Senate Panel Blocks Revisions of 3-Strikes Law

A state Senate committee rejected legislation Tuesday aimed at limiting judges’ power to show leniency in three-strikes sentencing cases, causing the bill’s Republican author to accuse Democrats of engaging in “a high-tech lynching.”

After an often testy daylong hearing that included testimony from prosecutors, crime victims, defense lawyers and judges, the Democrat-dominated Criminal Procedure Committee rejected sending the measure to the full Senate for action.

Three Democrats and an independent voted against that proposal, while the committee’s lone Republican, Sen. Ross Johnson of Irvine, voted to send the bill to the Senate floor.

Although the committee did not kill the legislation outright, the effect of the vote is to hold the measure in a sort of legislative limbo by keeping it in the committee.

The committee took its action after Senate Republican Leader Rob Hurtt, the measure’s author, refused to accept amendments, which he contended would have weakened the bill.

Minutes after the vote, Hurtt issued a statement decrying the action as “a high-tech lynching,” and accused Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), who opposes Hurtt’s bill, of orchestrating the events.

“Democrats controlling the Senate are undoubtedly more concerned with the well-being of rapists, murderers and child molesters than they are with their victims,” Hurtt said.

Hurtt, backed by Republican Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren and the California District Attorneys Assn., said his bill (SB 331) was needed in order to keep “liberal judges” from granting leniency to repeat felons.

Hurtt introduced his bill in reaction to the state Supreme Court’s three-strikes decision on June 20. The court unanimously ruled that judges have the power to ignore a felon’s prior crimes and grant leniency in three-strikes cases.

Hurtt said he may seek a floor vote when the Senate reconvenes in August. However, Senate Democrats may try to block such a move.

Even if Hurtt gets a 21-vote majority in the 40-seat Senate to agree to put the measure to a floor vote, he would need a two-thirds majority to win passage.

Lockyer, who is not a member of the committee, said he intends to support competing legislation restricting three strikes in cases such as petty theft by repeat offenders. Such felonies should not be treated as three-strikes cases, Lockyer said.

In voting down the measure, senators cited several problems with Hurtt’s bill--from confusing wording to concerns that 80% of the felons who have received lengthy three-strikes sentences are serving time for nonviolent crimes.

“Petty thefts should not be part of three strikes,” Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) said, citing a case of a repeat felon being sentenced to a three-strikes term for stealing a sewing machine.

“I have to tell you, Sen. Hurtt . . . I’m persuaded more by the judges,” said Sen. Quentin Kopp, a San Francisco independent, referring to the testimony of two trial court judges. Kopp had noted that “the crux of this legislation is an unwillingness to rely on judicial discretion.”

Superior Court Judge J. Stephen Czuleger of Los Angeles assured the senators that trial judges would rarely grant leniency to repeat felons. “You’re talking about a conservative judiciary,” he said.

Czuleger told the committee of advising emerging governments in Africa and elsewhere, and telling them that “judges should not be forced to march in lock-step.”

“Here we are trying to take that authority [away]. I find that ironic,” Czuleger said.

Hurtt called his measure “a good middle-of-the-road bill,” adding that it does not strip all discretion from judges, but rather requires that they impose full three-strikes sentences in three areas:

* If the felon facing a three-strikes sentence previously was convicted of a violent crime.

* If the current crime is a serious or violent felony.

* If the felon was released from prison within five years of committing his latest felony.

The legislation has fast taken on the air of a campaign issue. Hurtt has said he expects to use the Democrats’ votes against the measure in campaigns this fall.

“I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes when we go into election time and we’re saying, ‘The three-strikes bill was watered down because the Senate Democrats didn’t want to pass the fix,’ ” Hurtt said.

The legislation has attracted wide support from the same anti-crime activists and officials who won passage of the three-strikes legislation in March 1994 and the three-strikes initiative in November of that year.

Already, they are talking about a new initiative for the 1998 ballot, if Hurtt’s legislation is dead.

Mike Reynolds, who pushed the original initiative after his daughter was murdered outside a Fresno restaurant, said that if he pursues a new initiative, it will be tougher than Hurtt’s bill.

Tuesday’s hearing turned contentious several times. At various points, Sen. Milton Marks (D-San Francisco) noted that six of the seven Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican Govs. Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

“I know you like to say that--[but] it doesn’t mean anything,” Hurtt replied.

Sen. Daniel Boatwright (D-Concord), a former prosecutor, cross-examined Reynolds.

Boatwright demanded to know whether Reynolds had testified in a state Senate hearing in 1994 that he believed prosecutors and judges would retain sentencing discretion under the original three-strikes law.

When Reynolds stumbled over his answer, Boatwright, who had a videotape of the hearing, asked that the tape be played.

Despite objections, Boatwright prevailed, and the tape was played. It showed that at the hearing two years ago, Reynolds acknowledged that he believed his three-strikes proposal would give judges discretion to overlook minor cases, like $10 forgeries, as a “safety valve.”

“Real cute,” Reynolds said of Boatwright’s maneuver.