PEOPLE v. VALENCIAAppellant’s Request for Judicial NoticeCal.January 16, 2015$ 223825 FILCOURT ILE Stephanie L. Gunther, SBN 233790 841 MohawkStreet, Suite 260 JAN 16 2015 Bakersfield, CA 93309 (661) 428-3720 stephanielgunther@gmail.com Frank A. McGuire Clerk Deputy — IN THE SPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,_ ) Case no. $223825 ) Plaintiff and Respondent, \SHDCA V. ) No. F067946 ) DAVID J. VALENCIA, ) Tuolumne Co. Superior Court ) No. CRF307014 Defendant and Appellant. ) ) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE TO THE HONORABLETANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, CHIEF JUSTICE, AND TO THE HONORABLEASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Pursuantto rule 8.252 of the California Rules of Court, and to Evidence Code sections 452 and 451, appellant, through his counsel, requests this court to take judicial notice of the following items (attached to this motion): Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012), text of proposed law Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), text ofproposed law Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012), official title and summary Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), official title and summary Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012), argument and rebuttal for and against Prop. 36 Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), argument and rebuttal for and against Prop. 47 W P Y N E a 7. Californians Against Prop. 47 12. Editorial Board, California’s Continuing Prison Crisis (August 10, 2013) New York Times shitp://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/1 1/opinion/sunday/californias-continuing-prison-crisis.html?_r=0> [as of January 9, 2015] 13. Stanford Law School - Three Strikes Project, “Progress Report: Three StrikesReform (Proposition 36), 1000 Prisoners Released (2013) 14. Docket and order denying rehearing This request for judicial notice is based on the following points andauthorities. Dated: January 13, 2015 Stephanie L. Gunther, Attorney for appellant MEMORANDUMOFPOINTS & AUTHORITIES California Rules of Court, rule 8.252 provides the means for judicial notice on appeal. Therule provides in subdivision (a)(2) that the motion muststate: (A) Whythe matter to be noticedis relevantto the appeal; (B) Whetherthe matter to be noticed was presentedto thetrial court and, if so, whether judicial notice was taken bythat court; and (C) Whether the matter to be noticed relates to proceedings occurring after the order or Judgmentthatisthe subject ofthe appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a)(2).) The matters to be judicially noticed are relevantto the petition, because the Court ofAppealbased its holding upon matters extrinsic to the record on appeal. This Court engaged in construction to determinethe voter’s intent in passing Propositions 36 in 2012 and 47 in 2014. The Court determined thatit was necessary to look at “extrinsic aids” in determining the intent of the voters (Opinion,p. 28) and took judicial notice of the followingofficial ballot information and other ballot arguments (not included in the record on appeal) in deciding petitioner’s appeal: 1, Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012) text ofproposed law 2. Voter Information Guide, Gen, Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) text ofproposed law 3. Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), official title and summary 4. Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) argumentagainst Prop. 47 5. Act. (St. John & Gerber, Prop. 47 Jolts Landscape ofCalifornia Justice System(Nov. 5, 2014) Los Angeles Times [as of Dec. 16, 2014].) Whenlegislative intentis at issue, of particular value are the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot information. (People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4™ 681, 685.) “Ballot argumentsare (also) accepted sources from whichto ascertain the voters’ intent.” (Jn re Lance W. ( 1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 888, fn. 8: White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 775, fh. 11.)” (Delaney v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 801-02.) Accordingly, petitioner asks this court to take judicial notice ofthe materials attached to this motionfor this petition for review, These materials are critical and acceptable items to demonstrate what the voters knew and intended in passing Propositions 36 and 47, whichis the crux ofthe petition for review. These items were not presented inthe trial court, but relate to proceedings occurring after the order or judgmentthatis the subject of the appeal Dated: Spectfully ubmitted, é Stephani¢ L. Gunther Attorney for appellant ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012), text ofproposed law TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS determine in what ways human trafficking training may be includedas a part of ongoing programs. (c) Parti voluntary Every law enforcement officer whois assignedfield or investigative duties shall complete a minimum oftwo hours oftraining in a course or courses of instruction pertaining to the handling ofhuman trafficking complaints as described in subdivision (a) by July 1, 2014, or within six months of being assigned to that position, whicheveris later. SEC. 15. This act may be amended bya statute in furtheranceofits objectives passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, a majority of the membership of each house concurring. SEC. 16. Severability, If any of the provisions of this measureor the applicability of any provision of this measure to any person or circumstances shall be found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such finding shall not affect the remaining provisionsor applications of this measure to other persons or circumstances, and to that extent the provisionsofthis measure are deemedto be severable. PROPOSITION 36 This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordancewith the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. Thisinitiative measure amendsand adds sectionsto the Penal Code; therefore, existing provisions proposedto be deleted are printed in strikeouttype and new provisions proposed to be addedareprintedinitalic type to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW THREE STRIKES REFORMACTOF 2012 SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations: The People enact the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 to restore the original intent of California’s Three Strikes law— imposing life sentences for dangerous criminals like rapists, murderers, and child molesters. This actwill: (1) Require that murderers, rapists, and child molesters serve their full sentences—they will receive life Sentences, even if they are convicted of a new minorthird strike crime. (2) Restore the Three Strikes law to the public’s original understanding by requiring life sentences only when a defendant’s current conviction is for a violent or serious crime. (3) Maintain that repeat offenders convicted of non-violent, non-serious crimeslike shoplifting and simple drug possession will receive twice the normalsentence insteadofa life sentence. (4) Save hundredsofmillions of taxpayerdollars every year for at least 10 years. Thestate will no longer pay for housing or long-term health care for elderly, low-risk, non-violent inmates serving life sentences for minor crimes. (5) Preventthe early release of dangerous criminals who are currently being released early because jails and prisons are overcrowded with low-risk, non-violent inmates serving life Amendments. PROPOSITION 35 CONTINUED sentencesfor petty crimes. SEC. 2. Section 667 of the Penal Code is amendedto read: 667. (a) (1) In compliance with subdivision (b) of Section 1385, any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includesall of the elements of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried Separately, The terms ofthe present offense and each enhancementshall run consecutively, (2) This subdivision shall notbe applied when the punishment imposed underotherprovisions of law would result in a longer term of imprisonment. There is no requirement of prior incarceration or commitmentforthis subdivision to apply. (3) The Legislature may increase the length of theenhancement of sentence provided in this subdivision by a statute passed by majority vote of each house thereof. (4) As used in this subdivision, “serious felony” means a scriousfelony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7. (S$) This subdivision shall not apply to a person convicted of selling, furnishing, administering, or giving, or offeringtosell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any methamphetamine- related drug or any precursors of methamphetamine unless the Prior conviction was for a serious felony described in subparagraph (24) of subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, (b) It is the intent ofthe Legislature in enacting subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted ofone or more serious and/or violent felony offenses. (c) Notwithstanding any other law,if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictionsas defined in subdivision (d), the court shall adhere to eachofthe following: (1) There shall not be an aggregate term limitation for purposes of consecutive sentencing for any subsequent felony conviction. (2) Probation for the currentoffense shall not be granted, nor shall execution or imposition of the sentence be suspended for anyprior offense. (3) The length of time between the prior serious and/or violent felony conviction andthe current felony conviction shall notaffect the imposition of sentence. (4) There shall not be a commitment to any other facility other than the state prison. Diversion shall not be granted nor shall the defendant be eligible for commitmentto the California Rehabilitation Center as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 3050) of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (5) The total amount of credits awarded pursuantto Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 ofTitle 1 of Part3 shall not exceed one-fifth ofthe total term ofimprisonment imposedand shall not accrue until the defendantis physicallyplaced in the state prison. (6) If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising Text of Proposed Laws | 105 TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS from the sameset ofoperative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuantto subdivision (e). (7) If there is a current conviction for more than oneserious or violent felony as described in paragraph(6), the court shall impose the sentence for each conviction consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law, (8) Any sentence imposed pursuantto subdivision (e) will be imposed consecutive to any other sentence which the defendant is already serving, unless otherwise provided by law, (d) Notwithstanding any other law andfor the purposes of subdivisions(b) to (i), inclusive, a prior conviction of a serious and/orviolentfelony shall be defined as: (1) Any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 as a violent felony or any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 asa serious felony in this state. The determination of whether a prior conviction is a prior felony conviction for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be made uponthe date ofthat prior conviction andis not affected by the sentence imposed unless the sentence automatically, upon the initial sentencing, converts the felony to a misdemeanor. None of the following dispositions shall affect the determination that a prior conviction is a prior felony for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive: (A) The suspension of imposition ofjudgmentor sentence. (B) Thestay of execution of sentence. (C) The commitment to the State Department of Health Services as a mentally disordered sex offender following a conviction of a felony. (D) The commitmentto the California Rehabilitation Center or any otherfacility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from thestate prison. (2) A prior conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that, if committed in California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison-A shall constitute a prior conviction of a particular serious and/orviolent felony shatt+inehrde-a if the prior conviction in another the other jurisdiction is for an offense that includes all of the elements of the a particular violentfelony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or Seriousfelony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7. (3) A prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a prior Serious and/or violent felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancementif: (A) The juvenile was 16 years ofage or olderat the time he or she committed the prior offense. (B) The prior offense is listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or described in paragraph(1) or (2) as a serious and/orviolent felony. (C) The juvenile was found to be a fit and proper subject to be dealt with underthe juvenile courtlaw. (D) The juvenile was adjudged a ward of the Juvenile court within the meaningofSection 602 ofthe Welfare and Institutions Code because the person committed an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (e) For purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, and in addition to any other enhancement or punishment provisions 106 | Text ofProposed Laws PROPOSITION 36 CONTINUED which mayapply, the following shall apply where a defendant has @ one or moreprior serious and/orviolent felony conviction convictions: (1) Ifa defendant has oneprior serious and/orviolent felony conviction as defined in subdivision (@) that has been pled and proved, the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishmentfor the current felony conviction. (2) (A) # Except as provided in subparagraph (C), if a defendant has two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d) that have been pled and proved, the term for the current felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater greatest of; (i) Three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction subsequent to the two or Moreprior serious and/or violent felony convictions. (ii) Imprisonmentin the state prison for 25 years. (iii) The term determined by the court pursuant to Section 1170 for the underlying conviction, including any enhancement applicable under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, or any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046. (B) The indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment for which a consecutive term may be imposed by law. Any other term imposed subsequent to any indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall not be merged therein but shall commenceat the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison. (C) If a defendant has two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 that have been pled andproved, and the current offense is not a serious or violent felony as defined in subdivision (d), the defendant shall be sentencedpursuantto paragraph(1) ofsubdivision (e) unless the prosecution pleads andproves any ofthefollowing: (i) The current offense is a controlled substance charge, in which an allegation under Section 11370.4 or 11379.8 of the Health and Safety Code was admitted orfoundtrue. (ii) The current offense is a Jelony sex offense, defined in subdivision (d) of Section 261.5 or Section 262, or any felony offense that results in mandatory registration as a sex offender pursuantto subdivision (c) ofSection 290 exceptJorviolations ofSections 266 and 285, Paragraph (1) ofsubdivision (b) and subdivision (e) ofSection 286, Paragraph (1) ofsubdivision (b) and subdivision (e) of Section 288a, Section 311.11, and Section 314. (iii) During the commission of the current offense, the defendant used afirearm, was armed with afirearm or deadly weapon, or intended to cause great bodily injury to another person. (iv) The defendant suffered a prior serious and/or violent Jelony conviction, as defined in subdivision (a) ofthis section, for any ofthefollowingfelonies: (I) A “sexually violent offense”as defined in subdivision (b) ofSection 6600 ofthe Welfare andInstitutions Code. TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS (II) Oral copulation with a child who is under 14 years of age, and who is more than 10 years younger than heor she as defined by Section 288a, sodomy with another person who is under 14 years ofage and more than 10 years younger than he or she as defined by Section 286, or sexual penetration with anotherperson whois under 14 years ofage, and who is more than 10years youngerthan he or she, as defined by Section 289, (Ill) A lewd or lascivious act involving a child under 14 years ofage, in violation ofSection 288, (IV) Any homicide offense, including any attempted homicide offense, defined in Sections 187 to 191.5, inclusive. (VY) Solicitation to commit murder as defined in Section 653f, (VI) Assault with a machine gun on a peace officer or Jirefighter, as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 245, (VID) Possession ofa weapon ofmass destruction, as defined in paragraph (1) ofsubdivision (a) ofSection 11418. (VII) Any serious and/or violent felony offense punishable in California by life imprisonment or death. (f) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be applied in every case in which a defendant has a one or more priorserious and/or violent felony convietion convictions as defined in subdivision (d). The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior serious and/or violent felony conviction except as provided in paragraph (2). (2) The prosecuting attorney may move to dismissorstrike a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior serious and/or violent Jelony conviction.Ifupon thesatisfaction ofthe court that there is insufficient evidence to provethe prior serious and/or violent felony conviction,the court may dismissorstrike the allegation. Nothing in this section shall be read to alter a court’s authority under Section 1385. (g) Prior serious and/or violent felony convictions shall not be used in plea bargaining as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1192.7. The prosecution shall plead and prove all known prior felony serious and/or violent convictions and shall not - enter into any agreementto strike or seek the dismissal of any prior serious and/orviolentfelony conviction allegation except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f). (h) All references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, arc to statutes as they existed on Jone36,4993 November 7, 2012. (i) Ifany provision ofsubdivisions (b) to (h), inclusive, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of those subdivisions which can be given cffect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisionsof those subdivisions are severable. (j) Theprovisionsofthis section shall not be amended by the Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomeseffective only when approvedbytheelectors. SEC. 3. Section 667.1 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 667.1. Notwithstanding subdivision (h) of Section 667, for PROPOSITION 36 CONTINUED all offenses committed on or after the-effective-date-ofthis-act November 7, 2012, all references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, of Section 667, are to those Statutes as they existed on the effective date ofthis act;inchiding November 7, 2012. SEC, 4. Section 1170.12 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 1170.12. €a) Aggregate and consecutive terms for multiple convictions; Prior conviction as priorfelony; Commitment and other enhancements orpunishment. (a) Notwithstandingany otherprovision oflaw,ifa defendant has been convicted of a felony andit has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or moreprior serious and/or violent felony convictions, as defined in subdivision (b), the court shall adhere to each ofthe following: (1) There shall not be an aggregate term limitation for purposes of consecutive sentencing for any subsequent felony conviction. (2) Probation for the current offense shall not be granted, nor shall execution or imposition of the sentence be suspended for any prior offense. (3) The length of time between the prior serious and/or violent felony conviction and the current felony conviction shall not affect the imposition of sentence. (4) There shall not be a commitment to any otherfacility other than the state prison. Diversion shall not be granted nor shall the defendantbe eligible for commitmentto the California Rehabilitation Center as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 3050) of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (5) The total amountof credits awarded pursuantto Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not exceed one-fifth ofthe total term ofimprisonment imposed and shall not accrue until the defendantis physically placedin the state prison. (6) If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the sameset of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuantto this section. (7) If there is a current conviction for more than oneserious or violentfelony as described in paragrapir¢6}ofthis subdivision (b), the court shall impose the sentence for each conviction consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law.: . bi . 4 . . hich the-defend (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and for the purposes of this section, a prior serious and/or violent conviction of a felony shall be defined as: (1) Any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 as a violent felony or any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 asa seriousfelonyin this state. The determination of whether a prior conviction is a prior serious and/orviolent felony conviction for purposes ofthis section shall be made Text of Proposed Laws | 107 36 TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS uponthe date ofthat prior conviction andis not affected by the sentence imposed unless the sentence automatically, upon the initial sentencing, converts the felony to a misdemeanor. None of the followingdispositions shall affect the determination that a prior serious and/or violent conviction is a prior serious and/ or violent felony for purposesofthis section: (A) The suspension of imposition ofjudgmentor sentence. (B) The stay of execution ofsentence. (C) The commitment to the State Department of Health Services as a mentally disordered sex offender following a conviction of a felony. (D) The commitmentto the California Rehabilitation Center or any other facility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from the state prison. (2) A prior conviction in anotherjurisdiction for an offense that, if committed in California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison-A shall constitute a prior conviction of a particular serious and/or violent felony shattinelede-2 if the prior conviction in another the other jurisdiction is for an offense that includesall ofthe elements of the particular violent felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or serious felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7. (3) A prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction for the purposes of sentence enhancementif: (A) The juvenile was sixteen years of ageor older at the time he or she committed the prior offense, and (B) Theprior offense is (i) listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 ofthe Welfare and Institutions Code, or (ii) listed in this subdivision as a serious and/or violent felony, and (C) The juvenile was foundto be a fit and proper subject to be dealt with underthe juvenile court law, and (D) The juvenile was adjudged a wardof the juvenile court within the meaning of Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code because the person committed an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (c) For purposesofthis section, and in addition to any other enhancements or punishmentprovisions which may apply, the following shall apply where a defendant has # one or more prior Serious and/orviolent felony cemvtetion convictions: (1) Ifa defendant hasoneprior serious and/or violent felony conviction as defined in subdivision (b) that has been pled and proved, the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishmentfor the current felony conviction. (2) (A) #f Except as provided in subparagraph (C), fa defendant has two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, as defined in paragrapittt-of subdivision (b), that have been pled atd proved, the term for the current felony conviction shall be an indeterminatetert oflife imprisonment with a minimum term ofthe indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater greatest of: (i) three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction subsequent to the two or moreprior serious and/orviolentfelony convictions,or 108 | Text of Propased Laws PROPOSITION 36 CONTINUED (ii) twenty-five years or (iii) the term determined by the court pursuant to Section 1170 for the underlying conviction, including any enhancement applicable under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, or any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046. (B) The indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment for which a consecutive term may be imposed by law. Any other term imposed subsequent to any indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall not be merged therein but shall commenceat the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison. (C) If a defendant has two or more prior serious and/or violent felony convictions as defined in subdivision (ce) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 that have been pled and proved, and the current offense is not a felony described inparagraph(1) ofsubdivision (b) ofthis section, the defendant shall be sentenced pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of this section, unless the prosecution pleads andproves any ofthefollowing: (i) The currentoffenseis a controlled substance charge, in which an allegation under Section 11370.4 or 11379.8 of the Health and Safety Code was admitted orfoundtrue. (ii) The currentoffense is a felony sex offense, defined in subdivision (d) ofSection 261.5 or Section 262, or any felony offense that results in mandatory registration as a sex offender pursuant to subdivision (c) ofSection 290 exceptfor violations ofSections 266 and 285, paragraph (1) ofsubdivision (b) and subdivision (e) ofSection 286, paragraph(1) ofsubdivision (b) and subdivision (e) of Section 288a, Section 314, and Section 311.11. (iii) During the commission of the current offense, the defendant used afirearm, was armed with afirearm or deadly weapon, or intended to cause great bodily injury to another person. (iv) The defendantsuffered a prior conviction, as defined in subdivision (b) ofthis section, for any ofthe