was familiar, as many of the same backers who came out for the measure as it zipped through the Legislature two years ago were present. Just as he did then, Reynolds talked about his 18-year-old daughter’s murder outside a Fresno restaurant.

The fourth anniversary of her murder is Sunday, and the man convicted in connection with her murder is due to be released from prison six months from now.

“There has been judicial . . . indiscretion,” Reynolds told the committee.