Assembly OKs Bill Limiting Judges’ 3-Strikes Leniency

The Assembly on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved three-strikes legislation aimed at undoing a state Supreme Court ruling by limiting judges’ power to grant leniency in sentencing repeat felons.

The measure, one with potential implications for the November legislative election, heads to the state Senate, where its fate is uncertain.

Introduced only three weeks ago in the wake of the court’s decision, the legislation had little trouble in the GOP-controlled Assembly, winning by a 55-19 margin, one more than the two-thirds majority required.

“This bill is imperative to California,” said Assemblywoman Paula Boland (R-Granada Hills), who carried the bill in the Assembly. “We need the felons off the streets. Real simple.”

The bill, authored by Senate GOP Leader Rob Hurtt of Garden Grove, was in response to the state Supreme Court’s June 20 ruling, which held that judges have the power to overlook a felon’s prior crimes and grant leniency.

Hurtt says his bill is needed to keep in check “liberal judges” so that they “can’t resume their practice of failing to set tough sentences.”

The bill (SB 331) responds to the high court’s ruling by limiting the discretion of judges to grant leniency in three instances, making the full three-strikes sentence of at least 25 years automatic if:

* The felon facing a three-strikes sentence previously was convicted of a violent crime;

* The current crime is a serious or violent felony;

* The felon had been released from prison within five years of committing the current felony.

Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), an opponent who called the bill a “quick fix,” said, “All the [Supreme Court] decision did was give a small amount of sentencing discretion back to where it belongs, with the judge.”

Given current trends, Villaraigosa said, as many as 130,000 prison inmates will be 50 or older within 25 years, and he blamed the lengthy prison terms required by the three-strikes law.

He and other Democratic opponents say the high court’s ruling grants trial judges needed authority to ensure that petty criminals will not clog prisons.

“If you think the judges of California are without courage and are interested in coddling criminals, you’re nuts,” said Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento). “They will exercise this minimal discretion with care and attention to the facts.”

Minutes after the Assembly approved the measure, Hurtt said he intends to push for a hearing in the Democrat-controlled Senate this week. However, Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer is in no rush. The Legislature is scheduled to leave on its summer vacation Friday and will reconvene next month.

A spokesman for Lockyer said the Democratic leader wants to study the bill during the summer recess, and take it up in August.

“If [Lockyer] doesn’t let me hear it or if they kill it,” said Hurtt, “then we’ve shown the point that we want to make--the Republicans are for law and order and Democrats aren’t.”

The bill’s first--and perhaps final--hearing in the Senate will be in the Criminal Procedure Committee. Sen. Quentin Kopp, a key member of that panel, said Hurtt’s bill “violates fundamental tenets of the administration of justice.”

“[The measure] would be inappropriate, and I don’t think it would be in the public interest,” said Kopp, a San Francisco independent.

Democrats expect Republicans to use Hurtt’s bill in November campaign mailers to portray opponents as being soft on crime.

Democrats cast all 19 no votes on Tuesday, and four other Democrats did not vote. Eight of the 19 Democrats are in their final term in the Legislature, and others are from Democratic strongholds.

“This is a political bill,” Isenberg said. “It has nothing to do with the administration of justice.”

Since the law took effect in 1994, nearly 20,000 felons have been sent to prison under terms of the law, including more than 8,000 from Los Angeles County.

Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren says three strikes is one of the main reasons for a 7.2% drop in California’s crime rate in 1995, and a continuing decline this year. Liberal analysts note that crime rates are dropping nationwide, and attribute the trend to the population’s declining number of teenagers and young men, who have the greatest propensity to commit crimes.

Last week, Hurtt agreed to several amendments offered by Lungren and the California District Attorneys Assn., ensuring their support. Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti is neutral on the bill, his Capitol lobbyist said.

The bill was also a major topic of the District Attorneys Assn.’s annual conference that began today in Ojai.

The Legislature rushed to approve the original three-strikes statute in 1994 after the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas by a repeat felon. Voters overwhelmingly approved an almost identical initiative that November.

Originally written by a small group of lawyers and judges, the measure was championed by Mike Reynolds, a Fresno photographer whose 18-year-old daughter, Kimber, was shot to death outside a Fresno restaurant four years ago.

Reynolds has endorsed Hurtt’s legislation.

The current three-strikes law says that anyone convicted of two prior violent or serious felonies who is convicted of any felony on a third offense--regardless of whether it is serious or violent--faces a sentence of 25 years to life or three times the sentence for the third crime, whichever is greater. About 1,700 three-time losers are currently serving such sentences.

Another provision dealing with two-time losers says felons convicted of one prior violent or serious felony who commit another felony face a doubling of their sentence. More than 17,000 felons are serving such sentences.

The law enumerates 15 violent felonies, such as murder, home robbery and rape, and 26 serious felonies, including all violent felonies, attempts to commit violent felonies, residential burglary and some drug sales to minors.

Although the list of serious and violent felonies is lengthy, the law’s biggest impact comes from the provision stating that repeat felons face the long prison sentences if they commit any felony on their second or third strike. There are more than 500 felonies on the books, ranging from murder, rape and burglary to shoplifting, if the shoplifter has two prior felonies.

Critics cite statistics showing that 80% of third-strike sentences have been for nonviolent offenses, such as drug and property crimes. Secretary of State Bill Jones, one of the authors of the 1994 law, insists that critics “miss the point.”

The lengthy sentences are not simply punishment for criminals’ third offenses, but rather, Jones said, “for their continued, repeated offense to society.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Redefining the Law

The Assembly voted Tuesday to approve a three-strikes bill that would give judges limited discretion in handling sentencing of repeat offenders.

BACKGROUND

* The 1994 three-strikes law said judges must automatically give a sentence of 25 years to life to anyone previously convicted of two violent or serious felonies and then convicted of any third felony.

* Last month, the California Supreme Court said judges have the power to grant leniency and impose lesser sentences.

****

THE NEW BILL

* It would allow judges to grant leniency in some cases. But it restricts that discretion when the felon is being sentenced for a serious or violent felony, was previously convicted of a violent crime, or has been released from prison within the last five years.

****

Assembly Vote

YES: 55

NO: 19

Next Step

The bill now goes to the Senate for action.