following serious and/orviolentfelonies: (1) A “sexually violent offense”as defined by subdivision (b) ofSection 6600 ofthe Welfare and Institutions Code. (il) Oral copulation with a child who is under 1d years of age, and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she as defined by Section 288a, sodomy with another person who is under 14 years ofage and more than 10 years younger than he or she as defined by Section 286 or sexual penetration with another person whois under 14 years ofage, and who is move than 10yearsyounger than heor she, as defined by Section 289. (Il) A lewd or lascivious act involving a child under 14 years ofage, in violation ofSection 288. (IV) Any homicide offense, including any attemptedhomicide offense, defined in Sections 187 to 191.5, inclusive. (V) Solicitation to commit murder as defined in Section 653f (VI) Assault with a machine gun on a peace officer or Firefighter, as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 245. (VI) Possession ofa weaponofmass destruction, as defined TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS in paragraph(1) ofsubdivision (a) ofSection 11418. (VII) Any serious and/or violentfelony offense punishable in California by life imprisonmentor death. (d) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this section shall be applied in every case in which a defendanthas % one or more prior serious and/or violent felony comvietion convictionsas defined in this section. The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior serious and/or violent felony conviction except as provided in paragraph (2). (2) The prosecuting attorney may moveto dismissorstrike a prior serious and/orviolentfelony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior serious and/or violent conviction. If upon thesatisfaction of the court that there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior serious and/or violent felony conviction, the court may dismissorstrike the allegation. Nothing in this section shall be read to alter a court's authority under Section 1385. (e) Prior serious and/or violent felony convictions shall not be used in plea bargaining, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1192.7, The prosecution shall plead and prove all known prior serious and/or violent felony convictions and shall not enter into any agreementto strike or seek the dismissal of any prior serious and/or violent felony conviction allegation except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d). (f) Ifanyprovision ofsubdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, or of Section 1170.126, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of those subdivisions which can begiven effect without the invalidprovision or application, and to this end the provisions of those subdivisions are severable. (g) Theprovisions ofthis section shall not be amended bythe Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rolicall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approvedby the electors. SEC. 5. Section 1170.125 of the Penal Codeis amended to read: 1170.125. Notwithstanding Section 2 of Proposition 184, as adopted at the November 8, 1994, generat-etection General Election, for all offenses committed on orafter the-effectrve date-of this-act November 7, 20/2, all references to existing statutes in Section Sections 1170.12 and 1170.126 are to those Statutes sections as they existed on t t * November 7, 2012. SEC. 6. Section 1170.126 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 1170.126. (a) The resentencing provisions under this Section andrelatedstatutes are intended to apply exclusively to persons presently serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment pursuantto paragraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) of Section 667 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12, whose sentence under this act would not have been an indeterminatelife sentence. PROPOSITION 36 CONTINUED (b) Any person serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonmentimposedpursuanttoparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) ofSection 667 orparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (c) ofSection 1170.12 upon conviction, whether bytrial orplea, ofafelony or felonies that are not defined as serious and/orviolentJelonies by subdivision (c) ofSection 667.5 or subdivision (¢) ofSection 1192.7, mayfile a petition for a recall ofsentence, within two years after the effective date ofthe act that addedthis section or at a later date upon a showing ofgood cause, before the trial court that entered thejudgment ofconviction in his or her case, fo request resentencing in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (e) of Section 667, and subdivision (¢) of Section 1170.12, as those statutes have been amended by the act that added this section. (¢) Noperson whoispresentlyservinga term ofimprisonment for a “secondstrike” conviction imposedpursuanttoparagraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or Paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12, shall be eligible for resentencing undertheprovisions ofthis section. (d) The petition for a recall of sentence described in subdivision (b) shall specify all of the currently charged felonies, which resulted in the sentence underparagraph (2) of subdivision (e) ofSection 667 or paragraph (2) ofsubdivision (c) ofSection 1170.12, or both, and shall also specify all ofthe Prior convictions alleged and proved under subdivision (a) of Section 667 and subdivision (b) ofSection 1170.12. (e) Aninmateis eligiblefor resentencing if: (1) The inmate is serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposedpursuanttoparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) of Section 667 or subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12 for a conviction ofafelony orfelonies that are not defined as serious and/or violent felonies by subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) ofSection 1192.7, (2) The inmate's current sentence wasnot imposedfor any of the offenses appearing in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, of Ris subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or clauses(i) to (iii), inclusive, ofsubparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (c) ofSection 1170.12. (3) The inmate has no prior convictions jor any of the offenses appearing in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) ofSection 667 or clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (c) ofSection 1270.12. (f) Upon receiving apetitionfor recall ofsentence underthis section, the court shall determine whether the petitioner satisfies the criteria in subdivision (e). Ifthepetitioner satisfies the criteria in subdivision(e), thepetitionershall be resentenced pursuant to paragraph(1) ofsubdivision (e) ofSection 667 and paragraph (1) ofsubdivision (c) ofSection 1170.12 unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner wouldpose an unreasonable risk ofdangerto public safety. (g) In exercising its discretion in subdivision (f), the court may consider: (1) The petitioner's criminal conviction history, including the type ofcrimes committed, the extent ofinjury to victims, the length ofprior prison commitments, and the remoteness ofthe crimes; Text of Proposed Laws | 109 TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS (2) The petitioner’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated; and (3) Any other evidence the court, within its discretion, determines to be relevant in deciding whether a new sentence would result in an unreasonable risk ofdangerto public safety. (h) Under no circumstances may resentencing underthis act result in the imposition of a term fonger than the original sentence, (i) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 977, a defendant petitioning for resentencing may waive his or her appearance in court for the resentencing, provided that the accusatory pleading is not amended at the resentencing, and that no new trial or retrial of the individual will occur, The waivershall be in writing andsigned by the defendant. @) Ifthe court that originally sentenced the defendant is not available to resentence the defendani, thepresidingjudge shall designate anotherjudge to rule on the defendant's petition. (k) Nothing in this section is intended to diminish or abrogate any rights or remedies otherwise available to the defendant. (1) Nothingin this andrelatedsectionsis intended to diminish or abrogate the finality ofJudgments in any case not Jalling within the purview ofthis act. (m) A resentencing hearing ordered under this act shall constitute @ “post-conviction release Proceeding” tunder paragraph (7) ofsubdivision (b) ofSection 28 ofArticle 1 ofthe California Constitution (Marsy’s Law), SEC. 7. Liberal Construction: This act is an exercise ofthepublic powerofthepeopleofthe State ofCalifornia for the protection ofthe health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State of California, and shall be liberally construedto effectuate those purposes. SEC. 8. Severability: Tfany provision ofthis act, or the application thereofto any personor circumstance,is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect any otherprovision or application ofthis act, which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application in orderto effectuate the purposes of this act. To this end, the Provisionsofthis act are severable. SEC. 9. Conflicting Measures: Ufthis measure is approved by the voters, but superseded by any other conflicting ballot measure approved by more voters at the same election, and the conflicting ballot measure is later held invalid, it is the intent of the voters that this act shall be given thefullforce oflaw. SEC. 10. Effective Date: This actshall become effective on thefirst day after enactment by the voters. SEC. 11, Except as otherwise provided in the text of the statutes, the provisions ofthis act shall not be altered or amended except by one ofthefollowing: (a) By statute passed in each house of the Legislature, by rolicall enteredin thejournal, with two-thirds ofthe membership and the Governorconcurring;or (b) By statute passed in each house of the Legislature, by Amendment: 110 | Text ofProposed Laws PROPOSITION 36 CONTINUED rollcall vote entered in the journal, with a majority of the membership concurring, to be placed on the next general ballot and approvedby a majority ofthe electors; or (c) By statute that becomes effective when approved by a majority ofthe electors. PROPOSITION 37 This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article I, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure amends and adds sections to the Health and Safety Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW The people ofthe State ofCalifornia do enact asfollows; THE CauirorNia RIGHT TO KNow GENETICALLY ENGINEERED Foop Act SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS (a) California consumers have the right to know whetherthe foods they purchase were produced using genetic engineering. Genetic engineering of plants and animals often causes unintended consequences, Manipulating genes and inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. Theresults are not always predictable or controllable, and they can lead to adverse health or environmental consequences. (b) Government scientists have stated that the artificial insertion of DNA into plants, a technique unique to genetic engineering, can cause a variety of significant problems with plant foods. Such genetic engineering can increase the levels of known toxicants in foods and introduce new toxicants and health concerns. (c) Mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering can providea critical method for tracking the potential health effects of eating genetically engineered foods. (d) Nofederalor California law requires that food producers identify whether foods were produced using genetic engineering. At the same time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does Not require safety studies of such foods. Unless these foods contain a known allergen, the FDA does not even require developers of genetically engineered crops to consult with the agency. (e) Polls consistently show that more than 90 percent of the public want to knowif their food was produced using genetic engineering. (f) Fifty countries—including the European Union member States, Japan and other key U.S. trading partners—have laws mandating disclosure of genetically engineered foods. No international agreements prohibit the mandatoryidentification of foods produced through genetic engineering. (g) Withoutdisclosure, consumers of genetically engineered food can unknowingly violate their own dietary andreligious restrictions. (h) The cultivation of genetically engineered crops can also cause serious impacts to the environment. For example, most genetically engineered crops are designed to withstand weed- ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), text ofproposed law Text of Proposed Laws SEC. 6. Section 1714.85 is added to the Civil Code,to read:1714.85. There shall be apresumption ofprofessional negligence inany action against a health careprovider arisingfrom an act or omissionby a physician and surgeon who tested positive for drugs or alcohol orwho refused orfailed to comply with the testing requirements ofArticle14 (commencing with Section 2350.10) ofChapter 5 ofDivision 2 ofthe Business and Professions CodeJollowing the act or omission and inany action arisingfrom thefailure ofa licensed health care Practitionerto comply with Section 11165.4 ofthe Health and Safety Code.SEC. 7. Section 11165.4 is added to the Health and SafetyCode, to read: HIGD.4. (a) Licensed health care practitioners and pharmacistsshall access andconsult the electronic history maintainedpursuantto thiscode of controlled substances dispensed to a patient under his or her carepriortoprescribing or dispensing a Schedule LI or Schedule HIT controlledsubstancefor thefirst time to that patient. Ifthe patient has an existingprescription for a Schedule IT or Schedule II! controlled substance, thehealth care practitioner shall not prescribe any additional controlledsubstances unvil the health care Practitioner determines there is alegitimate need. (b) Failure co consult a patient's electronic history as required insubdivision (a) shall be cause Sor disciplinary action by the health carepractitioner's licensing board. The licensing boards ofall health carepractitioners authorized to write or issue prescriptions for controlledsubstances shall notify all authorizedPractitioners subject to the board’sJurisdiction ofthe requirements ofthis section, SEC. 8. Amendment. This act may be amended onlyto furtherits purpose ofimprovingpatient safety, including ensuring that patients, their families, andothers whoare injured by negligent doctors are made whole fortheirloss, by a statute approved by a two-thirds vote of each house oftheLegislature and signed by the Governor. SEC. 9. Conflicting Initiatives. In the event that this measure and another initiative measure ormeasures that involve patient safety, including the fees charged byattorneys in medical negligence cases, shall appear on the samestatewide election ballot, the provisions of the other measure ormeasuresshall be deemedtobein conflict with this measure.In theevent that this measure receives a greater number ofaffirmativevotes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety,and the provisions of the other measureshall be null and void.SEC. 10. Severability. If any provision ofthis act, or part thereof, is for any reason heldto be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall notbe affected, but shall remainin full force and effect, and to this endthe provisionsof this act are severable. Proposition 47 This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordancewith the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the CalifornigConstitution. This initiative measure adds sections to the Government Code,amends and addssectionsto the Penal Code, and amendssections ofthe Health and Safety Code; therefore, cxisting provisions proposedto be deleted are printed in seri and new provisionsProposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that theyare new, Proposed Law THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SCHOOLS ACTSECTION 1. Tiele, This actshall be known as “the Safe Neighborhoods and SchoolsAct.” SEC. 2. Findings and Declarations. The peopleofthe State of California find and declare as follows: 70 | Text ofProposed Laws Proposition 46 Continued The people enact the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act toensurethat prison spendingis focused on violent andserious offenses,to maximize alternatives for nonserious, nonviolent crime, and toinvest the savings generated from this act into prevention andrUPPOre programs in K~12 schools, victim services, and mentalhealch and drug treatment. This act ensures that sentences for peopleconvicted of dangerous crimes like rape, murder, and childmolestation are not changed. SEC. 3, Purpose and Intent. In enacting this act,it is the purpose andintent of the people ofthe State of Californiato: (1) Ensure that people convicted of murder, rape, and childmolestation will not benefit from this act. (2) Create the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund, with 25percent of the funds to be provided to the State Department ofEducation for crime prevention and support programs in K-12schools, 10 percent of the funds for trauma recovery services forcrime victims, and 65 percent of the funds for mental health andsubstance abuse treatment programsto reduce recidivism of peoplein che justice system. (3) Require misdemeanors instead of felonies for nonserious,nonviolent crimes like petty theft and drug possession, unless thedefendant has prior convictions for specified violent or seriouscrimes, (4) Authorize consideration of resentencing for anyone who iscurrently serving a sentencefor anyof the offenseslisted herein thatare now misdemeanors. (5) Require a thorough review of criminal history and riskassessmentofany individuals before resentencing to ensure that theydo notpose a risk to public safety. (6) This measure will save significant state corrections dollars onan annualbasis. Preliminary estimates range from $150 million to$250 million per year. This measure will increase investments inprograms that reduce crime and improve public safety, such asPrevention programs in K~12 schools, victim services, and mentalhealth and drug treatment, which will reduce future expendituresfor corrections. SEC. 4. Chapter 33 (commencingwith Section 7599) is addedto Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code,to read: CHAPTER 33. CREATION OF SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SCHOOLS FUND 7599. (a) A fund to be known as the “Safe Neighborhoods andSchools Fund” is hereby created within the State Treasury and,notwithstandingSection 13340 ofthe Government Code, is continuouslyappropriated without regard to fiscalJearfor carrying out the purposesofthis chapter. (b) For purposes ofthe calculations required by Section 8 ofArticleXVI of the California Constitution, fends transferred to the SafeNeighborhoods and Schools Fund shall be considered General Fundrevenues which may be appropriatedpursuant to Article XTH B.7599.1. Funding Appropriation. (a) Onor beforeJuly 31, 2016, andon or beforeJuly 31 ofeachfiscalyear thereafter, the Director ofFinanceshall calculate the savings thataccrued to the state from the implementation of the act adding thischapter (“this ace”) during thefiscalyear endingJune 30, as comparedto the fiscal year preceding the enactment of this act. In making thecalculation required by this subdivision, the Director ofFinance shalluse actual data or best available estimates where actual data is notavailable. The calculation shall be final and shall not be adjustedforany subsequent changes in the underlying data. The Director ofFinanceshall certify the results ofthe calculation to the Controller no later thanAugust 1 ofeachfiscalyear. (6) Before August 15, 2016, and before August 15 ofeachJiscalyearthereafter, the Controller shall transfer from the General Fund to theSafe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund the total amount calculatedpursuant to subdivision (a), Text of Proposed Laws (c) Moneys in the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund shall be continuously appropriatedfor the purposes ofthis act. Funds transferred to the Safe Neighborhoods andSchools Fundshall be used exclusivelyfor the purposes of this act and shall not be subject to appropriation or transfer by the Legislaturefor any other purpose. Thefunds in the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund may be used without regard to fiscal year, 7999.2. Distribution ofMoneysfrom the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund, (a) ByAugust 15 ofeachfiscalyear beginning in 2016, the Controller shall disburse moneys deposited in the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund asfollows: (1) Twenty-five percent to the State Department ofEducation, to administer a grant program to public agencies aimed at improving ourcomes for public school pupils in kindergarten and grades I ta 12. inclusive, by reducing truancy andsupporting students who ave at risk of dropping out ofschoolor are victimsofcrime. (2) Ten percent to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, to make grants to trauma recovery centers to provide services to victimsofcrimepursuantto Section 13963.1 ofthe Government Cade. (3) Sixty-five percent to the Board of State and Community Corrections, to administer a grant program to public agencies aimed at supporting mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and diversion programs for people in the criminaljustice system, with an emphasis on programsthat reducerecidivism ofpeople convicted ofLess serious crimes, such as those covered by this measure, and those who have substance abuse and mental health problems. (b) For each program setforth in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a), the agency responsible for administering the programs shall not spend more than 5percentofthe totalfunds it receivesfrom the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund on an annual basis for administrative costs, (¢) Every twoyears, the Controller shall conduct an audit ofthe grant Programs operated by the agencies specified in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) to ensure the funds are disbursed and expended solely according to this chapter and shall report his or her findings to the Legislature and the public. (a) Any costs incurred by the Controller and the Director ofFinance in connection with the administration ofthe Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund, including the costs ofthe calculation required by Section 7599.1 and the audit required by subdivision (c), as determined by the Director ofFinance, shall be deductedfrom the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund before thefunds are disbursedpursuant to subdivision (a), (¢) The funding established pursuant to this act shall be used to expandprogramsfor public schoolpupils in kindergarten andgrades ] to 12, inclusive, victims of crime, and mental health and substance abuse treatment and diversion programs for people in the criminal Justice system. Thesefunds shall not be used to supplant existing state or localfunds utilizedfor these purposes. (P Local agencies shall not be obligated to provide programsor levels ofservice described in this chapter above the levelfor whichfunding has been provided, SEC. 5. Section 459.5 is added to the Penal Code,to read: 459.5. (a) Notwithstanding Section 459, shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishmentis open during regular business hours, where the value oftheproperty that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundredfifty dollars ($950). Any other entry into a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny is burglary. Shoplifting shall be punished as a misdemeanor, except that a person with one or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) ofSection 667 or r an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290 may be punished pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. Praposition 47 Continued (b) Any act of shoplifting as defined in subdivision (a) shall be charged as shoplifting. No person who is charged with shoplifting may also be charged with burglary ortheft ofthe same property. SEC. 6. Section 473 of the Penal Code is amendedto read: 473. (a) Forgeryis punishable by imprisonmentin a countyjail for not more than one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. (6) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any person who is guilty of Sorgery relating to a check, bond, bank bill, note, cashier’: check, traveler's check, or money order, where the value of the check, bond, bank bill, note, cashier's check, traveler's check, or money order does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jailfor not more than one year, except that such person may instead be punished pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1170 if that person has one or more prior convictions Jor an offense specified in clause (iv) ofsubparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) of subdivision (¢) of Section 667 or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) ofSection 290. This subdivision shall not be applicable to anyperson who 1s convicted both offorgery and of.identity theft, as defined in Section 530.5. SEC. 7, Section 476a of the Penal Code is amended to read; 476a. (a) Any person who,for himselfor herself, as the agent or representative of another, or as an officer of a corporation, willfully, with intent to defraud, makes or draws or ucters or delivers a check, draft, or order upon a bank or depositary, a person, a firm, or a corporation, for the payment of money, knowingat the timeofthat making, drawing, uttering,or delivering that the maker or drawer or the corporation has notsufficient funds in, or credit with the bank or depositary, person,firm, or corporation, for the paymentofthat check, draft, or order andall other checks, drafts, or orders upon funds then outstanding, in full upon its presentation, although no express representation is made with reference thereto, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or pursuantto subdivision (h) of Section 1170. (b) However, if the total amount ofall checks, drafts, or orders that the defendant is charged with and convicted of making, drawing, or uttering does not exceed f {$450} nine hundredfifty dollars ($950), the offenseis punishable only by imprisonmentin the countyjail for not more than one year, except that such person may instead bepunishedpursuantto subdivision (b) ofSection 1170 ifthat person has one or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) ofsubparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (¢) ofSection 667orfor an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (¢) ofSection 290. This subdivision shall not be applicable if the defendant has previously been convicted of @ three or more violation violations of Section 470, 475, or 476, or of this section, or of the crime of petty theft in a case in which defendant's offense was a violation also of Section 470, 475, or 476 or of this section or if the defendant has previously been convicted of any offense under the lawsof any otherstate or of the United States which,if committed in this state, would have been punishable as a violation of Section 470, 475 or 476 or ofthis section or if he has been so convicted of the crimeof petty theft in a case in which,if defendant's offense had been committed in thisstate, it would have beena violation also of Section 470, 475, or 476,ofofthis section. (c) Where the check, draft, or order is protested on the ground of insufficiency of funds or credit, the notice of protest shall be admissible as proof of presentation, nonpayment, and protest and shall be presumptive evidence ofknowledge ofinsufficiency offunds or credit with the bank or depositary, person,firm,or corporation. (d) In any prosecution underthis section involving two or more checks, drafts, or orders, it shall constitute primafacie evidence of the identity of the drawer of a check, draft, or order if both of the following occur: (1) When the payee accepts the check, draft, or order from the drawer,he or she obtains from the drawer the following information: nameandresidenceofthe drawer, business or mailing address,either Text ofProposed Laws | 71 CF aT Text of Proposed Laws a valid driver’s license number or Department of Motor Vehicles identification card number, and the drawer’s home or work phonenumberorplace of employment. That information may berecordedon the check, draft, of order itself or may be retained onfile by thepayee andreferred to on the check, draft, or order by identifying numberor other similar means. {2) The person receiving the check, draft, or order witnesses thedrawer's signature or endorsement, and, as evidence of that, initials the check, draft, or order at the time of téceipt. (e) The word “credic” as used herein shall be construed to meanan arrangement or understanding with the bank or depositary,person, firm, or corporation for the paymentof a check, draft, ororder, (f) If any of the preceding paragraphs, or parts thereof, shall befound unconstitutional or invalid, the remainderofchis section shallnotthereby be invalidated, butshall remain in fullforce and effect. (g) A sheriff's department, police department, or other lawenforcement agency may collect a fee from the defendant forinvestigation, collection, and processing of checksreferred to theiragency for investigation of alleged violations of this section or Section 476. (h) The amountofthe fee shall not exceed twenty-five dollars($25) for each bad check, in addirion to the amountof any bankcharges incurred by the victim as a result ofthe alleged offense, If thesheriff's department, police department, or other law enforcementagencycollects a fee for bank charges incurred by the victim pursuantto this section, that fee shall be paid to the victim for any bank feesthe victim may have been assessed. In no eventshall reimbursementof the bank charge to the victim pursuantto this section exceed ten dollars ($10) per check. SEC. 8. Section 490.2 is added to the Penal Code,to read:490.2, (4) Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision oflaw defining grand theft, obtaining any property by theft where thevalue ofthe money, labor, real orpersonalproperty taken does not exceednine hundredfifty dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft andshall bepunished as a misdemeanor, except that such person may insteadbe punishedpursuant to subdivision (h) ofSection 1170 ifthat personhas one or moreprior convictionsfor an offense specified in clause (iv) ofsubparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) ofSection 667 or7 an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (¢) of Section 290, (6) This section shall not be applicable to any theft that may becharged as an infraction pursuantto any other provision oflaw. SEC. 9. Section 496 of the Penal Code is amendedto read: 496. (a) Every person who buys orreceives any property thathas beenstolen or that has been obtained in any mannerconstitutingtheft or extortion, knowing the property to beso stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, orwithholding any property from the owner, knowing the property tobe so stolen or obtained,shall be punished by imprisonmentin acountyjail for not more than oneyear, or imprisonment pursuant tosubdivision (h) of Section 1170. However, itt say; if the value of the property does not exceed nine hundred fiftydollars ($950), ify i the offenseshall be a misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonmentin acounty jail not exceeding one year, if such person has no priorconvictionsfor an offense specified in clause (tu) ofsubparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) ofSection 667orforan offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) ofSection 290. A principal in the actual theft of the Property may be convictedpursuantto this section. However, no person maybe convicted bothpursuantto this section and ofthe theft of the same Property. (b) Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of theBusiness and Professions Code, and every person whose principalbusiness is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personal 72 | Text ofProposed Laws Proposition 47 Continued Property, and every agent, employee, or representative of that person,who buysorreceives any property ofa value in excess of nine hundredfifty dollars ($950) that has been stolen or obtained in any mannerconstituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that shouldcause the person, agent, employee, ot representative to makereasonable inquiry to ascertain that the Pétson from whom theproperty was boughtor reccived had the legal right tosell or deliverit, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for noc more than one year, orimprisonmentpursuantto subdivision (h) of Section 1170.Every swap meet vendor, as defined in Section 21661 of theBusiness and Professions Code, and every person whose principalbusiness is dealing in, or collecting, merchandise or personalProperty, and every agent, employee, or representative of that person,who buysorreceives any property of a value of nine hundred fiftydollars ($950) orless that has been stolen or obrained in any mannerconstituting theft or extortion, under circumstances that shouldcause the person, agent, employee, or representative to makefeasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom theProperty was boughtorreceived had thelegal right to sell or deliverit, without making a reasonable inquiry, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, (c) Any person whohas been injured bya violation of subdivision (a) or (b) may bring an action for three times the amountofacrualdamages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, andreasonable attorney's fees. (d) Notwithstanding Section 664, any attempt to commit any actprohibited by this section, except an offense specified in theaccusatory pleading asa misdemeanor,is punishable by imprisonmentin a countyjail for not more than one year, or by imprisonmentpursuantto subdivision (h) of Section 1170. SEC. 10. Section 666 of the Penal Codeis amendedto read: 7 . ti £ theft,prandimes—of-pesty 7 el & three or imCe-OF-_MGre oe {6} (a) Notwithstanding Section 490, any person described insubdivision (b) who, having been convicted of pettytheft, grand theft, a conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) or (e) ofSection 368, auto theft under Section 10851 of the Vehicle Code,burglary, carjacking, robbery, or a felony violation of Section 496,and having served a term of imprisonment therefor in any penalinstitution or having been imprisoned therein as a condition ofprobation for that offense, and who is subsequently convicted ofpetty theft, is punishable by imprisonmentin the countyjail not exceeding oneycar, or in the state prison, ) (b) This subdivision Subdivision (a) shall apply to any personwhois requiredto register pursuantto the Sex Offender RegistrationAct, or who has a prior violent or serious felony conviction, asspecified in visi i . ivisi Section -H923 clause (iv) ofsubparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (c) of Section 66, orhas a convictionpursuant to subdivision (4) or (e) ofSection 368. @) (c) This subdivisien section shall not be construed to precludeProsecution or punishment pursuant to subdivisions (b) to (i),inclusive, of Section 667, or Section 1170.12. SEC. 11. Section 11350 of the Health and Safety Code is amended toread: 11350. (a) Exceptas otherwise providedin this division, everyperson who possesses (1) any controlled substance specified insubdivision (b), et (c), (¢), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Text of Proposed Laws Section 11054, specified in paragraph (14), (15), or (20) of subdivision (d) of Section 11054, or specified in subdivision (b) or (c) ofSection 11055,orspecified in subdivision (h) ofSection 11056, or (2) any controlled substanceclassified in ScheduleIII, IV, or V which is a narcotic drug, unless upon the written prescription of aphysician, dentist, podiatrist, or veterinarian licensed to practice in this scare, shall be punished by imprisonmentiz 2 countyjailfor not more than one year, except that such person shall instead be punished pursuantto subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code ifthat person has one or moveprior convictionsfor an offense specified in clause (iv) ofsubparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) ofSection 667 of the Penal Codeorfor an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (¢) ofSection 290 ofthe Penal Code. {b}-Exeepe 45-otherws pe sded-in_rhic disisin +y-every—person fe} (6) Except as otherwise provided in this division, wheneveraperson who possesses any of the controlled substances specified insubdivision (a) =}, the judge may, in addition to any punishment provided for pursuantto subdivision (a) orb), assess against thatperson a fine not to exceed seventy dollars ($70) with proceeds of this fine to be used in accordance with Section 1463.23 ofthe Penal Code. The court shall, however, take into consideration the defendant's ability to pay, and no defendaneshall be denied probationbecause of his or her inability to pay the fine permitted under this subdivision. 4} (¢) Except in unusual cases in which it would not serve the interest of justice to do so, whenever a court grants probation pursuantto a felony conviction underthis section, in addition to any other conditions of probation which may be imposed,the following conditions of probation shall be ordered: (1) For a first offense under this section, a fine of at least one thousand dollars ($1,000) or community service. (2) For a second or subsequentoffense underthis section, a fine of at least two thousand dollars ($2,000) or communityservice. (3) Ifa defendant does not have the ability to pay the minimum fines specified in paragraphs(1) and(2), community service shall be orderedin lieu ofthe fine. SEC. 12. Section 11357 of the Health and Safety Code is amendedto read: 11357. (a) Except as authorized by law, every person whopossesscs any concentrated cannabis shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than oneyear or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($ 500), or byboth such fine and imprisonment, t Penal-Gede except that such person may instead be punished pursuant to subdivision (h) ofSection 1170 ofthe Penal Code ifthat person hasone or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) ofsubparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) ofSection 667 ofthe Penal Code or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) ofSection 290 ofthe Penal Code. (b) Except as authorized by law, cvery person who possesses notmore than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentratedcannabis,is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of noc more than one hundred dollars ($100), (c) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses more than 28,5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis,shall be punished by imprisonmentin a county jail for a period of not more than six monthsor by a fine of not mote thanfive hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment. (d) Except as authorized bylaw, every person 18 years of age orover who possesses not more than 28.5 gramsof marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, upon the grounds of, or within, anyschool providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 Proposition 47 Continued through 12 during hours the schoolis openfor classes or school-related Programsis guilty of a misdemeanorandshall be punished bya fineof not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment in a countyjail for a period of not more than 10 days, or both. (c) Except as authorized by law, every person under the age of 18who possesscs not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, upon the groundsof, or within, any school providinginstruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12 during hours the schoolis open for classes or school-related programs is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the following dispositions: (1) A fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250),upon a finding that a first offense has been commitred, (2) A fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), orcommitmentto a juvenile hall, ranch, camp,forestry camp, or secure juvenile homefor a period of not more than 10 days, or both, upon afinding thata sccond or subsequentoffense has been committed. SEC, 13. Section 11377 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 11377. (a) Except as authorized by law and as otherwiseprovided in subdivision (b) or Section 11375, or in Article 7(commencing with Section 4211) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of theBusiness and Professions Code, every person who possesses any controlled substance whichis (1) classified in Schedule IIL, IV,or V, and which is not a narcotic drug, (2) specified in subdivision (d) ofSection 11054, except paragraphs (13), (14), (15), and (20) ofsubdivision (d), (3) specified in paragraph (11) of subdivision (c) ofSection 11056,(4) specified in paragraph(2)or (3) ofsubdivision (f) of Section 11054, or (5) specified in subdivision (d), (e), ot (6) ofSection 11055, unless upon the prescription of a physician, dentist,podiatrist, or veterinarian,licensed to practice in this state, shall bepunished by imprisonment in a countyjail for a period of not more than one year vist ‘ , except that such person may instead be punishedpursuantt0 subdivision (b) ofSection 1170 ofthe Penal Code ifthat person hasone or more prior convictions for an offense specified in clause (iv) ofsubparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) ofSection 667 ofthe Penal Code or for an offense requiring registration pursuant tosubdivision (c) ofSection 290 ofthe Penal Code. bdiacici{} (6) Inadditionte-any-fines dine: The judge may assess a fine not to exceed seventy dollars ($70) against any person whoviolates subdivision (a), with the proceedsof this fine to be used in accordance with Section 1463.23ofthe PenalCode. The court shall, however, rake into consideration thedefendant's ability to pay, and no defendantshall be denied probationbecause of his or her inability to pay the fine permitted under this subdivision. SEC. 14. Section 1170.18 is added to the Penal Code,to read:1170.18. (a) A person currently serving a sentencefor a conviction,whether by trial or plea, ofa felony or felonies who would have beenguilty ofa misdemeanor underthe act that added this section (“this act”)had this act been in effect at the time ofthe offense may petition for arecall ofsentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of Text ofProposed Laws | 73 oT Text of Proposed Laws conviction in his or her case to request resentencing in accordance with Sections 11350, 11357, or 11377 ofthe Health and Safety Code, or Section 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2, 496, or 666 ofthe Penal Code, as those sections have been amended or added by this act. (b) Upon receiving a petition under subdivision (a), the court shall determine whether the petitioner satisfies the criteria in subdivision (a). Ufthe petitionersatisfies the criteria in subdivision (a), the petitioner's Jelony sentence shall be recalled and the petitioner resentenced to a misdemeanorpursuant to Sections 11350, 11357, or 11377 ofthe Health and Safety Code, or Section 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2. 496, or 666 of the Penal Code, those sections have been amended ov added by this act, unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the peritioner wouldpose an unreasonable risk ofdanger to public safety. In exercising its discretion, the court may considera ofthefollowing: (1) Thepetitioner's criminal conviction history, including the type of crimes committed, the extent of injury co victims, the length ofprior prison commitments, and the remoteness ofthe crimes, (2) The petitioner's disciplinary record and record ofrehabilitation while incarcerated. (3) Any other evidence the court, within its discretion, derermines tobe relevant in deciding whether a new sentence would result in an unreasonable risk ofdangerto public safety. (c) As used throughout this Code, “unreasonable risk ofdanger to public safety” means an unreasonable risk that thepetitioner will commit a new violentfelony within the meaning ofclause (iv) ofsubparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) ofSection 667, (d) A person who is vesentenced pursuantto subdivision (6) shall be given credit for time served and shall be subject ro parole for one yearfollowing completion of his or her sentence, unless the court, in its discretion, as part of its resentencing order, releases the person from parole. Such person is subject to Section 3000.08 parole supervision by the Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation and thejurisdiction ofthe court in the county in which the parolee is released or resides, or in which an alleged violation ofsupervision has occurred, for thepurpose of hearingpetitions to revoke parole and impose a term ofcustody. (¢) Under no circumstances may resentencing underthis section result in the imposition ofa term longer than the original sentence. (f A person who has completed his or her sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or plea, ofa felony or felonies who would have beenguilty ofa misdemeanor underthis act had this act been in effect at thetimeofthe offense, may file an application before the trial court that entered thejudgment ofconviction in his or her case to have the Jelony conviction or convictions designated as misdemeanors. (g) Ifthe application satisfies the criteria in subdivision (P) the court shall designate thefelony offense or offenses as a misdemeanor, (h) Unless requested by the applicant, no hearing is necessary to grant or deny an application filed under subsection (p. (i) The provisions ofthis section shall not apply to persons who have one or more prior convictionsf an offense specified in clause (tv) ofsubparagraph (C) ofparagraph (2) ofsubdivision (e) ofSection 667 or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, (i) Anypetition or application underthis section shall befiled withinthreeyears after the effective date ofthe act that added this section or at a later date upon a showing ofgood cause. (k) Any felony conviction that is recalled and resentenced under subdivision (b) or designated as a misdemeanor under subdivision @ shall be considered a misdemeanor for all purposes, except that such resentencing shall notpermit that person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) ofDivision 9 of Title 4 ofPare 6. () Ifthe courtthatoriginally sentenced thepetitioneris not available, the presidingjudge shall designate anotherjudge to rule on the petition or application. (m) Nothing in this section is intended to diminish or abrogate any rights or remedies otherwise available to the petitioner or applicant. 74 | Text ofProposed Laws Proposition 47 Continued (n) Nothing in this and related sections is intended to diminish or abrogate the finality ofjudgments in any case not falling within the purview ofthis act. (0) A resentencing hearing ordered under this act shall constitute a “post-conviction release proceeding” underparagraph (7) ofsubdivision (b) ofSection 28 ofArticle I of the California Constitution (Marsy's Law), SEC. 15. Amendment. This act shall be broadly construed to accomplish its purposes,The provisionsof this measure may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governorso long as the amendmentsare consistent with and further the intentof this act. The Legislature may by majority vote amend, add, or repeal provisionsto further reduce the penalties for any ofthe offenses addressed bythis act, SEC. 16. Severability. If any provision of this measure, or part of this measure, or the application of any provision or part to any person orcircumstances,is for any reason held to be invalid, the femaining provisions, or applications of provisions, shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable, SEC. 17. Conflicting Initiatives. (a) This act changes the penalties associated with certain nonserious, nonviolent crimes. In the event that this measure and anotherinitiative measure or measures relating to the same subject appear on the same statewide election ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict withthis measure. In the event that this measure receives a greater numberof affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail intheir entirety, and the provisions of che other measure shall be null and void. However, in the event that this measure and another measure or measures containing provisions that eliminate penalties for the possession of concentrated cannabis are approved at the same election, the voters intend such provisions relating to concentratedcannabis in the other measure or measures to prevail, regardless of which measure receives a greater numberofaffirmative votes. The votersalso intendto give full force and effectto all other applications and provisions of this measure, and the other measure or measures,but only to the extent the other measure or measures are notinconsistent with the provisions ofthis act. (b) If this measure is approved by the voters but superseded by law by any other conflicting measure approved by the voters at the sameelection, and the conflicting ballot measureis later held invalid, this measureshall be self-cxecuting and givenfull force and effect.SEC, 18. Liberal Construction. This act shall be liberally construed to effectuateits purposes, Proposition 48 This law proposed by AssemblyBill 277 ofthe 2013~2014 Regular Session (Chapter 51, Statutes of 2013) is submitted to the people of California as a referendum in accordance with the provisions ofSection 9 ofArticle II of the California Constitution. This proposed law adds a section to the Government Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italictype to indicate that they are new. Proposed Law SECTION 1. Section 12012.59 is added to the Government Code, to read: 12012.59. (a) (1) Thetribal-stategamingcompact entered into in accordance with thefederal Indian Gaming RegulatoryAct of1988 (18U.S.C. Secs. 1166 to 1168, inclusive, and25 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.)between the State ofCalifornia and the North Fork Rancheria Band of Mono Indians, executed on August 31, 2012,is hereby ratified. ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012), official title and summary PROPOSITION 36 OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY THREE STRIKES LAW. REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THREE STRIKES LAW. REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. * Revises three strikes law to imposelife sentence only when new felony conviction is serious orviolent.* Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently servinglife sentencesif third strike conviction wasnot seriousor violent and judge determines sentence does not pose unreasonablerisk to public safery.* Continues to imposelife sentence penalty if third strike conviction wasfor certain nonserious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession. * Maintainslife sentence penalty for felons with nonserious, non-violent third sttike if prior convictionswere for rape, murder, or child molestation. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local GovernmentFiscal Impact: * State savings related to with even higher savin estimates could be hig prison and parole operations of $70 million annually on an ongoing basis,gs—up to $90 million annually—over the next couple of decades. These her or lower by tens of millions ofdollars depending on futurestate actions.* One-timestate and county costs of a few million dollars over the next couple ofyears for courtactivities related to the resentencing ofcertain offenders. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BACKGROUND There are three categories ofcrimes:felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. A felonyis the most serious type of crime, and an individual convicted of a felony may be sentenced to state prison undercertain circumstances. Individuals convicted offelonies who are not sentencedto state prison are sentenced to county jail, supervised by the county probation departmentin the community, or both. Existing law classifies somefelonies as “violent” or “serious,” or both. Examplesoffelonies currently defined as violent include murder, robbery, and rape. While almostall violentfelonies are also consideredserious, otherfelonies are defined only as serious, such as assault with intent to commit robbery. Felonies that are notclassified as violent or serious include grand theft (not involving a firearm) andpossession of a controlled substance. As of May 2012, there were about 137,000 inmates in the California prison system. The 48 Title and Summary / Analysis state's prison system in 2012—13is budgeted for almost $9 billion. Three Strikes Sentencing, Proposition 184 (commonlyreferred to as the “three strikes” law) was adopted byvoters in 1994,It imposed longer prison sentencesforcertain repeat offenders. Specifically, the law requires that a person whois convicted of a felony and who previously has been convicted of one or more violentor serious felonies be sentencedto state prison as follows: * Second Strike Offense. If the person has one previous serious or violent felony conviction, the sentencefor any new felony conviction (notjust a seriousorviolent felony) is twice the term otherwise required under law for the new conviction. Offenders sentenced by the courts underthis provision are referred to as “second strikers.” As of March 2012, about 33,000 inmates were secondstrikers. PROP THREE STRIKES LAW. REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE, ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST * Third Strike Offense. If the person has two or morepreviousserious or Violent felony convictions, the sentence for any new felony conviction (notjust a serious or violent felony) is a life term with theearliest possible parole after 25 years. Offenders convicted under this Ptovision are referred to as “third strikers,” As of March 2012, about 9,000 inmates were third strikers. While the law requires the sentences described above, in some instances the court may choose not to consider prior felonies during sentencing. When this occurs, an offender who would otherwise be sentencedas a second orthird striker would be sentenced to a lesser term than required underthe three strikes law. Prison Release Determination. Under current law, most secondstrikers are automatically released from prison after completing their sentences. In contrast, third strikers are only released upon approval by the state Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). After third strikers have served the minimum numberof years required by their sentence, a BPH pane! conducts a parole consideration hearing to consider their possible release. For example, BPH would conduct such a hearing for a third striker sentenced to 25-years- to-life after the third striker served 25 years, If BPH decides notto release the third striker at thathearing, the board would conduct a subsequent hearing in the future. Since the three strikes law cameinto effect in 1994, the first third strikers will becomeeligible for hearings on their possibleteleasc from prison near the end ofthis decade. Post Release Supervision. All second and thirdstrikers are required under current law to be supervised in the communityafterrelease from prison. If a secondstriker’s most recent convictionwasfor a nonserious, non-violent crime, he or shewill generally be supervised in the community by For text of Proposition 36, see page 105, CONTINUED county probation officers, Otherwise, the second striker will be supervised in the community by state parole agents, All third strikers are supervised in the community bystate parole agents followingtheirrelease. When second or third strikers violate the terms of their community supervision or commit a new offense, they could be placed in countyjail or state prison depending on the circumstances, PROPOSAL This measure reduces prison sentences served underthe three strikes law by certain third strikers whose current offenses are nonserious, non-violent felonies. The measurealso allows resentencing of certain third strikers who are currently servinglife sentences for specified honscrious, non-violentfelonies. Both of these changesare described below, Shorter Sentencesfor Some Third Strikers. The measure requires that an offender who has 7wWo or moreprior seriousor violent felony convictions and whose new offense is a Nonserious, non-violent felony receive a prison sentencethatis twice the usual term for the new offense, rather than a minimum sentence of 25-years-to-life as is currently required. For example, a third striker whois convicted of a crime in which the usual sentence is two to four years would instead receive a sentence of between four to eight yeats—twice the term that would otherwise apply—rather than a 25-years-to-life term. ct] The measure, however, provides for some exceptionsto these shorter sentences. Specifically,the measure requires thatif the offender has committed certain new orprior offenses, including somedrug-, sex-, and gun-related felonies, he or she wouldstill be subject to a lifesentence underthe threestrikes law. Analysis | 49 PROP THREE STRIKES LAW. REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST Resentencing ofSome Current Third Strtkers. This measure allows certain third strikers to apply to be resentenced by the courts. The measurelimitseligibility for resentencing to third strikets whose current offense is nonserious, non-violent and who have not committed specified current andprior offenses, such as certain drug-, sex-, and gun-related felonies. Courts conducting these resentencing hearings would first determine whetherthe offender's criminal offense history makes them eligible for resentencing. The court would be required to resentencecligible offenders unless it determines that resentencing the offenders would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. In determining whether an offender poses such a risk, the court could consider any evidence it determinesis relevant, such as the offender’s criminal history, behavior in prison, and Participation in rehabilitation programs. The measure requires resentenced offenders to receive twice the usual term for their most recent offense instead of the sentence previously imposed. Offenders whose requests for resentencing are denied by the courts would continueto serve outtheirlife terms as they wereoriginally sentenced. FISCAL EFFECTS State Correctional Savings. This measure would have a numberoffiscal impacts on the state's correctional system. Most significantly, the measure would reducestate prison costs in two ways. First, fewer inmates would be incarcerated for life sentences under the three strikes law because of the measure’s provisions requiring that such sentences be applied onlyto third strikers whose current offenseis serious ot violent. This would reduce the sentences of some future felony offenders. Second,the resentencingofthird 50 | Analysis CONTINUED strikers could result in many existing inmates receiving shorter prison terms. This would result in a reduction in the inmate population beginningin the near term. The measure would also result in reduced state parole costs. This would occur because the offenders affected by this measure would generally be supervised by county probation—rather than state parole—following theirrelease from prison. This is because their current offense would be nhonserious and non-violent. In addition, the reduction in the third striker population would reduce the numberofparole consideration hearings BPH would need to conductin thefuture. State correctional savings from the above changes would likely be around $70 million annually, with even higher savings—up to $90 million annually—overthe next couple of decades. However, these annual savings could be tens of millions ofdollars higher or lower depending onseveral factors, In particular, the actuallevel of savings would depend on the numberofthird strikers resentenced by the court and the rate at which BPH would havereleased third strikers in the future under currentlaw. Resentencing Costs. This measure wouldresult in a one-timecost to the state and counties related to the resentencingprovisions of this measure. These provisions would increase court caseloads, which would result in added costs for district attorneys, public defenders, and county sheriff's departments that would manage this workload and staff these resentencing proceedings. In addition, counties would incur jail costs to house inmates during resentencing proceedings. These costs could be a few million dollars statewide over a couple ofyears. PROP THREE STRIKES LAW. REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. 36 PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST Other Fiscal Impacts. There would be some additional court-, ptobation-, andjail-related costs for the state and counties. This is because some offenders released from prison due to this measure would be supervised by probation departments instead of state parole, and would have court hearings and receivejail sentences if they violate the termsof their supervision or commit new crimes. We estimate that such long-term costs wouldnotbesignificant. This measure could result in a variety of other state and local governmentfiscal effects, For For text of Proposition 36, see page 105. CONTINUED instance, governments would incur additional costs to the extent that offenders released from prison because of this measure require governmentservices (such as government-paid health care for persons without private insurance coverage) or commitadditional crimes. Thete also would be someadditionalstate and local government revenue to the extent that offenders teleased from prison because of this measure entered the workforce. The magnitude of these impacts is unknown. Analysis | 51 ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), officialtitle and summary Proposition 4/7 Official Title and Summary Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties.Initiative Statute. Prepared by the Attorney General Criminal Sentences, MisdemeanorPenalties.Initiative Statute. * Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses.* Requires misdemeanorsentenceinstead offelon.y for the following crimes when amount involvedis $950 orless: petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks.° Allows felony sentence for these offensesif person ha tmurder, or child molestation oris registered sex offe $ previous conviction for crimes such as rape, nder. * Requires resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court findsunreasonable public safety risk. * Applies savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and crimevictims. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: * Netstate criminal justice system savings that could reach the low hundredsofmillionsofdollarsannually. These savings would be spent on school truancy and dropoutprevention, mental healthand substance abuse treatment, and victim services. * Net county criminal justice system savings that could reach several hundred million dollarsannually. Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background There are three types of crimes: felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. A felony is the most scrioustype of crime. Existing law classifies some felonies as “violent” or “serious,” or both. Examples of felonies currently defined as both violent and serious include murder, robbery, and rape. Felonies that are notclassified as violent or serious include grandtheft (notinvolving a gun) and possession of illegal drugs. A misdemeanoris a less serious crime. Misdemeanors include crimes such as assault and public drunkenness, An infractionis the least serious crime andis usually punished witha fine. For example, possession ofless than one ounce of marijuanafor personaluseis an infraction. Felony Sentencing, In recent years, there has been an average of about 220,000 annual felony convictionsin California. Offenders convicted offelonies can be sentenced as follows: * State Prison, Felony offenders who have cufrent or prior convictionsfor sctious, violent, or sex crimes can be sentenced to state prison. Offenders whoare released from prison after after serving a sentence for a crimethatis not a serious or violent crimeare usually supervised in the community by county probation officers. Offenders who break the rules that they are required to follow while supervised in the community can be sent to county jail or state prison, dependingon their criminal history and the seriousness oftheviolation. CountyJail and Community Supervision. Felony offenders who have no current or prior convictionsforserious, violent, or sex offenses are typically sentenced to county jail or the supervision of a county probation officer in the community, or both. In addition, depending on the discretion of the judge and whatcrime was committed, some offenders who have current or prior convictionsforserious, violent, or sex offenses can receive similar sentences. Offenders whobreak therules that they are required to follow while supervised in the community can be sent to county jail or state Prison, depending on their criminal history and theseriousness of the violation. 34 serving a sentencefora seriousor violent crime are supervised in the community bystate parole agents. Offenders whoarereleased from prison Misdemeanor Sentencing. Under current law, offenders convicted of misdemeanors may be sentenced to county jail, county community | Title and Summary / Analysis Prop Criminal Sentences. MisdemeanorPenalties. Initiative Statute. Analysis by the Legislative Analyst supervision,a fine, or some combination ofthe three,Offenders on county community supervision for amisdemeanorcrime may be placedinjail if they breaktherules that they are requiredto follow whilesupervised in the community, In general, offenders convicted of misdemeanorcrimes are punishedless severely than felony offenders.For example, misdemeanor crimes carry a maximumsentence of up to oneyearin jail while felony offenderscan spend much longerperiods in Prison orjail. Inaddition, offenders who are convicted of a misdemeanorare usually supervised in the communityfor fewer yeats and may not be Supervised as closely byprobation officers. Wobbler Sentencing. Under current law, somecrimes—suchas check forgery and being foundinpossession of stolen property—can be chargedas eithera felony ot a misdemeanor. These crimes are known as“wobblers.” Courts decide how to charge wobblercrimes based on thedetails of the crime and the criminal history of the offender. Proposal This measure reducespenalties for certain offendersconvicted of nonserious and nonviolent Property anddrug crimes. The measurealso allows certain offenderswho have been previously convicted of such crimes roapply for reduced sentences.In addition, the measurerequires anystate savings that result from the measurebe spentto support truancy (unexcused absences)Prevention, mental health and substance abusetreatment, and victim services. These changes aredescribed in moredetail below. Reduction of Existing Penalties This measure reduces certain nonserious andnonviolent property and drug offenses from wobblersor felonies to misdemeanors. The measure limits thesereduced penalties to offenders who have notcommitted certain severe crimeslisted in themeasure—including murderand certain sex and uncrimes. Specifically, the measure reduces the penaltiesfor the following crimes: * Grand Theft, Under current law, theft ofProperty worth $950orlessis often chargedaspetty theft, which is a misdemeanoror an infraction. However, such crimes can sometimesbe charged as grand theft, which isgenerally a wobbler. For example, a wobbler Forthefull text ofProposition 47, see page 70. Continued charge can occurif the crime involves the theft of certain property (such as cars) or if the offendcr has previously committed certain theft-related crimes. This measure wouldlimitwhentheft ofproperty of $950 orless can becharged as grand theft. Specifically, such crimeswould no longer be charged as grand theft solely because ofthe type of property involvedor because the defendant had previously committed certain theft-related crimes, Shoplifting, Under currentlaw, shoplifting Property worth $950 orless (a type ofpetty theft) is often a misdemeanor. However, suchcrimes can also be charged as burglary, which isa wobbler. Underthis measure, shoplifting Property worth $950orless would always be amisdemeanor and could not be charged as burglary. Receiving Stolen Property. Undercurrent law,individuals found with stolen Property may becharged with receiving stolen property, which isa wobbler crime, Underthis measure, receivingstolen property worth $950 or less would always be a misdemeanor, Writing Bad Checks. Under current law, writing a bad check is generally a misdemeanor,However, if the check is worth more than $450,orif the offender has previously committed a crimerelated to forgery, it is a wobbler crime, Underthis measure,it would be a misdemeanorto write a bad check unless the check is worthmore than $950 or the offender had Previously committed three forgery related crimes, in which case it would remain a wobblet crime. Check Forgery. Under current law, it is awobblercrimeto forge a check of any amount.Underthis measure, forging a check worth $950 orless would always be a misdemeanor,exceptthat it would remain a wobbler crime ifthe offender commits identity theft in connection with forging a check. Drug Possession, Under currentlaw, possessionfor personal use of most illegal drugs (such as cocaine or heroin)is a misdemeanor,a wobbler,ora felony—depending 6n the amountandtype of drug. Underthis measure, such crimeswould always be misdemeanors. The measurewould not change the penalty for possession of Analysis | 35 Prop Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute. Analysis by the Legislative Analyst marijuana, which is currently either an infraction or a misdemeanor We estimate that abour 40,000 offenders annuallyate convicted of the above crimes and would beaffected by the measure. However,this estimate isbased on thelimited available data and the actualnumber could be thousands of offenders higher or lower, Change in Penaltiesfor These Offenders, As theabove crimesare nonserious and nonviolent, mostoffenders are currently being handled at the countylevel, Under this measure, that would continue to bethe case. However, the length of sentences—jail timeand/or community supervision—would be less. Arelatively small portion—about one-tenth—ofoffenders of the above crimes are currently sent to statePrison (generally, because they had a priorserious orviolent conviction). Under this measure, none oftheseoffenders would be sent to state prison. Instead, theywouldservelesser sentences at the county level. Resentencingof Previously Convicted Offenders This measure allows offenders currently servingfelony sentencesfor the above crimes to apply to havetheir felony sentences reduced to misdemeanorsentences, In addition, certain offenders who havealready completed a sentence for a felony that themeasure changes could apply to the court to have theirfelony conviction changed to a misdemeanor,However, no offender who has committed a specifiedsevere crime could be resentenced or have theirconviction changed. In addition, the measure statesthat a courtis not required to resentence an offendercurrently servinga felony sentence ifthe courtfindsitlikely that the offender will commit a specified severecrime. Offenders who are resentenced would berequired to be onstate parole for one year, unless thejudge chooses to remove that requirement, Funding for Truancy Pravention, Treatment, andVictim Services The measure requires that the annual savings to thestate from the measure, as estimated by the Governor'sadministration, be annually transferred from theGeneral Fundinto a new state fund, the SafeNeighborhoodsand Schools Fund. Under the measure,moniesin the fund would be divided as follows: 36 | Analysis Continued * 25 percentfor grants aimed at reducing truancyand drop-outs among K-12 students in publicschools, * 10 percentfor victim services grants, * 65 percent to support mental health and drugabuse treatmentservices that ate designed tohelp keep individuals out of prison andjail. Fiscal Effects This measure would have a numberof fiscal effectson the state and local governments. Thesize of theseeffects would depend onseveral key factors. InParticular, it would depend on the way individuals arecurrently being sentenced for the felony crimeschanged by this measure. Currently, there is limiteddata available on this, particularly at che county level.Thefiscal effects would also depend on how certainprovisions in the measureare implemented, includinghow offenders would be sentenced for ctimes changedby the measure. For example, it is uncertain whethersuch offenders would be sentenced to jail orcommunity supervision and for how long. In addition,thefiscal effects would depend heavily on the numberof crimes affected by the measure that are committedin the future. Thus,thefiscal effects of the measuredescribed below are subject to significant uncertainty. State Effects of Reduced Penalties The proposed reduction in penalties would affectstate prison, parole, and court costs. State Prison andParole. This measure makes twochanges chat would teducethestare prison populationand associated costs, First, changing future crimesfrom felonies and wobblers to misdemeanors wouldmakefewer offenders eligible for state prisonsentences. We estimatethatthis could result in anongoing reduction to thestate prison population ofseveral thousand inmates within a few years, Second,the resentencing of inmates currently in state prisoncould result in the release of several thousand inmates,temporarily reducingthestate Prison population for afew years after the measure becomeslaw. In addition, the resentencing ofindividuals currentlyserving sentencesforfelonies that are changed tomisdemeanors would temporarily increase thestateparole population by a couple thousandparolees over athree-year period. The costs associated with this Prop Criminal Sentences. MisdemeanorPenalties.Initiative Statute. Analysis by the Legislative Analyst increase in the parole population would temporarily offset a portion of the above prison savings. State Courts. Under the measure, the courts would experience a one-time increase in costs resulting from the resentencing of offenders and from changing thesentences of those who havealready completed their sentences, However, the above costs to the courts would bepartly offset by savings in other areas, First, because misdemeanors generally take less court time to process than felonies, the proposed reduction in penalties would reduce the amountofresources needed for such cases, Second, the measure would reduce the amountoftime offenders spend on county community supervision, resulting in fewer offenders being supervised at any given time. This would likely reduce the number of courthearingsfor offenders who break the rules that they are requited to follow while supervised in the community. Overall, we estimate that the measure could result in a net increase in court costs for a few years with net annual savings thereafter. Summary ofState Fiscal Effects. In total, we estimate that the effects described above could eventually result in net state criminal justice system savings in the low hundredsofmillions of dollars annually, primarily from an ongoing reduction in the prison population of several thousand inmates. As notedearlier, any state savings would be deposited in the Safe Neighborhoodsand Schools Fund to support various purposes. County Effects of Reduced Penalties Theproposed reduction in penalties would also affect county jail and community supervision operations, as well as those of various other county agencies (such as public defenders anddistrict attorneys’ offices). CountyJailand Community Supervision. The Proposed reduction in penalties would have various effects on the numberofindividuals in county jails, Mostsignificantly, the measure would reduce the jail population as most offenders whose sentence currently includesa jail term would stayin jail for a shorter time period. In addition, some offenders currently servingsentencesin jail for certain felonies could be eligible for release. These reductions would be slightly offset byan increasein thejail population as offenders who would otherwise have been sentenced to state prison would now beplacedin jail. On balance, we estimatethat the total numberofstatewide countyjail beds For thefull text ofProposition 47, see page 70. Continued freed up by these changes could reach into the low tensof thousands annually within a few years. We note, however, that this would not necessarily result in a reduction in the county jail population of a similar size, This is because many countyjails are currently overcrowded and, therefore, release inmates early. Suchjails could use theavailable jail space created by the measure to reduce such carly releases. Wealso estimate that county community supervision populations would decline. This is because offenderswould likely spend less time under such supervisionifthey were sentenced for a misdemeanorinstead of a felony. Thus, county probation departmentscould experience a reduction in their caseloads of tens of thousandsofoffenders within a few years after the measure becomeslaw. Other County CriminalJustice System Effects. As discussed above, the reduction in penalties would increase workload associated with resentencingin the short run. However, the changes would reduce workloadassociated with both felonyfilings and other court hearings (such as for offenders who break the rules of their community supervision) in the long run, Asa result, while county district attorneys’ and public defenders’ offices (who participate in these hearings) and county sheriffs (who provide court security) could experience an increase in workload in thefirst few years, their workload would be reduced on an ongoing basis in the long run. Summary ofCounty Fiscal Effects, We estimate thatthe effects described above could result in net criminal justice system savings to the counties of several hundred million dollars annually, primarily from freeing jail capacity. Effects of Increased Services Funded hy the Measure Under the measure, the above savings would be usedto provide additional funding for truancy prevention,mental health and drug abuse treatment, and other progtamsdesigned to keep offenders out of ptison and jail. If such funding increased participation in these rograms and made participants less likely to commitfuture crimes, the measure could result in future additional savings to the state and counties. Visit http//cal-accesssos.ca.gov for details about moneycontributedin this contest. Analysis | 37 ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov.6, 2012), argument and rebuttal for and against Prop. 36 PROP 3 THREE STRIKES LAW. REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. The Three Strikes Reform Act, Proposition 36,is supportedby a broad bipartisan coalition of law enforcement leaders, civilrights organizations and taxpayer advocates becauseit will:* MAKE THE PUNISHMENTFITTHE CRIMEPrecious financial and law enforcement resources shouldnot be improperly diverted to imposelife sentences for somenon-violent offenses. Prop. 36 wil assure that violent repeatoffenders are punished and notreleased early.* SAVE CALIFORNIA OVER $100 MILLION EVERYYEAR Taxpayers could save over $100 million per year—moneythatcan be used to fundschools, fight crime and reducethe state'sdeficit. The Three Strikeslaw will continue to punish dangerouscareer criminals who commitseriousviolent crimes—keepingthem off the streets for 25 years to life. * MAKE ROOMIN PRISON FOR DANGEROUS FELONSProp. 36 will help stop clo. ging overcrowded prisons withnon-violent offenders, so we have room to keep violent felonsoff the streets. * LAW ENFORCEMENTSUPPORT Prosecutors, judges and police officers support Prop. 36because Prop. 36 helps ensure that Prisons can keep dangerouscriminals behind bars forlife. Prop. 36 will keep dangerouscriminals off the streets. * TAXPAYER SUPPORT Prop. 36 could save $100 million every year. Grover Norquist,President ofAmericans for Tax Reform says, “The ThreeStrikes Reform Actis tough on crime without being tough ontaxpayers. It will put a stop to needlessly wasting hundreds ofmillions in taxpayers’ hard-earned money,while protecting HERE’S WHATTHE SUPPORTERSOF PROPOSITION36 DON'T TELL YOU: * A hidden provision in 36 will allow thousands of dangerouscriminals to get thcir prison sentence REDUCEDandthen RELEASED FROM PRISON carly. According to theFresno Bee: “IfProposition 36passes, about 3,000 convictedfelons servingLife terms under Three Strikes couldpetitionfor a reduced Sentence , . , » * Someofthese dangerouscriminals will be teleasedWITHOUT STATE PAROLE OR ANY LAWENFORCEMENTSUPERVISION, Accordingto theIndependentLegislative Analyst: “Third strikers who are resentenced under this measure wouldbecomeeligiblefor county community supervision upontheir releasefrom prison, rather thanstate parole. . . some ofchem could bereleasedfrom prison without community supervision,”* PROPOSITION 36 IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.Prosecutors and judges already have the powertoimplementThree Strikes fairly. Here's what the President ofthe District Attorneys Association says: 52 | Arguments mmVUa] PROPOSITION 36 & ameAaValPaO people from violentcrime.” The California Stace Auditorprojects that taxpayers will pay millions to house and pay healthcate costs for non-violent Three Strikes inmatesif the law is notchanged. Prop, 36 will save taxpayers’ money,* TOUGH AND SMART ON CRIME Criminaljustice experts and law enforcement leaders carefullycrafted Prop, 36 so that cruly dangerous criminals will receive nobenefits whatsoever from the reform, Repeat criminals will getlife in prison for serious or violent third strike crimes. Repeatoffenders of non-violent crimes will get more than double theordinary sentence. Any defendant who has ever been convictedof an extremely violent crime—such as rape, murder, or childmolestation—will receive a 25 tolife sentence, no matter howminortheir third strike offense. JOIN US With the passage ofProp. 36, California will retain thetoughest recidivist Three Strikes law in the country butwill befairer by emphasizing roportionality in sentencing andwillprovide for more evenhanded application ofthis importantlaw.Please join us by Voting Yes on Proposition 36.Learn more at www,FixThreeStribes, org STEVE COOLEY, District Attorney Los Angeles County GEORGE GASCON,District Attorney San Francisco City and County DAVID MILLS, Professor Stanford Law School ‘Judges and Prosecutors don't need Proposition 36. Infact, it reducesour abiliry to use Three Strikes to target dangerous repeatfelons andGet themoffthe streess once andforall,” * 36 IS OPPOSED BY EVERY MAJOR LAWENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION AND VICTIMRIGHTS GROUP including those representing Californiapolice chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, an police officers.Notethar the supporters of 36 can't namea single lawenforcementorganization on theirside! * 36 WON’T REDUCETAXES, Government doesn't spendtoo much fighting crime.It spends toolitle. More crimecosts taxpayers too! We urge you to SAVE ThreeStrikes. Please Vote NO on 36. CHIEF RICK BRAZIEL, President California Peace Officers Association HENRYT. NICHOLAS, I, Ph.D., AuthorCalifornia’s Victims Bill of Rights CHRISTINE WARD, Executive Director CrimeVictimsAction Alliance Argumentsprinted on this Page are the opinions ofthe authors and have not been checkedfor accuracy by any official agency. PROP_ THREE STRIKES LAW. REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. * In 1994 voters overwhelmingly passed the ThreeStrikes law—a law that increased prison sentences for repeat felons. Anditworked! Almost immediately, ourstate's crime rate plummetedand has remained low, even during the currenttecession. Thereason is pretty simple. The same criminals were committingmostofthe crime—cycling through ourcourts and jails—overand over again. The voterssaid enough—Three Strikes andYou're Out! In 2004, the ACLU andother opponentsof tough criminallawstried to change Three Strikes. The voters said NO. Nowthey are back again with Proposition 36. They couldn't fool uslast time and they won'tfoolus this time. Just like before, Proposition 36 allows dangerouscriminalsto get their prison sentence REDUCED andthen RELEASEDFROM PRISON!So who does Proposition 36 apply to?* Criminals so dangerous to society that a District Attorneychose to charge them with a Three Strike offense:* Criminals so dangerous that a Judge agreed with DA'sdecision to charge; * Criminals so dangerousthat a jury convicted them ofthatoffense; * Criminals so dangerous that a Judge imposed a 25-toclife prison sentence; and * Criminals whose legal appeals were denied. After all that, Proposition 36 wouldlet those same criminalsask a DIFFERENT Judgeto set them free. Worse et, someof these criminals will be released from prison WITHOUTPAROLE ORANY SUPERVISION! Here's what the IndependentLegislative Analyst says aboutthe early release of someprisoners under Proposition 36:“Some ofthem could be releasedfrom prison withour communitysupervision.” No wonder Proposition 36 is OPPOSED by CaliforniaPolice, Sheriff's and law enforcement groups, including:California Police Chicfs Association Don't believe the scare tactics used by opponentsofProp. 36.Hereare thefacts: * Prop. 36 requires that murderers, fapists, child molesters,and other dangerous criminals serve rhejpFull sentences.* Prop. 36 saves taxpayers hundreds ofmullions ofdollars.* Prop. 36 stillpunishes repeat offenders of nonviolent crimesby doubling their state prison sentences,‘Today, dangerouscriminals are being released early fromprison becausejails are overcrowded with nonviolent offenderswho pose norisk to the public. Prop. 36 prevents dangerouscriminals from being released early, People convicted ofshoplifting a pair ofsocks, stealing bread or baby formula don'tdeservelife sentences, Prop. 36is supported by law enforcement leaders, including:° Steve Cooley, District Attorney of Los Angeles County* Jeffrey Rosen, District Attorney of Santa Clara County Argumentsprinted on thisPage are the opinions ofthe authors andhave not been checkedfor accuracy by any official agency. ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 36 & ECASbPUNYMaRSDOTIReg California State Sheriff’s Association California District Attorneys Association Peace Officers Research Association of California Los Angeles Police Protective League Whar do you chink these newly released hardened criminalswill do once they get out of prison? We already know the answerto chat: They will commic more crimes, harm orkill moreinnocentvictims, and ultimately end up right where they aretoday—backin prison.All ofthis will cost tax ayers tore thankeeping them behind bars right where they be ong.No wonder Proposition 36is opposed byvictim rights groups, including: Crime Victims United of California Crime Victim Action Alliance Citizens Against Homicide Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Atthe time Three Serthes was approved by the voters, somethoughtit might be too harsh or too costly, Voters rejectedthat view in 2004. But even if youbelieve that the Thee Strikeslaw should be reformed, Proposition 36 is not the answer.Any changeto the sentencing laws should only apply to fururecrimes committed—it should not apply co criminals alreadybehind bars—cuttingtheir sentences short. It is simply notfairto the victimsofcrime to have to relive the pain of resentencingand early release of these dangerouscriminals, We kindly askyou to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 36,LeUSAVERSIERES. COM SHERIFF KEITH ROYAL, President California State Sheriff's Association DISTRICT ATTORNEY CARL ADAMS,President California District Attorneys Association HARRIET SALERNO, President Crime Victims United of California 36 * George Gascon, District Attorney of San Francisco Cityand County * Charlie Beck, Chiefof Police of Los AngelesThey know that Prop. 36: * Requtres: Life sentences for dangerous criminals whocommitserious and violent crimes. * Makes the Punishment Fit the Crime: Stop wasting valuablepolice and prison resources on nonviolent offenders,® Saves Over $100 Million Every Year. STEVE COOLEY, District Attorney Los Angeles County JEFFREYF. ROSEN,District Attorney Santa Clara Coun CHARLIE BECK Chief of Police of Los Angeles Arguments | 53 Voter Information Guide, ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF Gen.Elec. (Nov.4, 2014), argumentand rebuttal for and against Prop. 47 oy Prop PROPOSITION47IS SUPPORTED BY LAWENFORCEMENT, CRIME VICTIMS AND TEACHERS.Wein the law enforcement community have cometogetherinsupport of Proposition 47 becauseit will: * Improvepublic safety. * Reduce prison spending and government waste.* Dedicate hundredsofmillions of dollars to K-12 schools,crime victim assistance, mental health treatment and drugtreatment. Proposition 47 is sensible. It focuses law enforcementdollarson violent and serious crime while providing new fundingforeducation and crime prevention Programs that will makeusallsafer. Here’s how Proposition 47 works: * Priorttizes Serious and Violent Crime: Stops wasting prisonSpace On petty crimes and focuses law enforcementtesources on violent andserious crime by changing low-level nonviolent crimes such as simple drug possession andpetty theft from felonies to misdemeanors, Keeps Dangerous Criminals Locked Up: Authorizes feloniesfor registered sex offenders and anyonewith a priorconviction for rape, murderorchild molestation,Saves Hundreds ofMillions ofDollars: Stops wasting moneyon warchousing people in Prisons for nonviolent pettycrimes, saving hundredsof millions of taxpayer funds everyyear. Funds Schools and Crime Prevention: Dedicates the massiveSavings to crime prevention strategies in K-12 schools,assistance for victimsof crime, and mental health treatmentand drugtreatmentto stop the cycle of crime.Fortoo long, California's overcrowded prisons have beendisproportionately draining taxpayer dollars and law enforcementresources, and incarcerating too many people convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses, The objective, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office Thisisn’t just a poorly written initiative, It is an invitationfor disaster. Prosecutors and those concerned aboutprotectingthe innocentfrom violent sexual abuse, identity theft and otherserious crimes overwhelmingly oppose Prop. 47. Some Opponentsinclude: * California Coalition Against Sexual Assault* California District Attorneys Association ® California Fraternal Order of Police * California Peace Officers Association * California Police Chiefs Association * California Retailers Association * California State Sheriffs’ Association * Crime Victim Action Alliance * Crime Victims United of California ae eal eTtat} Proposition 47 * PMTTT SUEa eTamNevad Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute. carefully studied Proposition 47 and concluded thatit couldsave “hundredsofmillions of dollars annually, which would beSpent On truancy prevention, mental health and substance abusetreatment, and victim services,” Thestate spends more than $9,000,000,000 per year on thePrison system. In the last 30 years California has built 22 newprisons butonly one university, Proposition 47 invests in solutions supported by the bestcriminaljustice science, which will increase safety and makebetter use of taxpayerdollars, We are: * The Diserice Attorney ofSan Francisco, former AssistantPolice Chieffor the Los Angeles Police Department, andformer Chief of Police for San Francisco. * The former Chiefof Police for the cities of San Diego, SanJose, and Richmond, ‘* A crimesurvivor, crime victims’ advocate, and widow of aSan Leandropolice officer killed in the line of duty.We support Proposition 47 because it means safer schools andneighborhoods. Joining us in our suppor: of Proposition 47 are other lawenforcementleaders and crime victims, teachers, rehabilitationexperts, business leaders, civil tights organizations, faithleaders, conservatives and liberals, Democrats, Republicans andindependents. Please join us, and VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 47,For more information or to ask questions about Proposition 47Weinvite you to visit VoteYés47.com. Seorge Gascon, District Attorney City and County of San Francisco William Lansdowne, Former Chiefof PoliceSan Diego,San Jose, Richmond Dionne Wilson, Victims’ Advocate Crime Survivors for Safety & Justice Prison inmatcs. many of whom have priot convictionsforserious crimes, such as assault, robbery and homeburglary,2. It's so poorly drafted that illegal possession of “date-rape”drugs will be reduced to a “slap on the wrisc.”3. Stealing any handgun valued ar less than $950 will no longerbe a felony. 4. California Retailers Association President Bill DombrowskiSays “reducing penalties for theft, receiving stolen propercyand forgery could costretailers and consumers millions ofdollars.” 5. There are no “petty” criminals in our Prisons any more.First-time, low-level drug offenders are already sent todiversion programs, not prison. Protect our communities. Vote NO on Prop. 47.Regardless ofwhat Prop, 47 Supporters intend or say, these respected Sandra Henriquez, Executive Directorlaw enforcement and victimsrights groups wantyou to know thesehard, coldfacts: 1. Prop. 47 supporters admit thar 10,000 inmateswill beeligible for early release. They wrote this measure so thatjudges will not be able to block the early release of these 38 | Arguments California Coalition Against Sexual Assault Adam Christianson, President California State Sheriffs’ Association Roger Mayberry, President California Fraternal Order of Police Argumentsprinted on this Page are the opinions ofthe authors, and have not been checkedfor accuracy by any official agency. Prop California law enforcement, business leadets, and crime-victimadvocates all urge you to vote NO on Proposition 47,Proposition yi is a dangerous andradical packageofill-conceived policies wrapped in a poorly drafted initiative, whichwill endanger Californians. The proponentsofthis dangerous measure have alreadyadmitted chat Proposition 47 will make 10,000 felonscligiblefor early release. According ta independent analysis, many ofthose10,000felons haveviolent criminal historiesHere is what Prop, 47’s backers aren't telling you:* Prop. 47 will reguive the release ofthousands ofdangerousinmates. Felons with prior convictionsfor armed tobbcry,kidnapping, carjacking, child abuse, residential burglary,arson, assault with a deadly weapon, and many otherserious crimeswill be eligible for early release underProp. 47. These early releases will be virtually mandated byProposition 47, While Prop. 47's backers say judgeswill beable to keep dangerous offenders from beingreleased carly,this is simply nottrue. Prop. 47 prevents judges fromblocking the early release ofprisoners except in very rarecases. For example,evenif the judge finds that the inmateposes a risk of committing crimes like kidnapping, robbery,assault, spousal abuse, torture of small animals, catjackingorfelonies committed on behalfofa ctiminal street gane,Proposition 47 requires their release, * Prop. 47 would eliminate automaticfelonyprosecutionforstealing a gun. Under current law,stealing a gun is a felony,period. Prop. 47 would redefine gfand theft in such a waythat theft of a firearm could only be considered a felony ifthe value ofthe gunis greater than $950, Almostallhandguns(which are the moststolen kind of hrearm)retail Dontbefooled by the opposition’s deceptive scare tactics:Proposition 47 does not require automatic release ofanyone. Thereis no automaticrelease. It includes strict protections to protectpublic safety and make sure rapists, murderers, molesters and themost dangerous criminals cannot benefit. Proposition 47 maintainspenaltiesforgun crimes, UnderProp. 47, possessinga stolen concealed gun remainsa felony.Additional felony penalties to Preventfelons and gang membersfrom obtaining gunsalso apply. Proposition 47does not reducepenaltiesfor any sex crime. UnderProp. 47, using or attempting to use any kind of drug to commitdate rape or other felonycrimes remains a felony.We have been onthefrontlines fighting crime, as policechiefs of majorcities, a top prosecutor, and a victims’ advocateworking with thousands of victims across California. We supportProposition 47 becauseit will: * Improve public safety. * Reduce prison spending and governmentwaste.* Dedicate hundredsofmillions of dollars to K-12 schools,victims and mental health treatment. Argumentsprinted on thisPage are the opinions ofthe authors, and have not been checkedfor accuracy by any official agency. Lae eneeet Proposition47 aNCB Teele eeTRAE Proposition 47 Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute. for well below $950. People don’t steal guns just so they canadd to their gun collection. They steal guns co commitanothercrime, People stealing gunsare protected underProposition 47, * Prop, 47 undermines laws Against sex-crimes. Proposition 47will reduce the penalty for possession of drugs used tofacilitate date-rape to a simple misdemeanor. No matter howmary times the suspected sexualpredator bas been chargedwith possession ofdate-rape drugs, it will only be amisdemeanor, and theJudge will beforced ro sentence them asifit were their veryfirst rime in court ° Prop. 47 will burden our criminal‘justice system, Thismeasure will overcrowdjails with dangerousfelons whoshould bein state prison and jamt California’s courts withhearings to provide “Get Out of Prison Free” cards.California has plenty of laws and Programsthatallow judgesand prosecutors to keep first-time, low-level offenders outof jailif it is appropriate, Prop. 47 would strip judges and prosecutorsof that discretion. Whena career criminal steals a firearm, or asuspected sexual predator possesses date tape drugs, or a carjackersteals yet anothervehicle, there needs to be an option besides amisdemeanorslap on the wrist, Proposition 47is bad for public safety, Please vote NO. Christopher W. Boyd, President California Police Chiefs Association Harriet Salarno, President Crime Victims United Gilbert G. Otero, President California District Attorneys Association ae Don't believe the scare tactics. Proposition 47:* Keeps Dangerous Criminals Locked Up. Authorizes feloniesfor sex offenders and anyonewith a prior conviction fortape, murderor child molestation. * Prioritizes Serious and Violent Crime. Stops wasting prisonSpace on petty crimes and focusesresources on violent andserious crime. * Provides newfundingfor education and crimeprevention.Proposition 47is sensible. Tharis whyit is supported by lawenforcement,crimevictims, teachers, rehabilitation experts,business leaders, and faith leaders. George Gascon, District Attorney City and County ofSan Francisco William Lansdowne, Former ChiefofPoliceSan Diego, San Jose, Richmond Dionne Wilson, Victims’ Advocate CrimeSurvivors for Safety & Justice Arguments | 39 ATTACHEDIS A COPY OFCalifomians Against Prop. 47require the prosecution to prove, and the court to find, that the defendantis anunreasonablerisk to society because he would likely commit oneofthelistedviolent crimes in § 667(e)(2)(C)iv). 3 Reasons @SenFeinstei2 of 13 . CALIFORNIANS AGAINSTPROP. 47 | About Proposition 47 Thosecrimesare limited to Sexually violent offenses, murder, certain sex crimeswith children under14, Solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gunOn a peaceofficer, possession of weaponsof massdestruction or a crimepunishable by deathorlife imprisonment, or “SuperStrikes” as they aresometimes known. Put another way, those crimes do notinclude anyof thefollowing (and this is a partiallist): 1. Carjacking 2. Armed Robbery 3. Assault on a peace officer or a firefighter with an assault weapon, a hand-gun,a shotgun or a knife. 4. Mostfelonies in which the defendant personally uses a firearm 5. Assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate 6. Bank robbery 7. Residential Burglary 8. Holding a hostage by a state prison inmate 9. Kidnapping 10. Drug trafficking, no matter how large the transaction 11. Shooting at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle oraircraft 12. Assault with a deadly weapon against a school employee 13. Non-fatal drive-by shootings 14. Witness intimidation 15. Throwingacid or flammable substancesat a victim 16. A felony where the defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury Moreover, to beeligible for the resentencing, the defendant must not havecommitted one of these “superstrikes’ in the Past. So, the prosecution’s burdenis to prove that someone who has never committed one of these particularoffenses before, poses an unreasonable risk of committing one in the future. As such, Proposition 47 saverely narrows the definition of “dangerousness” andthe scope of what the prosecution is able to present at the hearing whenasserting the inmate poses a risk te public safety. There are notests, noAssessments, no fortunestelling devices that foresee when a personis likely tocemmit a murder, or a rape, OF possess a weapon of mass destruction, Wouldthat there were = many victims could be saved. Even the most finely tunedassessmenttool at best can Say that an offender has a likelinaad of Violentlyrecidivating, but not which type of crime. These assessmenttools are simply scales based on other offenders with similarcharacteristics and backgrounds,i.e., a criminal actuarial table. They can predlet& possibility of committing a crimein the future compared te others with thesamedata points, but cannotpredict which Crime or whetherthe rime will occur,Nor, are they intended for this Purpose, but as a guide to assistin planning theappropriate level of supervision and treatmentto reducethatlikelihood torecidivate. Presumably, the hearingitself would be conducted in the same manner as anoriginal sentencing hearing or the Proposition 36 resentencings. However. there 3 of 13 http://californiansagainst47.com/about-propositio: (https:/Awitter.com/search http://t.co/zoxTfRdYO8 (ht No on Propositi eZ, 2 Months ago(https G3 Facebook Posts ND No on Prop 47 2 months ago (https:/Hacebook.com 1377263449092736) SHAREif you voted NO on Prop 47!! Let's get the word out and defeatthis dangerous measure. View on Facebook (https:/Avww. StopDateRape/photos /a.377279819091129,10737418 1394927177326363/?type=1 &re | Noon Prop | 67 NS) No on Prop 47 t Like 2.819 v_|oS CALIFORNIANSAGAINSTPROP. 47 | About Proposition 47 http://californiansagainst47.com/about-propositioris nothing in Proposition 47 indicating which rules of evidence and procedure should apply, or what evidence could be presented that might show the petitioner waslikely to commit murderor one of the otherspecified crimesin the future. Moreover, every petitionereligible to apply for this “resentencing” was committed to prison after conviction of one of the non-violent offenses covered by theInitiative. This makes the burden of proving theyare likely to commit one of those violentcrimes in the future that much moredifficult. Put simply, notonly is this an impossible standard to meet, butit is disenguously disguised asgiving the court discretion to deny the resentencing, whenit is designed to ensure that the court has no discretion and hence provides that no defendant could be denied. Andif a judge does denya petitioner that resentencing,it creates an immediately appeatable issue. As a consequence, many potentially violent individuals will be released— not becausethey do not pose a violent risk to society, but because the Act has excessively limited the scope of what is considered a risk of dangerto society and what the prosecution can presentto counter the defendant's eligibility. The standardwill far exceed the aim of Proposition 47. Instead of simply reducing prison populations by setting non-violent misdemeanantsfree, sentenced inmates with violent histories will have a higherlikelihood of freedom,at a substantial risk to the public. Further, this proposed new definition of “dangerousness’is notlimited to only the types of offenders serving termsfor crimes affected by this Act, but applies to any resentencing permitted by the Penal Code. Proposed Penal Code § 1170,18 (c) states, “As used throughout this Code, “unreasonable risk of dangerto public safety means an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaningof [§ 667(e)(2)(C)civ)].” (§ 1170.18, subd, ¢ [emphasis added.) By referring to “Code,” § 1170.18 would alter the meaning of “unreasonable tisk of danger to public safety," not only as it !s applied in § 1170.18 resentencing hearings, But in all other hearings that rely on the dangerousnessstandard througheut the entire Code. As a result, the prosecution would face the impossible barrier when Opposing resentencing for the Three Strlkes defendants under Penal Gode § 1170.126, Moreover, for any of the Three Strikes defendants praviously denied resentencing based upon a judicial finding of dangerousness, may appealthat rullng and recueat the court now apply this naw standard of dangerousness, resulting in a further cost to a court system already struggling financially, The Initiative Violates Victim's Constitutional Rights to be Present and be Heard A resentencing hearing ordered under the Act shall be considered a post-conviction proceeding and thus must comply with Cal. Const. Art. 1 §28(b)(7). However, the Act proposesthatif a petitioner has completed a sentencefora felony conviction that would have been @ misdemeanor. the 4 of 13 IV 94 MNT 1 991 CALIFORNIANSAGAINSTPROP. 47 | About Proposition 47 petitioner may file an application to have the felony designated as a misdemeanorwithout a hearing. (Proposed §1170.18(f), (h).) http://californiansagainst47.com/about-propositior Marsy’s Law requires that a victim have “reasonable notice ofall public proceedings,at which the defendant and Prosececutorare entitled to be present” and to be heard at any proceeding. . . involving sentencing, post-conviction release decision, or any proceeding in which a right of the victimsis at issue. “ (California Constitution, Art. 1 §28(b)(7),(8).) By deliberatelycrafting a procedure which would not require a hearing for a reduction post completion of a sentence,this Act not only violates the spirit and intent of Marsy’s Law,butit Clearly violates those newly enacted Constitutional rights. AlthoughtheInitiative would not require a hearing to resentence a convictedfelon to a misdemeanor sentence, Marsy’s Law would require that the victim have notice and be heard on any such resentencing. (Peoplev. Superior Court(Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal. App. 4th 1279, 1299.) DRUGS: PROPOSITION 47 UNDERMINES DRUG TREATMENT ANDINCREASESRISKS OF DRUGFACILITATED SEXUAL ASSAULTS Methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine are the scourge of neighborhoods across California. Theinitiative timits felony consequencesto only those who havea prior particular kind of violent felony or sex offense. Rather than makingneighborhoodssafer, this bill will not discourage possession of those drugs andwill minimize the effectiveness of court-directed treatment. Withoutthe potential felony consequences,there is no incentive to complete treatmentat court direction, The proverbial“stick” and “carrot” are diminishedsignificantly. For instance, Drug Courts are specially designed court calendarsproviding alternatives to traditional criminal justice approaches for non-violent drug-related offenses. These very succassful collaborative COUTTS Bré désignedfor felony offenders who have been unsuccessful in previous legally required diversion programs.If enacted,this initiative will sound the death knell for DrugCourts, as there is no incentive to do an 18 Month to 2 year intensive traatmentprogram when the maximum consequencesfor a drug conviction ts @ six month misdemeanortarm in county jail. Proposition 47 goes way beyond reducing the penalties for drugs of aagieton, Proposition 47 alse reduces tha Penalties for unlawful possession of predatory drugs. Rohypnol, Ketamine and GHE are drugs assaelated with drug facilitated sexual assaults, cammanly called “date-rape drugs.” Under current law, persons in unlawful possession of these drugs can be charged ag felons. Proposition 47, however, minimizes the scope of these types of crimes by reducingthe penaltyfor possession af Ranypnel, Ketamine, GHB and any other drug designad to rendera victim helpless to a simple tisdemeanor. This de-empnhasis is partioularly disturbing when measured against the unhappyreality of the increasing use of these drugs by sexual predators intent on engaging in serious criminal conduct. THEFT OF MOST HAND-GUNSWILL BECOME 35 of 13 1X94 9N14A 7917 CALIFORNIANS AGAINSTPROP. 47 | About Proposition 47 http://californiansagainst47.com/about-propositio1MISDEMEANORS Currently, the theft of any firearm is defined as a felony pursuant Penal Code §s487(d)(2) and 489. A felony conviction of Penal Code § 487(d)(2) is a serious felony(or strike) pursuantto Penal Code § 1192.7(c)(26). (People v. Rodola(1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1505.) There are sound policy reasons for Providing that theft of a firearm is a felony. Persons whostealfirearms do so with the intent to usethat firearm — now untraceable to the thief — in the commission of a violent crime. Unhappily, Proposition 47 de-emphasizes the seriousness of that crime by now providingthatvirtually all firearm thefts — and certainly all hand-gunthefts — would be reduced to misdemeanors. Proposed Penal Code § 490.2 would require that theft of a firearm, valued at less than $950, shall be punished as a misdemeanor, unless the offender has aconviction for one of a very narrow list of prior violent felonies oris a sex offender. Thus, a conviction of theft of a firearm would only qualify as a felonyifthe vaiue of the gun wasvaluedat over $950. A conviction of a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code § 487(d)(2) would not be a strike offense, as only convictionsoffelonies are priorable convictionsfor the Purposesof the ThreeStrikes Law, pursuant to Penal Code §s 667(b)-(i). HARMTO RETAIL BUSINESSES, FARMS AND BANKS The proposalto limit burglary, forgery, petty theft, grand theft, and possession ofstolen property to misdemeanors, irrespective of the number of priortheftconvictions,if the amountof loss remains lower than $950, is essentiallydecriminalizing conduct that causes yreat economic costs to business owners, farms, banks, and the community. Andin fact, petty theft could never be chargedas a felony unless the offenderhad previously been convicted of one of the very few prior crimeslisted In PenalCode § 1170.12(¢)(2)(C){iv), or has to register pursuant 6 Penal Code § 290(c). Thiswill lead to increased property crimes and costs to businaases that will bepassed on to the consumers, This proposalignores the fact that there are erlminals wnose very businessis to Steal. This law dees nothing to discourage that conduct, and in fact, encouragesit, by keeping the amount of any theft under 8860, and providing no felony consaquenoe for possession of controlied substancas, absent a very narrow particular prior criminalhistory. Also,it is important to note that while the preamble states that this Act will ensure that people convicted of murder, rape, and child molestation do not benefit from this Act, those Bréviously convicted of crimeslike robbery, residential burglary, assault with a deadly weapon andcriminal threats, as well as those who use weaponsandinflict great bodily injury, will. A prior conviction will elevate one the crimes the Act seeks to amend onlyif itfalls into a very limited category of prior violent crimes pursuantto Penal Code 6 of 13 CALIFORNIANS AGAINSTPROP. 47 | About Proposition 47 http://californiansagainst47.com/about-propositio§667(c)(2)(C)(iv), and specifically excludesall other serious and violent feloniesenumerated under Penal code §§ 667(c) and 1192.7(c). This means that a person with a prior conviction for robbery anduseofa firearm, whosteals a gunthat is worth less than $950, can be charged with only a misdemeanor. Or aperson with a prior conviction for residential burglary whoforgesa victim’s personal check for less than $950 can be charged with only a misdemeanor.UnderProposition 47, Personswith prior convictions for Stalking would still onlybe charged with a misdemeanor for possession of date-rape drugs. UnderProposition 47, persons with prior convictionsfor Carjacking or gang-relatedcriminal conduct could only be charged with a misdemeanorfor theft of ahand-gun. Additionally, with a limitation of six months to one yearfor these varied crimes,there is no inducement to seek the rehabilitation necessary to change criminalbehavior. Punishmentfor Felony Convictions of the Proposed Amended Crimesis Inconsistent with Penal Code § 1170(h)(3) The Act proposes to permit charging violations of Penal Code §s 459, 473, 476a, 480.2, 496, 484, and 487, and Health and Safety Code § 11350, 11377,and 11357 as felonies only if the defendant has suffered a prior conviction for aparticular type of serious or violent felony pursuant to Penal Code § 667(e) (2)(C)(iv). Even these Provisions, though, are illusory. Please understand thatthis list of serious or violent felonies in Proposition 47 is considerably narrower than the current Statutory array of serious or violentfelonies. In fact, the vast majority of serious andviolent felonies are excluded from consideration by Proposition 47. Here are just some ofthe violent orserious crimes that are excluded, which would assure that the predicate enma could only be charged as a misdemeanor: 1. Carjacking 2. Armad Robbery 3. Attault on a peace officeror a firafighter with an assault WEAPON, & handegun, a shotgun or a knife. 4. Moetfelonies in which the defendant personally uses a firearm 5 ASSault with a deadly weapen by an inmate 6. Bank robbery 7. Residential Burglary 8. Holding a hostage by a stata prigon Inmate 4. Kidnapping 10. Drug trafficking, no matter how large the transaction 11, Shooting at an inhabited dwelling, veniciea or aircraft 12. Assault with a deadly weapon against a school employee 13. Non-fatal drive-by shootings 14. Witnessintimidation 15. Throwing acid or flammable substances ata victim 7 of 13 CALIFORNIANS AGAINSTPROP. 47 | About Proposition 47 The Act then requiresthatif charged and convicted the sentenced shall be served pursuant to Penal Code § 1170(h),i-e., a prison term of up to 3 years in county jail. However, pursuant to Penal Code § 1170(h)(3), any person previously convicted of a serious or violent felony cannot servea term in county jail, but must be sentenced to serve an executed sentencein state prison. http://californiansagainst47.com/about-proposition ILLUSORY SAVINGS This Bill proposesthat the Directorof Finance shall calculate the Savings that accrueto the state by implementation ofthisbill. However,it does not indicate how those savings are to be calculated.Is this based only on savings to the California Departmentof Corrections and Rehabilitation? No offender convicted of the crimes that this Act Proposesto reduce to misdemeanors can currently be sentencedto state prison absent a serious or violent prior conviction due to Realignment. The majority of offenders convicted of one of these covered criminaloffensesareeligible for drug treatment programs already (Penal Code § 1000 or Penal Code § 1210), felony or misdemeanor probation, or a sentence to serve a prison term in county jail. This would not translate into any savings for the state, as mostof those convicted of these offenses are not currently a burden on state resources, e.g. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Moreover, the savings from eliminating a sentence to state prison for a felon convicted of one of the covered crimesis negligible becausethe only savings would come from those with prior serious or someviolent prior convictions, and underthe Act, a portion of these offenders WOuld still be eligible for felony punishment. Additionally,it is unclear how future savings could be calculated after year one, when thestate will not receive any new admissionsto state prison. Currently, all of these crimes (except a violation of Health and Safety Code § 11380), even with a prior serious or violent prior history, are wobblers. and ¢an be and often ara, resolved for Diversion Programs, Misdemeanors or Felony Probation. at best, it would be a guestimate as to how many offenders charged with one of these misdemeanars ever would have beeneligibig for state prison orultimately sentenced to state prison, instead ofan alternative consequence at a cust only to the sounty. SOME OTHER DRAFTING ANOMALIES OF PROPOSITION 47 Manyinitiatives drafted without critical ayes evaluating thelr drafting are replete with unexplainable questienasié provisions, defying understanding. Proposition 47 is no exception. Here are some of those questionable. poorly drafted anomalies: Felons cannot be Resentenced to Misdemeanors as Required by Proposed Penal Code § 1170.18. Proposed Penal Code § 1170.18 providesfor the resentencing of a felon currently serving a sentence or having completed a sentence for one of the new misdemeanor charges. This provision of proposed Penai Code § 1170.18 8 of 13 12 24 2014 .2:21 5 CALIFORNIANS AGAINST PROP. 47 | AboutProposition 47 http://californiansagainst47.com/about-propositiorcreates a legal absurdity whenit calls for a defendantto be “resentenced toamisdemeanor.” A defendantis not sentenced to a misdemeanor. A crimeispunished asa felony or misdemeanor. A crime can be reduced to amisdemeanorand thus sentenced, accordingly,if not a wobbler, to a maximumof six monthsin county jail. Thus, § 1170.18 would inadvertently give the judge authority to act outside thepowerofthe judiciary. The issuelies in the sections’ misuse of the term“resentence” asit relates to “resentencing” a felony to a misdemeanor. TheProposed law states: If the petitioner satisfies the criteria in subdivision (a), the petitioner's felonysentence shall be recalled and the petitioner resentenced to a misdemeanorpursuantto [Health and Safety Code] §s 11350, 11357,[etc.]... In defining a criminaloffense, the Legislature determines whether a crime isafelony or a misdemeanor by proscribing the sentencethat may be imposed.(Pen. Code, § 17.) Under Proposed § 1170.18’s “resentence” language, the court is authorized tochangethepetitioner's sentence from a felony sentenceto a misdemeanorsentence without changing the designation of the Original offense, Reducing theproscribed sentence for a felony conviction to a misdemeanorconvictionsentenceisin direct conflict with the law becausethe court is applying asentence applicable to a misdemeanor crime to a felony. Not only is this outside the powerofthe judiciary, but It has a negative effect on the petitioner who willretaln a felony conviction but receive a misdemeanor sentence. The Resentencing Provisions of Proposed Penal Code § 1170.18 Apply Only to Felons Sentenced to Prison and thusViolate Equal Protection. Pursuant to proposed Penal Coda § 1170.18(a) the resentencing provisionsapply only to anyone currently serving a sentence for a conviction of one of thefelonies proposed to be amended by the Act. A parson granted probation is notServing a sentence, Pursuant to Penal Code § 1203, propation “means theSuspension of the imposition or execution of a sentanoe and the order of conditional and revocable relensa in the community under the supervision of a Probation officer.” Granting ef probationIs quailtatively different from imprisonment. (People v.Howard, (1997) 19 Cal.4th 1084 , 1092). “The imposition of sentanoe Is equatedwith entry of a final judgment.” (People v. Mora (2013) 244 Cal.App.4th 1477.)Whena court suspends imposition of a sentence and grants probation, unless aprison sentencesis suspended, judgmentis not imposed and the defendantisnot sentenced. (People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1423-1424, CitingPeople v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081. 1087) Thus.this law would apply onlyto a person sentenced to state Prison, or local prison pursuant 10 Penal Code § A Ran CALIFORNIANS AGAINSTPROP. 47 | About Proposition 47 http://californiansagainst47.com/about-propositior4170(h). Whenthe Realignment Act was passedin 2011, the Appellate Court found thatapplication of Realignment only to offenders whose sentences were imposed onor after the effective date of the Act, but not to defendants who were sentencedbeforeits effective date, did not violate equal protection because the classification was supported by therational basis of maintaining theintegrity ofsentences that were valid when imposed. (Mora at p. 1484.) The Court went onto state that a statutory classification must be rationally related to a legitimatestate interest. (Id.) However,the Initiative proposed here would treat felonsalready serving a prison term more generously than those granted probation,who morelikely have significantly less culpability or criminal history. Probation isan act of clemency in hopesthat defendantwill be rehabilitated: whereas, imprisonmentis punishment. (People v. Moret (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 839, 860).Andyet, underthis new Act, probationers already convicted of one ofthefelonies that the Act seeksto amendwill be treated more harshly than thosepreviously imprisoned for commission of the samecrimes. This will likely spawnequalprotection challengesto the law. Persons Sentenced to Misdemeanors Cannot be Under the Supervision of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Proposition 47 providesthat “a person whois resentenced pursuantto Subdivision (b) shall be given credit for time served and shall be subject toparole for one year following completion of his or her sentence .. .” Undercurrent law, the maximum consequence for a non-wobbler misdemeanor conviction is six monthsin County jail, pursuant to Penal Code § 19, Upencompletion of that six months, the court loses jurisdiction and the DefendantIsnat subjact to any restraints. Pursuant to Penal Code § 19.2, a misdemeanantmay be sentencedfor up to one yearof confinement.All of tha proposed punishments for the amended felonies as misdemeanorswill be between six months and one year. Therefore, once the misdemeanant has served his sentence and has beenreleased, the court no longer retains jurisdiction over him. if 4 defendantis “resentencead” underthis Aat, after serving more than the maximum of six months or one year, d@pendent upon the unaariying committing offense, unlike a Person convicted of a felony, he cannot ba placed on parole or returned to jail for anyviolation thereof, Unlike an inmate released ater Completing @ pri¢en term, who is subject to a period of paraia ot povtrelvase community supervision, misdemeanor Fentences are not included In this Sentencing regime. This alstinction is intentional, as misaemeanants and felons are notsimilarly situated. (In re Valenti(1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 470.) “Thereis a significant difference in the Quality and duration of punishment, as well as the resultant long term effects.” (ld. at p. 475.) Upon completion of a 10 of 13 122 %M14 9-915 CALIFORNIANS AGAINSTPROP. 47 | About Proposition 47 http://californiansagainst47.com/about-propositiorcustodial sentence, a misdemeanant suffers no further loss ofcivil rights, is notSubject to spending three yearsin the constructive custody of DepartmentofCorrections on parole and maynot be reimprisonedfora violation of the terms ofparole. (id.) Evenif the “resentencing’ subjected the defendantto parole, that period ofsupervision would be essentially toothless.If the misdemeanant has alreadyserved the maximum custodial Sanction (including all applicable good timecredits), there can be no additional Custody imposed. (See Peoplev. Feagley(1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 774, vacated on other grounds,finding that the defendantfor whom imposition of sentence was suspended could not be ordered to servetime for a violation of probation, because the timecredit against the sentencewasfar more than its maximum duration of six months.) Given good time creditsand actualcustody, unless a defendanthas served lessthan three to six monthsactualtime, there would be no time left to impose any future violations. Once themaximum time has been servedin custody for a misdemeanor,no futuresupervision is enforceable by the threat of custody. Moreover,the Act conflicts with Penal Code § 3000.08. The Act requires that aperson resentenced pursuant to proposed Penal Code § 1170.18 be subject to §3000.08 parole Supervision. Penal Code § 3000.08 defines a parolee as apersonto be supervised by the Departmentof Corrections upon release fromstate prison after serving a prison term if the inmate served a term after aconviction for a serious felony pursuant to Penal Code § 1192.7(¢), a violentfelony pursuant to Penal Code § 667.5(c), a defendant sentenced asa thirdstriker pursuant to Penal Gade § 667(e)(2), a person classified as @ high risk sexoffender of a person Classified as a sexually violent predator. “Notwithstandingany otherlaw,all other offenders released from prison shall be placed onpostrelease supervision pursuant to Title 20.5 (commencing with § 3450).” The Act does not propose to amend PC 3000.08 and thus, the proposedraquirament that rasentenced offenders be Sentenced with post releaseSUBErvisiOn underthe supervision of the Department of Corrections as paroleespursuant to proposed Penal Code § 1170.18 is In eonnier with the existingstatute. By currently existing law, upen cempletion of a state prison sentence, a defendantis piacad upon Past Release Community Gupstvision (Penal Code §3000.08) of If serving local prison sentence,is released without any supervision,(Panal Gade § 1170(h)(5)(A). The ActWill Increase Costs to the State to Supervise Misdemeants on Parole who Currantly Are Under the Authority of the County upon Release from State Prison Even if thé resentenced misdemeanantcould b@ supervised on Parole, the Actdoesnotcalculate the costs to the state of supervising the offenders releasedfrom state prison on parole. This Act requires that any offender “resentenced’” pursuantto proposed 1170.18(d) be supervised on parole. The DepartmentofCorrections Division of Adult Parole is currently not responsible for the supervision of any offender convicted of the crimes affected by this Act and 11 of 13 CALIFORNIANS AGAINSTPROP, 47 | About Proposition 47 http://californiansagainst47.com/about-propositiosentenced to serve an executed term in State prison. Because such offendersare convicted of a non-violent, non-serious offense, they are supervised bycounty Probation Departments upon completionof the original state prisonsentence pursuant to Penal Code §§ 3000.08 and 3450, as post-releasecommunity supervision offenders. Moreover,this Initiative does not appeartolimit the “resentencings”to stateprison terms, and thus, would necessarily include any inmate currently servingan executed prison term in jocal county jail pursuant to Penal Code §§1170(h)(5)(A) and 1170(h)(5)(B). Such inmates are not under the supervision of paroleor postrelease community supervision upon completion of the local prison term.If the term is completedin local Custody with no period of mandatory supervision, then the defendantis not Supervised after release.If the defendantis granted a split sentence,then the mandatory supervision portion is supervisedby the county probation department. in either case, underthe Public SafetyRealignmentAct of 2011, the Department of Correctionsis not currently responsible for the supervision of any of the proposedoffenders, eligible topetition for the resentencing, upon release. Under the proposedAct, theseoffenders would be transferred to the jurisdiction of the California DepartmentofCorrections and Rehabilitation’s Division of Adult Parole despite never serving aday in state prison. (Penal Code § 1170.18(d).) This would actually increase state costs. For each resentencedstate or local county jail inmate ordered to be supervisedon parole, this adds an additional cost and burden to the already over-taxedDepartmentof Corrections, and contravenesthe intent and spirit of AssemblyBill 109 or Public Safety Realignment, and conflicts with currentlaw. Moreover,for those whe had been serving a local prison sentence, this adds anadditional term of supervision. This law, rather than decreasing the burden ofcanvietion of a felony for a defendant. adds @ paroletall that would nat previously have existed and exposes tha Intate to additional custadialSANCtIONS, and by extension, increased costs not just to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, but Sheriffs’ Depanments statewide for housing these subjacted to future custodial sanctions. & DOWNLOAD CDAA ANALYSIS (pelf} (hitp:/eallforniansagainsté?.comwp-content/uploads/CDAA-ANALYSIS- OF-PROPOSITION-47-AUGUST-29-2014. pdf) Paid for by Californians AgainstProp.47,Sponsored by California Public Safety Institute and Peace Officers Research Assoc.of Calif.Political Issues Committee (PORACPIC). Major funding by PORACPIc 2150 River Plaza Dr., #150 19 nf 13 CALIFORNIANS AGAINSTPROP. 47 | About Proposition 47 Sacramento, CA 95833 (FPPC # 1368083) e http://californiansagainst47.com/about-propositio1 13 of 13 TN Ne Rane eee ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF David Greenwald, Analysis: Perspective on Proposition 47, The Davis Vanguard (October29, 2014) Analysis: Perspectives on Proposition 47 | Davis Vanguard http://www.davisvanguard.org/analysis-perspectives-on-proposition: Los ink Fw we EMAIL SIGNUP DONATE LOGIN | davifiiachmeetianitvenquard) /ay/oPp natn /DONATEASPN) NEWS AY WATCH , ARCHIVES ABOUT US ADVERTISE HOME EAKING NEWS Analysis: Perspectives on Proposition 47 Date: October 29, 20141g . penwa 7 TrueBlueDevi on Commentary: WhyThis GoeBevondFerguson andStatentsia noted that, while it reduces over-incarceration for largely petty and non-violent offenses, there are concerns, particulary the elimination of Penal Code section 487(d)(2} which mandates an automatic felony for the theft of a handgun. The column also demonstrated that, for moat intents and purmoses, the proposed Penal Code section 400.2 would require all thefts vatued at lass than $960 te be a misdemeanor. but there are gray areas that make that unlikely for the theft of a handgun, We were fascinated to read a piece publish i a ae Judge Couzens, having served ag a tial dae fer ever 97 yeare, writeo. “l share in the laudable goal of Proposition 47 to fabeiVe Sri6ne for violent and seriaus offenders and to make funding available for weatment ano cnmo pravention.” Howowsr, he orgues. “yolers must uncerstand mat Passage of Prop. 47 on tne Nov. 4 bailet will have eénous Contequencar, Camo of wnion may adversely affect public safety." He writes, "Under durrent law. pcople who comm: threor more Prior Inefl affencec witn a term ef suetedy iMposed as punishment may be prosecuted as 4 felon, Prop. 47 ellminates the cnme ot “petty thefi with a por’ except for a narrow Group of people éxclided fram the act" He adds. “The Initiative make simple poscecsion of concenvated cannapie, MOMAMPNetaMins, eeeaind and harain a MHGSOMGERSE GUBAIARGS Abuas rarcly oriaca ovemight and certalnly cannot be effectively treated overnight. The progress lo recovery frequenuyic ‘one sip torward, We BIOB DOGK. Length of prabation Is an important diferance in rolony yersug misgeMeaner Sentencing ~ five years for felonies and three yoars for migdemeanors. The judad writca. “The tworycar reduction In probation supervision will significantly interfere with treatment of the seriously addicted. The pramature roiogce of meee people trem Guperviaion only sets them upfor fatlure.“ The problem with me juago’e analyeig nore 16 that there 18 no avidence that the current system actually works to get People off of drugs. So,it is not a8 though we are taking a successful but expensive program and ending it, The Judge argues, “The benefits of reduced sentencing are not available to people convicted of a registerable sex offense, a crime related to murder and a few otherlimited crimes. However, they are available to people who have prior convictions for dangerous crimes such as kidnapping, assault with a firearm, robbery, arson, gang activity, residential burglary and domestic violence with great bodily injury. The inability to prosecute these people as felons will reduce their accountability and increase the risk to public safety because of reduced probation supervision.” He continues, “Prop. 47 allows people already sentenced as 2 ‘eicr x De "sentences as a Tasgemeanor # Mey woud have beeneligible for "uscemears- semtenang Unser Te new du ac are wo ar STORIE EG "Be Of Danger to DuDEt PVVD AAT A SIE Analysis: Perspectives on Proposition 47 | Davis Vanguard http://www.davisvanguard.org/analysis-perspectives-on-proposition- saiety.’ Prop. 47 only allows judgesto find ‘dangerousness’if the person likely would commit a tegisterabie sex crime, a crime related to murder, or a few other specified crimes. Resentencing would be required for people likely to commit many other dangerous crimes.” The latter sentence is a point in dispute, where proponents of the law argue that judges would have sufficient discretion to avoid resentencing of people who committed a variety of “dangerous crimes.” Judge Couzens continues, “Mostsignificantly, Prop. 47 expandsthe resentencing provisions underthe three-strikes taw, Prop. 36, enacted by the voters in 2011, permits resentencingof certain strike offenders, unless to do so would create an ‘unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.’ Broad discretion was given to judgesto determine who would pose such a danger.” He adds, “Prop. 47 imposesits more restrictive definition of dangerousness on people sentenced under the three-strikes law. People now serving a third-strike sentence will be allowed to submit a request for resentencing under the more liberal provisions of Prop. 47, even though a judge has already determined they are too dangerousto get relief under the existing law.” He continues, “The resentencing provisions of Prop. 36 apply only to people serving a 25-years-to-life third-strike sentence underthe three-strikes law. Prop. 47 would extend ing to d-strike offend d by the act. Relief could be denied only if the court found the Person was dangerous under the proposition's very narrow definition.” “Finally,” Judge Couzens says, ‘the treatment and crime prevention fund created by the act is illusory. The initiative directs the director offinance to ‘calculate the savings that accrued to the state from the implementation of the act from the currentfiscal year as compared with the preceding fiscal year. “Other than the requirementto use current data ‘or best available estimates,’ there is no Specified method for calculating the savings.It is naive to believe that in these difficult financial times, state government will willingly divert significant ‘savings’to this iil-defined fund.” Judge Couzens concludes, therefore, “Although the objectives of Prop. 47 are laudable, voters must determine whether this initiative is the proper wayto reach those objectives.” Darrell Steinberg and Rusty Selix Outgoing Califomia Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Rusty Selix of Califomia Council of Community Mental Health Agencies have a different perspective, arguing that “when it comes to mentaliiness within our criminal justice system,the facts tell a damning story - one for which we must rewrite the ending.” They argue that Prop. 47 can “help rebuild our mental health and community infrastructure by reducing waste in the very - place — prisons - that has swallowed up those resources overthe years.” They cite & Stanford Law Schoolreport from eartier this year, saying that “ihe number of mentallyill peaple in Califomia ptigons doubled from 2006 to 2014; currently 45 percentof prisoners have been treated for mental illness within the past year.” Thay continue, “The study also échoed findings by the U.S. Justice Departmentthat Mentally Ul inmates in state prisons serve 15 months longer than other inmates on average. Such inmates are also stuck, without treatment. in cycles of ¢rime and incarceration. A study in Los Angeles County found that 90 percent of jail inmates who had been incarcerated two or more times had serious mental health problems.” ‘They argue, “Ail this adds up to an incredibly expensive and ineffective approach to both public safety and public health.” “BO Mow GIG We Arfive at thio crisis? they ask. “From the 1950s through the 1970s, California passed laws to move responaibility for mcntal health care from large state institutions to 9 modelof local, community-based care. Gut there never waa any followetnraugn {0 snkure (Nl INTractructurS WAR Oregted ONG CUDPEREd. “As looal and stato loadore battied over ethor budgoto onorilica, mental health beds vanished and nothing materanized ai the local loval. Aa a recent example, Californls cut 21 percent ($806 million) fram menial neath programe mom 7000 w 2042 ~ the mastin the nation = accoraing to ino National Alliance on Montel Heath, “By falling to invest in iocal (reayment and recovary options.if 19. addy, no auroras that people with mental hesith needs have ended up in our jails. courta and prisons," they argue. “And while there neeas to be aecountapinty for erimes, warehousing mentallyill people In our pnsons ~ forcing tnam to va in crowded, violent and GOlitary Gonditiona — docs not address the underlying faciors of their behavior In fact, Califemia it currently under & federal mandale to reduce Prison crowaling partly DOC3IUCO of 5 IAWOUIS SPOUT IRAGCMUGLG MEAL MOANA Bare,” They welts, “If our goal ic 10 chango bonuvior, NER OPPUMIGBHITY MUG TOKO ING GEGSUNL Nev te Bravont future hann. In Omer WOrds, Weating MENtEl Ilingas 14 Adt ditdly a moral obliaation but also a public safety strategy “Growing censensua for such a strategy inspired us in 2004 to autor tno Caifernis Mental Health Gervioos Aci. a aucccaatulvoter inillailve thet produced $7 2 olan sor montat nogun negag gna wet eves 400,000 Galferuans within {ts first five years.” ney contnusd “We are awed by tho impact. put 10 yeare later wo olill have far lao many esonle with mentalIilncas eycllag In anc ou or our prisena and jails — and far teo much taxpayer money locked in thal same system “That's why we support Proposition 47, along with the Califomia Psychiatric Association, some law enforcementofficials, aime victims, business leaders and many others.” Senator Steinberg and Mr. Selix argue that Prop. 47 ‘would provide $50 million to $100 million each year for mental health and drug treatment. It would do so through reduced prison costs. specifically by categorizing sx nonviolent. low-level felonies as misdemeanors (e.g. crug ocssessior pety shooating anc wang 2 nec check that cer te addressed with county ja: ‘eres Yeates “equraments anc omer forms of accourmacuty © ALP Ce2)OCcome creelelite) xDPAKPOUR FAMILY LAW Divorce, Child Custody, Support SAAOL eenOe eltea oRasaUa 530-758-0119|WWW.OMSOFT.COM Analysis: Perspectives on Proposition 47 | Davis Vanguard http://www.davisvanguard.org/analThey conclude, “We cannot change the troubling facts about Califomia's recent approach to mental health, but we cancnange course to create a more humane, effective justice System. Passing Proposition 47 is an important step in thatdirection.” ysis-perspectives-on-propositic —David M. Greenwaid reporting share £4 WS Bo in. O09 David Greenwaidis the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded theVanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate Schoo! at UC Davis inPolitical Science. He tives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamitia Greenwald and three children.¥ (ODay Eins , In MERAY LINKedin com/profile/view?ide 578 lata teoew di a-monthiy-subsenber. a Q u y PSOnetoga @eesbeyona-ferguson, = NOSIS P E F EE,Vanguard | ooking for a n c Sialen-igangy SPH apoy Hougaval Thanks tar Forquson COWNIY POLONIAAdlong va $y q Jaland For More of a Tako From ‘punaHAVIWAHAUard.org (tito dAviavong ward.org Annexation Projects {NMD-GUDDOtthevanguarg. -AUOITUMARTARY Witythi(NMRO/ww davisvanguard.org leroy {Gduaty-potentiallytooking.banoms-8-monthiy. AOAE-BAVAAE tergusore ; foremuresut-s-aKy- aUBASHD SL today/) Anfeatatorialond/) rom aanoxuy,Daeerber 25, 4010 Casember gd,O04 {romSnN@ABUON REBIONEA Gecemow 33. 7010 A! 3 of 6 P93 %NI14 ee Analysis: Perspectives on Proposition 47 | Davis Vanguard Robert Canning Ostob http:/www.davisvanguard.org/analysis-perspectives-on-propositior ‘a itis curious that Judge Couzens asserts thatthe release language from Prop 47 is more “restrictive™in itsdefinition of dangerousness. The language of both propositionsdis identical ~ a judge must find that the persondoesnot pose an “unreasonable risk to public safety.” The criteria that a judge may review to makethat decisions identical between 47 (Sec, 14(b) and(c)) and 36 (Sec, 6(f) and (g)). Prop 36 does not define dangerto publicsafety but the definition in Prop 47 is commonly used: “unreasonable risk thatthe petitioner wilt commit a newviolent felony.” Vote no on proposition 47. There are true criminals and there are people that needs treatment and counseling.Proposition 47 is a Poorly constructed initiative that does not draw enough ofa distinction between the two, andhence will increase the “tax” that law abiding citizens have to pay as a result of increased criminal activity. Prop 47 does nothing to deal with the underlying problemsthat criminal courts have when dealing with mentally ilidefendants which is the Inability to easily compeltreatmentto include forced medication. When a defendantorprobationerdeclines to Participate in treatmentor to take their medication the court is left with no option butincarceration whenthey are dangerousoff of medication or seif medicating with methamphetamine or marijuana.Maybe David should do a Story on the current yolo county mental health court. One of the goals of that programis to reduce incarceration days for qualifying probationers. Oneof the challengesis that it is voluntary meaningthat the probationer can Opt outat any time, Mr. Steinburg has had many years to Comeup with legislation thatempowers thecriminal courts with the authority and resourcesto addressthe issue of mentalillness in thecriminaljustice system and has not done so. A system like the conditional release program (CONREP) used forthose found not guilty by reason of insanity where judges could foree probationers to participate in the programCould reduce the prison Population. | wonder why Mr. Steindurg could not get these changes through the Is thatit is voted on by tne publie whe have very litle knowledge conceming the system they are changing basedon political spin in poiltieal ads. Referringto it ag the safe schools and neighborhoods initiative ia juet anotherexample ofthe delitical spin. Prop 47 hopes to generate more revenuefor the Mentally ill similar to the claim regarding education funding. Itmakes no guaranteca that one dollar Mere will && spent on either orogram “It makos no guarantese that ono dollar more will be spant on either program.” because | Can't, ail It can do ik nopetnat by freeing up wasted money and nope mat ne Mengy wil be USGS better, maybe it wont po. "Maybe David should do a story on the current yolo county mental health coun one ar ino genie of norprogram is 10 ranues Inearceration daysfor qualifying probationers. One of ina CNONONgS? 18 Wat tlevoluntary MOORING that thé probationer can optout at any MG. Mf. Steinbure haa had many yoaro toCome UP Wi Hbgialation that empowore tng gnminal #burté mth tho authonty and Tesources to address He ieeue of mental iliness in the eriminal wéles oyolam ond haz nal danc a0 sh spate ike tHeSonditional release program (CONREP)used for thaac found not oulity by reason oF Inggnity Where judges could force probationers ta participate in the program could requce tne pneen Population * i thougnt ne had. TAS Yélo mental health cour tt ony nanaies misdemeanors (typical for mental health courts) and tnecodiclpants ace poctaqyuaicoyen, Pretty sureall are felonsthat are post-adjudication. This erroneous commentis just another reason why David should do a Story on the mental health court. Doesit work? [>| 4 of 6 Analysis: Perspectives on Proposition 47 | Davis Vanguard http://www.davisvanguard.org/analysis-perspectives-on-propositioyDavis Progressive “The problem with the judge's analysis here is that there Is no evidence that the current system actually workstoget people off of drugs. So,it is not as though we are takiIng a successful but expensive program and endingit.” this is the problem. everyone Says, oh if we don"t use felony convictions as the Stick, no one will getbetter. doesdrug court work? Ottobe Prop 47 would reduce felonies to misdemeano:rs. By doing so,this would allow meth and heroin users who wouldotherwise be prohibited from Possessing a firearm to being allowed to legally own firearms,Thus,the Passage of Prop 47 would simply lead to an uptick in criminal activity.This would also Swing openthe floodgatesfor tweakers, heroin addicts and a hostof other scumbagstopotentially become police Officers,firemen, ambulance attendants and of course teachers of YOURchildren.Only in the land offruits and huts would somethinglike this even be on our radar screens. Davis Progressive 4 at 8: because the law right nowis preventing tweakers from Possessingfire arms? Legislation via voter propositionsresults in some serious unintended consequences. We have overcrowdedprisons in large part because of prop. 186,the three stikes law which we tried to fix with prop 36, | am notOpposed to prop 47 butit would be nica if our legislators could/would write the laws instead of this crazy process. Leave a Reply You roustbe jp 2 AA CaviSva © 2016 Tha Pop'n Vanguard ot Dane | Gasramonic Websue Gosign and implomentahon by Jen Sade yoy Gah ease ee dea rey am TNTALCene vers ory) | Terma Of oy IMIwaw.davievanguard.crgtorg-al-uoc! >| 3 of6 ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF Our Readers Say: Police, sheriffs say no to Prop 47 (October 24, 2014) Redland Daily Facts Our Readers Say: Police, sheriffs say no to Prop 47 {ofa http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/opinion/20141024/our-readers-: Our Readers Say:Police, sheriffs Say no to Prop 47Posted: 10/24/14, 12:15 PM PDT RedlandsDailyFacts.com Police, sheriffs say no to Prop 47 On Nov. 4, Californians will be voting on several important Propositions. You might have seena television ad lately praising the benefits of Proposition 47, known asthe “SafeNeighborhoods and Schools Act.” Like many recent propositions andlegislativebills, this oneis misleading and dangerously named,for several reasons. Prop 47 will mandate misdemeanors instead offelonies for “non-serious, nonviolent crimes,”unless the defendanthasprior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certaingun crimes.It will also permit re-sentencing for anyone currently serving a prison sentence foranyof the offenses that theinitiative reducesto misdemeanors,whichwill likely result in therelease of thousandsofcriminals. AB 109, better knownasthe “Public Safety Realignment’shifted the responsibility of housinginmates to the county. This resulted in the overcrowdingofjails and the early release ofthousandsofcriminals. Prop 47will follow suit. Proponents ofthe Proposition say thatletting10,000felonsoutof prison, and lessening penalties for crimes like gun theft, possession ofdate rape drugs, and identity theft, will benefit California's law-abiding citizens. This thinking iscritically wrong. Oneof the stark facts staring us in the face when it comes to Prop 47is that some of the mostdangerous and disruptive crimes imaginable are not necessarily violent in nature. At times, lawmakers and otherpoliticians make the mistake ofthinking thatif they keep violentoffenders in jail, and release nonviolent ones, there will be no appreciable increase in s@riouscriminalactivity. This Is obviously and demonstrably wrong. Do youreally believe that a personwho writes bad checks on your account, who forges your name,steals hundreds of dollars from you, and ruins your credit, should not face felony charges when caught? Whenit comesto the sort of nonviolent crimes addressed by Prop 47, we're not talking aboutPossession or use of marijuana—we're talking about hardcore drugs like cocaine, heroin, andthe date rape drug GHB. Prop 47 waters down the penalty for stealing firearms, and byconverting felonies to misdemeanors, criminals who would otherwise be prohibited frompossessing a firearm would now, underthis new law, b@ allowad to own guns. Misdemeanorsgenerally do not carry the same gun ownershiprestrictions that felonies do, so the passage ofProp 47 will lead to the increased arming of convicted criminals. Advertisament This dacaptive propasition also rewrites our laws to makeit easierfor violent Thraa Strikesinmates to gain early release. The Alliance for a Safer California says, “The Three Strikesreform law (Proposition 36) allowed certain Three Strikes prisoners to petition for earlyrelease, as long as they did not pose ‘an unreasonable risk of dangerto public safety.” 12 242014 2:05" Our Readers Say: Police, sheriffs say no to Prop 47 http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/opinion/20 141024/our-readers-: Prop 47 would rewrite California law, including the Three Strikes Reform law, to give the term“unreasonable risk of dangerto public safety” a very narrow definition. Under the Prop 47definition, only an inmate likely to commit murder, rape, or a handful of otherrare crimes (likepossession of a weapon of mass destruction) can be kept behind bars as a dangerto publicSafety. If Prop 47 passes, violent Three Strikes inmates who commit robbery, assault with a deadlyweapon,felony child abuse, arson, kidnapping, spousal abuse,child abduction, carjacking,and scoresof other serious felonieswill no longer be defined as “dangerous” underCalifornialaw. Additionally, the Nationa! Association of Drug Court Professionals warnsthat “Proposition 47providesfor virtually no accountability, supervision or treatment for addicted offenders...Proposition 47 removesthe legal incentive for seriously addicted offenders to seek treatment.Proposition 47 turns a blind eye to over two decadesof research and practice thatdemonstrates addicted offenders need structure and accountability in addition to treatment tobecome sober...” There is no end to the dangerous, unintended consequencesofthis proposedlaw. It changescrimeslike purse and phone snatching—expensive items in which we keep muchof ourprivate information—into petty theft, the same as stealing a candy bar. Dothecitizensof ourcounty wholive in rural areas really want the courts to handle the theft of horses and otherlivestock as mere misdemeanors (in many cases)? There are provisions in the proposed lawthat do not make much sense: burglars who strike businesses are treated as misdemeanoroffendersif they strike during work hours, but as felonsif they burgle during off-work hours: yetit is during work time that employees are present and most vulnerable. Have we really thoughtout the ramifications of altering our laws $0 that Stealing a handgun—often to be used in aviolent crime—is handled as a misdemeanor, in almost all cases? The backers of Prop 47 would like you to believe that the new law will save millions of dollars,and that thase dollars will be spent on a wide variety of very good social services. The truth ig,the savings generated by Prop 47 are questionable and a bet against public safety: a cheappolitical trick designed to eon voters inte thinking schools and studentswill be showered withall the money saved by releasing felons into our nelghborhoods. This philosophyis flawed,and for that reason the San Bernardino County Chiefs of Police and Sheriff's Associationopposes Proposition 47, along with every major law enforcement and victim advocateorganization in California, Including the California District Attorneys Association, CaliforniaCoalition Against Sexual Assault, California Police Chiefs Association, California State SheriffsAssociation, and Crime Victims United. Please vote no on Proposition 47. — San Bemardinda County Police Chiefs and SheriffAssociation: President Chief Mark Garcia,Redlands Police Depanment: Vice President Chief Tony Farrar, Rialto Police Department:ChiefJarrod Burguan, San Bernardino Police Department: Chief Mike deMoet, MontclairPolice Department; Chief Eric Hopley, Ontario Police Department: Chief Rod Jones, FontanaPolice Department; SheriffJohn McMahon, San Bernardino County Sheriff, ChiefJeffMendenhall, Upland Police Department: Chief Miles Pruitt, Chino Police Department: andChiefAlbert Ramirez, Barstow Police Department. ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF The Alliance for a Safer California, accessed September 25, 2014 ~http://www.votenoprop47.org Facts - No on Prop 47 http://www.votenoprop47.org/No_On_Prop_47_Facts. Home Prop 47 Facts Facts Groups and Leaders Prop 47 will release dangerous Three Strikes inmates. Prop 47Opposedto Prop 47 goes far beyondpettycrimes.It rewrites our laws to makeit easier forviolent Three Strikes felons to gain early release.Contact The Three Strikes reform law (Proposition 36) allowed certain ThreeStrikes prisoners to petition for early release, as tong as they did notpose "an unreasonable risk of dangerto public safety." Prop 47 would rewrite California law,including the Three Strikes Reformlaw, to give the term “unreasonable risk of danger to public Safety" avery narrow definition. Under the Prop 47 definition, only an inmatelikely to commit murder, rape, or a handful of other rare crimes(likepossession of a weapon of mass destruction) can be kept behind bars as& danger to public safety, If Prop 47 passes, violent Three Strikes Inmates who might commit robbery, Assault with a deadly weapon, felony child abuse, arson,kidnapping, spousal abuse, child abduction, carjacking, and scores ofother serious felonies will no longer be defined as "aangerous" underCalifornia law. If the inmate is eligible for early release under eltherProp 47 or the Three Strikes Reform law, the court will be powerless tostopit. Prop 47 will make It Impassibi¢ to stop many criminals frombuying or possessing guns. Under current law, convicted felons can'tpossessfirearms in California. By changing street crimes like purse-snatching and many burglaries Into misdemeanors, Prop 47 makesitimpossible to stop criminals convicted of thase and other offenses fromhaving guns, Prop 47 will seriously harm efforts to help drug-addictedcriminals get sober. The National Association of Drug Court laf Facts - No on Prop 47 http://www.votenoprop47.org/No_On_Prop_47__Facts.h Professionals (NADCP), the nation’s leading organization working to help criminal addicts break the cycle of drug abuse, strongly opposes Prop 47. The NADCP warnsthat "Proposition 47 provides for virtually no accountability, supervision or treatment for addicted offenders...Proposition 47 removes the legal incentive for seriously addicted offenders to seek treatment...Proposition 47 turns a blind eye to over two decadesof research and practice that demonstrates addicted offenders need structure and accountability in addition to treatment to becomesober..." Prop 47 is completely unnecessary. Prop 47's backers say their goal is to keep low-level offenders out of prison. What they don't say is that California law already requires this. In 2011, California passed a major sentencing realignment that prevents sending anyoneto prison in California unless they have had convictions at some point for violent crimes, sex offenses, or other serious felonies. With a few exceptions, these are the prison inmates Prop 47 will free. The 2011 realignment has already resulted in the early release of many violent or habitual criminals, including child abusers, Spousal abusers, and professional thieves. Property crime is already up 8%, and thingswill only get worse under Prop 47. Prop 47 rewrites our laws to benefit criminals. Prop 47 is a lengthy pléce of legislation with many hidden provisions. Some of the not-86- obvious things Prop 47 will do are: « Change crimes like purse and phone snatching -- where thieves grab expensive property right off your body -- inte petty theft, the same as stealing a candy bar. e Make possession of "dare rape" drugs a misdemeanor. « Protect many commercial burglars fram being charged with a felony db lung a6 they strike during work hours -- when it's most aangereus for employees, * Make stealing a handgun -- which is often done to commit violent crimes -- a misdemeanorin almost ail cases, e Reduce sentences for muggers, BUrgIBYS, CO4RIN4 AAA Herein dealers, and other dangerous criminals who pled guilty to lesser offenses like grand theft or possession. + Make receiving property obtained through extortion a misdemeanor TS SA SAT 1 &.17 Facts - No on Prop 47 http://www.votenoprop47.org/No_On_Prop_47_Facts (up to $950). e Make stealing horses and other animals a misdemeanorin manycases. Prop 47 will hurt consumers. Professional retail thieves, commercialburglars, and identity thieves cost California consumers and businessesmillions of dollars every year. Prop 47 slashes penalties for these crimes. Law enforcementleaders and crime victim advocatesoverwhelmingly oppose Prop 47. Prop 47is Opposed by every majorlaw enforcement and victim advocate organization in California, includingthe California District Attorneys Association, California Coalition AgainstSexual Assault, California Police Chiefs Association, California StateSheriffs Association, and Crime Victims United. They oppose Prop 47 becauseit will do nothing to help true low-leveloffenders. Becauseit will release thousandsof felons into our streets.And becauseit is a serious dangerto California. Please vote no. Alliance for a Safer Calfornia 3 of 3 TPAD FATA Seat Home- No on Prop 47 http://www.votenoprop47.org/index.| Home vacte Vote No on Proposition 47 Groupsand Leaders Prop 47 is opposed by every major law enforcementand crimeOpposed to Prop 47 victims organization in California. Here's why: Contact + Prop 47 goes far beyond petty crimes. It rewrites our laws to makeit easier for violent Three Strikes felons to gain early release. + Prop 47 will make it impossible to stop manycriminals from legally purchasing firearms. - Prop 47 will seriously harm efforts to help drug-addicted criminals get sober, + Prop 47 prevents judges from blocking the early release of dangerous inmates, including offenders with prior convictions for armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, residential burglary, carjacking, arson, and child abuse. - Under Prop 47,it will no longer be a felony to steal most handguns. It will no longer be a felony to possess date rape drugs. Snatching your purse or phone right out of your hand will be considered "petty theft” -- the same as stealing a candy bar. 1 of 2 am mm 1 24 4014 1:30 http://www.votenoprop47.org/index Visit our Facts page to learn more. Alliance for a Safer California is a voter-run independent expenditure committee opposingCalifornia Proposition 47. Prop 47 is a 2014 California ballot measure called the ReducedPenalties for Some Crimes Initiative, or the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act." Thiscommittee does not accept donations and has expenditures ofless than $2,000 per calendaryear. ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF Shawn Gaynor, California represents the worst of current U.S. economiccrisis (July 13, 2012) California Public Press < http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2012-07/krugman- california-represents-the-worst-of-current-us-economic-crisis INDEPENDENT NONPROFIT in-DEPTH LOCALNEWS Krugman: California represents the worst of current U.S. economic crisis By Shawn Gaynor SF Public Press — Jul 13 2012 - 11:37am The budget pain facing California this year is not California’s fault, said Paul Krugman,the Nobel Prize-winning economist who has been amongthe most outspoken writers critiquing the government’s response to what he calls an economic “depression.” The state budget Gov.Jerry Brown signed Wednesdayat least on the surface bridges a $15.7 billion potential deficit — by far the highest shortfall faced by anystate this year. As tax revenues continued to fall below expectations in a suffering economy, California state and municipal governments continueto slash spending. Thestate's $91.3 billion budget represents the lowest state spending levelsince 1999. “Gov. Brown facespolitical constraints that, if anything, are even worse than those faced by President Obama, because ofthe craziness of California’s constitutional setup,” Krugman said at a recent appearance at the Commonwealth Club of California. He said Proposition 13, the state’s requirementofa legislative supermajority to pass tax increases, was the main culprit. Morethan tax hikes are neededto help ailing states, he said. Federal aid to state and municipal governments to rehire workers is paramount to endingthecrisis. Across California, 44,300 governmentpositions have beenlost in the past year, and since the May 2008 peak in government employmentthe state has lost 155,000 public-sector employees. The new budgetlargely preserves public employees’ jobs but relies on more than $9 billion in increased tax revenue will be before the voters in the fall. Even in San Francisco, which has recently seen a large reboundin private-sectorhiring, a loss of 2,000 governmentpositionsin the past year has created a drag on the local economyandtaken awaystable middle-class jobs. Krugman’s solution is Keynesian, relying on massive public investmentto pull state and local governmentsout oftheir fiscal holes. “I would put the number at 300 billion dollars a year of aid,” said Krugman, whois an economicprofessorat Princeton and a New York Times columnist, whois on a national tour to hawk his book, “End This Depression Now.” “It should be open-ended,” he said. “It shouldn’t have a definite expiration date, because the right timeto end it is when the economyis recovered and doesnotneedit anymore.” Nationally the shortfall in state budgets since the beginning of the economiccrisis has been more than halfa billion dollars, largely due to municipalshortfalls. Continuing cutsin state and local budgets across the country continue to be a drag on the economy,and even reduceprivate-sector job creation that otherwise would be expected. According to the Center on BudgetandPolicy Priorities, revenue growth probably won’t come close to what states needto restore the programsthat they cut during the recession — until 2019. Unlessstates raise taxes, at least temporarily, or receive additional federal aid while the economy slowly recovers, states will continue to face steep shortfalls and hard choices. Krugman said these trends argue in favorofa policy reversal: “What we haveactual been doing is the reverse of stimulus. What weactual have been doing is cutting back. Normally state and local government work growsroughly with population. We should have added 700,000 jobs in state and local governmentjust keeping up.In fact, we laid off 600,000, so right there weare 1.3 million jobs down from where we should have been in the public sector.” Earlier this month, the Obama administration began to press for additional federal moneyto help the most numerousofall government workers — public school teachers. Obama used his June 9 weekly address to push for federal action to start rehiring the 250,000 public school teacherslost duringthe crisis. More than 40,000 educators have beenlaid off in California since 2008 and teacher layoffs are expected to continue in the coming year. “It should concern everyone that right now — all across America — tens of thousands of teachers are getting laid off,” Obamasaid.“I realize that every governoris dealing with limited resources and many face stark choices when it comesto their budgets. But that doesn’t mean we should just stand by and do nothing. Whenstates struggle, it’s up to Congress to step in and help out.” But with a recalcitrant Congress, and a looming presidential election,it is unclear if new federal relief for states can be addressedthis year. “It sounds wise and sophisticated and serious to stroke your chin and say there are no quick fixes,” Krugman said at his mid-June San Francisco appearance. “But that’s all wrong. There are quick fixes. This is a moral issue. What’s happening nowis notjust bad management, not just something we should be doing better. What’s happeningisterrible.” - See moreat: http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2012-07/krugman-california-represents-the-worst- of-current-us-economic-crisis#sthash.N9m9P9MB8.dpuf ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF Editorial Board, California’s Continuing Prison Crisis (August 10, 2013) New York Times [as of January 9, 2015] California’s Continuing Prison Crisis - NYTimes.com http:/www.nytimes.com/20 13/08/1 1/opinion/sunday/californias-conti. 1 of 3 EheAcworkCimes August10, 2013 California’s Continuing Prison Crisis By THE EDITORIAL BOARD California has long been held up asthe landofinnovation andfreshstarts, but on criminal justice and incarceration, the Golden State remains stubbornly behind thecurve. Over the past quarter-century, multiple lawsuits have challenged California’s state prisons as dangerously overcrowded.In 2011, the United States Supreme Court foundthatthe overcrowding had gotten so bad — close to double the prisons’ designed capacity — that inmates’ health and safety were unconstitutionally compromised. The court ordered thestate to reduceits prison population by tens of thousands of inmates, to 110,000,or to 137.5 percent of capacity. In January, the numberofinmates was down to about 120,000, and Gov.Jerry Brown declared that “the prison emergencyis overin California.” He implored the Supreme Court to delay a federal court order to release nearly 10,000 more inmates. On Aug. 2, the court said no. Overthe furious dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia, whoreiteratedhis warning two years ago of“the terrible things sure to happen as a consequenceofthis outrageous order,”six membersofthe court stood byits earlier ruling. California has to meetits goal by the end of 2013. The state claims that releasing any more inmates would be a threat to public safety,as if the problem weretoolittle prison space. In fact, California’s problem is not excessive crime, but excessive punishment. This was obvious years before the Supreme Court weighedin. Since the mid-1970s, California’s prison population has grown by 750percent, driven by sentencing laws based largely on fear, ignorance and vengeance. Thestate’s notorious three-strikes law, passed in 1994,is only the mostwell-known example. Becauseofit, 9,000 offenders are servinglife in prison, including many whose“thirdstrike” was a nonserious, nonviolent offense — in one case, attemptingto steal a pair of work gloves from a Home Depot. Californians have madeclear that they no longeraccepttraditional justifications for extreme sentencing. Last November,voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36, whichrestricted the use of the three-strikes law for nonviolent offenses, even for current prisoners. It wasn’t just about saving money;exit polls showed that nearly three-quarters ofthose who supported the proposition said they felt the law wastoo harsh. 1/9/2015 8:20 AN California’s Continuing Prison Crisis - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/opinion/sunday/californias-conti. 2 of 3 The measurehasalreadyresulted in the release of around 900prisoners whosethird strike wasneitherserious norviolent, and it could leadto the release of up to 2,500 more. A risk assessment by California’s corrections department suggests that these three-strikes inmates are amongtheleastlikely to re-offend. Preliminary research on those who have been released under Proposition 36 is bearing that out. In addition, the state has begunto take steps to repair what former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger described as a prison system “collapsing underits own weight.” A two-year-old package of reforms, enacted into law and known as “realignment,”is changing the type of sentences prisoners receive, where they are housed andthesort of post-release supervision they get. While this has led to some important improvements,such as eliminating prison termsfor technicalparole violations, it does not adequately address many entrenched problems,like disproportionately long sentences, that add to prison overcrowding. (Nor does it deal with the widespread use of long-term solitary confinement, which has led hundreds of state prisoners to go on hungerstrikes in recent months.) If California wants to avoid anotherlegal battle over its overcrowded prisons, there are two things it can do right away. First, it should establish a sentencing commissionto bring consistency, proportionality and data-based assessments toits laws. Twenty-onestates, the District of Columbia and the federal governmentalready have such commissions, and they makea difference. In Virginia and North Carolina, both of which hadprison overcrowding, sentencing commissionshelped focus scarce resources on housing the mostviolent offenders, limiting prison growth without jeopardizing public safety. Criminaljustice reform advocates have unsuccessfully pushed for such a commission in California.If the state is to get away from its irrational and complicated sentencing, it needs a commission, and it needs to insulate it as muchas possible from the political actors who have contributed so muchto thestate’s currentcrisis. Second, the state must do moreto help releasedprisoners get the re-entry and rehabilitation services that already exist across California. Inmatesare often released with no warning to friends or family, with no money, no means oftransportation andno clothes other than the jumpsuits ontheir backs.It is no wondera 2012 report showedthat 47 percent of California prisoners returned to prison within a yearoftheir release, a significantly higher rate than the national average. People coming out of prison need manythings,but the critical ones are safe housing, drug treatmentandjob opportunities. Theoretically, the $2 billion being spentoverthefirst two TINIAAT EA AN 8 California’s Continuing Prison Crisis - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/20 13/08/1 1/opinion/sunday/californias-conti yearsof realignmentwas to provide more resources toward such re-entry and rehabilitation programs;in reality, much of that money has gone to county jails, which have seen their own overcrowdingonly get worse as they have absorbed thousandsofinmates from state prisons. So far, counties have allocated an average ofjust 12 percentof their realignment funds to re-entry programs. California's prison population is consistently amongthelargest in the country. Whileit presents an extremecase, its problemsare representative of what is happeningin prisons and jails in otherstates. If California would redirect its energy from battling the federal courts to making the needed long-term reforms,it could once again callitself a leader. Meet The New York Times’s Editorial Board » 3 of 3 1/9/2015 8:20 AN ATTACHEDIS A COPY OF Stanford LawSchool- ThreeStrikes Project, “Progress Report: Three Strikes Reform (Proposition 36}, 1000 Prisoners Released (2013) Stanford Three Strikes Project Progress Report: Three Strikes Reform (Proposition 36) 1,000 Prisoners Released Co-published by the Stanford LawSchoolThree Strikes Project and NAACP Lega! Defense and Education Fund Introduction California 6 10 th mid 80 will compromise public safety. Ac the sam have been impiementing the Thre which voters overwhelmingly approw sentences atprise and who no tor pose a threat to public sat To date, over 1,000 prisoners have been released from custody tnder Proposition 36, according to data provided bytheCalifornia Department of Conections, Each of these prisoners had been sentencedto Ife under the Three Strikes law tor a minor crime such as petty theft or simple drug possession, and demonstrated to @ judge that they are not an “unreasonable tisk of danger to public safety,” under new procedures establistied by Proposition 36. (See new Penal Code Section 11 70.126.) Se far, judges have found that the vast majority of inmates eligible for relief under Proposition 36 deserve shorter sentences and have granted th @ inmates eariy selease, f a prison crisis, The United Sta that Caltornia prisnns are unconstitutionally avercrowdes reduceits prson population by thousands of inmates by mmuttiple federat court orders, the State refuses t0 release prise Supreme Court has ruled Asa result, the State must nd of the year, Despite ts, azguing that doing hima, counties throughout California Strikes Retorm Act of 2012 (“Proposition 36") in November. Proposition 36 shortensthe rs who are serving iife terms for non-sertou non-violent ¢rimes Gver 2,000 additional prisoners whoare eligible tor Yelief under Proposition36 are still waiting to have their cases reviewed in county courts. in Los Angeles County alone, aver 800 cases of inmateseligible for relief under Proposition 36 have yet to be resolved, The recidivism rate of prisoners released under Proposition36 to date is well below state and national averages, Fewer than 2 percent of the prisoners released under Proposition 36 have been charged with. ew crimes, according to stale and county records. By comparison, the average recidivism rate over a similartime periodfor non-Propesition 36 inmates tesving Catifomia prisons is 16 percent. Nationwide, Total Inmates Released Under Prop. 36 Statewide ‘Source: Catfornia Cepartment of Corrections and Rensbuttate Prog eye eoStk Roter rcpt (Sept, 2013) LAN Prsoras fcase0 Ltesthe Stnta Ss see SeesPeet 2 ACPlolta tteod 30 percent of inmates released ‘rom state prisons are arrested far a new crime within six monthsof release, Critical issues remain. Prisoners released under Proposition 36 are raturning home to 6 dite lack of resourees. Unlike all other prisoners released from California prisons, :nmales released uncer Proposition 36ara no: eligible for state and county support services, leaving them without housing, jobs, oF drug treatment, In many cases, prisoness treed under Proposition 36 are released fram custody without warning, clothing, money for transportation, or notice to their farilies or attonneys. A dlsproportionate number of inmates seatencud Lo life ir prison for petty offenses sufferfrommild ta severe mental illness. While all inmates releaseunder Proposition 86 should have access to support services, it is especially vitai that mentally il inimalas, who are particularly vulnerable, have access to a level ot care that adequately addresses their needs In the cases pending reviewunder Proposition 36, administrative and procedural obstacles are Preventing timely dispositions. In sore caunties, lack of prosecutoria. resources has significantly slowed the orocess. In other counties, aublic defenderoffices, have been deprived adequate means to investigate and prepare these cases, Proposition 36 has already generated significant ‘inaneial savings and treed prisor capacity for dangerous 2:6 violent prisoners. Since the ‘aw took, effect in November 2012, Proposition 36 has saved the California prson systembetween $10 and $18 million. courts fully implemented the initiative by recucing the sentencesof all eligible inmates, the State would realize almost $1 billion ia savings overthe next ten years. Tivee Suis Retrm (Presceian 35) 1,600 Pe‘Go-pubister Oythe Stanfora LanSchoo Tee Sues Prat ana NAACP Lega! Defense an In light of the federal court orderto reducethe prison Population, the overwhelming public support for Proposition 36, and tha success af those inmates who have aleeady boan relaased undethe initiative, this report makes the fotinwing recommendaions: The State should commu inure resources to ‘oxpedite review and end unnecessarydeiay of aver 2,000 cases currently pending under Proposition 36, Prosocutors must have adequate resources to expeditously review petitions and recommend new sentances in appropriate cases without compromising puplie satety: and defense counsel must be given comparable resources lo lhoroughly Investigate cases and prepare comprehensive reentry plans for their clients to maintain the tow recidivism rate of inmates released under the initiative, Courts should ensure consistent application of Proposition36 throughout the state. Uniform. standards of review and procedural protections should 0¢ implemented to provide accurate assessments of inmatetisk, More public and private resources should be committed to provide services to inmates released urder Proposition 36 to ensure their successful reentry into the community. Every prisoner released under Proposition 36 should have access to temporary housing, sobriety support, and employment assistance services equalta those services provided to atl otner Inmates teaving prison, ser Released 0 Fan Number of Prop. 36 Inmates Released by County 250 200 180 100 50 Ko r ma t K g La ke | Lo s A ng es T I Gr an ge me me Pl ac er ! ne sc e — Sx am er to = Sn r a i n T T ma xt or Co lu sa Co nt ra Co st a ® De l Nor te, 5 De ra de ¢ Fr es no m= Im pe na l | Ma de ra | Ma ri n» Me ro sd # Al sm ed a Source: California Department of Corrections and Renabittation (Sept. 7012), Key Findings + Over 1,600 inmates have beer released fram custody under Proposition 36to date, according the Departmentof Corrections, Eachof these prisoners was released following an individualized review andfinding by a Supericr Court judge that they no longer pose an “unreasonable risk of dangerto public safety.” + The recidivism rate of inmates released under Proposit'on 36is far below state and national averages. Less than 2 percent of the inmates releasedso far undar Proposition 36 have been chargea with a new crime. + Proposition 36 has alreacy saved Califurnia taxpayers between $10 and $13 million. If the retarm ware applied to all eligible inmates, Catlfarnlans would save almost $1 billion aver the next ten years, So-puotses oy the Starter Stoo! TreeStrikes Proje! ana NACP egal Detense and ‘Se nD ie go ma mm a ‘Sa nF ra nc is co ‘Sa nJ oa qu in Sa n Lu is Ob is po Sn Ma te o ‘Se nta Ba rb ar a © Sa ia Ca rs m e Sh as ta So la no So ra ma Sa nd as a Ta re am Ve rx ur a Yo lo | Y a + Over 2,000 cases brought under Proposition 36 are stlil waiting to be Feard. In Los Angeles County, inore than 800 prisoners eligible for relief under Proposition 36 are waiting fortheir eases to be resolved, Hundreds of prisoners, some with serious heaith issues, nave been waiting months for their ‘cases to be reviewed by prosecutors and judges. *+ Of the 1,000 inmates released under Proposition 36 thas far, many have beenunable to obtain the same critical reentry suoport that Is available to other inmates leaving the state prison system The continued success of those released under Proposition 36 is dependent upan access to these vital services, There 's noreasonto exclude prisoners released under Proposition 36 from the services Provites to ail others released trom custody in California, an Background Whenit was enacted in 1994, California's "Three Strikes and You're Out! law was the harshest sentencing lew in the counlry, Thousandsofinmates were sentencestolite in prison for minor cnmes, including petty theft anc simple drug possession. In 2012, Proposition 36 passed with over 69 percent of the statewide vote, representing a shift in public altitude toward eriminal sentencing. A majority af voters in every county in California vated forthe initiative, Proposition 36 made history as tre country's first voter initiative to shorten prison sentences of people currently beh'nc bars, The path to reforming Cafitornia's Three Strikes law began with a failed reform initiative in 2004, That measure(“Proposition 66") Identified a prabiem with California's recidivist sentencing scheme sut was vlowed a3 not providing adequate safeguards to protect public safety, Proposition 66 was narrowlydefeatec by voters, Despiteits failure at the polls, however, Proposition 66 played a key ro’ in raising public consclousness of the harsh. unintended consequences of the Three Strikes law. ‘Twoyears ago, the NAACP Lega! Defense and Edueation Fund (*LOF”) launched the ballot camoaign for Prapasition 36, The Stanford Tnree Strikes Project served as local counse! for LF. Unlike the reform campaign in 2004, statewide leadersin law enforcement were oficial propcnents of Proposition 36, Among the initialive’s most outspokensupporters were then-Los AngelesDistrlet Attorney Steve Gooiey, ‘San Francisco Distrlet Attorreyand former Police Chief George Gascon. and Los Angeles Chief of Police Charlie Beck. A diverse coalition of natioral leaders also endorsed the campaign, from Grover Norquist, George Stultz, and Bill Bratton to Corey Booker anc Bill Bradley. As Steve Cooley recently said, "During my 12 years as 4 Los Angelas County Distriat Attorney, | warkedt to see thet the state’s Three Strikes law was tairly appliad A critica: element of Three Strikes reform includes the review of 25-year ta life sentencestor relatively minor offenses," THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSEFUND TreAPLeg Deferenarn Excatiord Fir Im (LOF)isthecourtrys premierlg ‘ageriztlon figttingfor rece justice Rounded194Dby Trurgad Marchal, LDFpursuesitgtion ackonany ered Riliced.estion toepandderccrany diriretedaparties, ard actieveracjishoein Arerica Pesidert Cerra veoerly decribed LDFas“ simpythabest vl igtstaw firninéergicantistry" mee LCFwas the printing ogerizdion bein thecerpeigh tr Frozostion 38 LCFcherspinetthecausefer refering Coiferials TreeStitesiay whichstoodaseredthe ‘aunty shershest ercnrest inferrouscririral sxtencing states andes ampied deprpmtionetey apart AcarArtes, ‘Shatlybeforeis urtimelyceath, Lin Peyton thenesi ard Drector-Cured of LEE exinedthat "TheTreeSri RéfomAd hess restoretaimessardjustioetotheTree Sites law As thewters cigrelyrte it reves the herehest serterccs for thoseonceserious vidert ‘ries. Vtshoud ret westeprenicus resources sending papletogriscnfcrlitefa shplitirg” Ferrraeinfarmaicn about LOFvisit neacple. org Progress Roper: Tee StesReem (Prpasiten 26} 1.000 Prisoners Released Co-pubisha oy th Stanton LaSee! Thre Stites Peta VAACP Legal Defesse ana Education Fund Stanford Three Strikes Project Proposition 36 Implementation Proposition 36 establishes a procedure tarinmates ‘sentenced to life in prison for 3 non-serious or non. Violent third strike crime to petition in court tor a reduced sentence. A judge may grant the inmate’ petition and reduce his or her sentence only if the judge determines that the prisoner's release would aot create “om unreasonable risk of danger te public valaly.” The petition mustbe tiled in the same county where the prisoner committed his or her inost recent offense. (See new Cal. Penal Cade Section 117.126.) Oistrict attorneys must review cach case and nave the Durden 10 contest an inmate's suitability for release, When a district attomey challenges the safety of releasing an inmate under Proposition 36, the Superice Court must Steslaw. Th Prop. 36 Cases (Largest 10 Counties) hold a hearing at which avidenca may be presented by Swurce: Coury Recoeus (aug. 7013 both sides, Prope diet few Stes Uete Prepisien ven Fea THE STANFORD THREESTRIKES PROJECT The Stonford three Strikes Project raprasents individuals stenced fo fe fominor czimes upderCaltfria’sTrea ¢TeaStil Projectibased atStanford Law School snd relies an tae students to conductthe organization's Work. including nlicy advocacy and Itigation im state and feral ‘court an behaof inttutional and individualcfents, ‘TheThree Strikes Project surved as counselto the NAACP Legal ‘Defense Furd inits campaign for Proposition 36. Since the ‘eriactmentof Proposition 36, the Projoc! has worked with courts, public dlonders, community service proves, iw enforcement, and othe pie agencies to coocinete and ensure effective implementationofthe reform. The Project contioues to represeat individual prisoners seeking release under Proposition 36, For moreinformationabocl theStanford Three Sikes Project vst thraestrikesprojoot org Numberof Prop, 36 Cases Pending and Processed (Top Ten Counties) Los Angeles San Bernarding my ‘San Diego Rveside Kern EES Orange EEE Sacramento EI Senta Clara EES Fresno MD sex Stanislaus sex ° 200 400 600 800 1000 Source: Californa Department of Corrections and Rehabiitation (Sept, 201 ¥. According to the Department of Corrections, Superior Courts throughout Califomia have processed a total of 1,092 petitions under Proposition 36. Over 96, of these petitions have beengranted, anda lotal of 1,011 prisoners have beer raleaced from cust date. ent tedy to Statewide, more than 7,000 cases tited under Proposition35 have yet to be processed bythe courts, In Los Angeles County, more than 800 prisoners Higible lor relief under Proposition 36 are waiting for their casesta by resolved. Progress dope: Ine Sits fr Prepouten Hi 1,600 Peisnee Basa\o pubtanet by tae Stashns Sas lrzeSera Sh mt RARE tego 0 tdFoca Real Life Success Stories DDIE GRIFFIN was sentencedtolife under the Three Strikes law In 2000for possessionof crack cocaine. In prison, Eddie founded the “Hope For Strikers" peer support group and becamea “medel according to testimony o* several oriscn experts, andi staff members, includingtheformer weraen of Inmat San Quentin State Prison where Eddie was hovued. This July,after 13 years in prison, a Superior Court judge found that Ecidie’s rehabilitation n prison was "exemplary" anc ordered himreteased from prison based on thetime he had already served. Eddie was reunited with his family and now tivesin a residential reentry facility for veterans in San Jnse. Eddie is arrolied in an intensive employment program called “The Last Mile,” which connects former inmates with jobs in California's technology sector CURTIS PENN was sentenced to life under the Three Strikes law in 1998for shoplifting a pair of tennis shoes from a sporting goods store, While in prison, Curtis furthered his education through the Prison University Project, After 15 years in custody, Curtis wasreleased in April. Immediateiy upon his release, Curtis enrolled in Options Recevery Services, a wrap- around residential drugtreatment and jab preparedness, program in Berkeley. At Options, Curtis participates in a daily, Intensive counseling program to maintain his, sobriety. He also attends San Francisco State University, where he has nearly completed his Bachelor's degree in social psychology. He works part-time as a landscaper and carpenter, Preqess Rago: Tee Sti Co-cubisod by te Stanford aa Seto ies tor !Propes hoe Sta Pra Edoie Griffin, released after serving 19 years for ‘rue possassina. LARRY WILLIAMS was sentenced to f under the Three Strikes law in 1997for possession of @ stolen cell phane. tn prison, Larryparticipated ‘n extensive vocational, educational, and rehabilitation programming, earning praise and support of vocational counselors ane correctional officars. After 16 years in prison, Larry was released from custody in April Lary immediately entered the Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Program in Santa Ana, where he remains today. The Salvation Amy Program is a comprehensive residentiai rehabilitation and job-raining program. As a residentin the orogram, Larry participates in daily counseling anc works in the Salvation Army warehouse. DAVID GOMEZwassentenced to life under the Three Strikes law in 1995for joyriding, While m prison, David garnered the praise of supervisors and correctional officers and was selected for membership on the Men's Advisory Council due to his leadership and the positive influence he had on other inmates. After 18 years in prisan, Davic was released from custody in July with rothing but a used tshirt and shorts that were far too small, David now lives al The Name of The Loving Father, n group home in San Jose. He works on general repairs, maintenance, and landscaving. 136) 2,006 Prisoners Reload 7 ana WAP Lege Gefenand Eduction Fu Recidivism Less than 2 percent of prisoners released so far under Proposition 36 have been charged with a new crime, accordirg to data provided by the Department of Corrections and counties throughoutthe state. Although these released prisoners have been out o* custody for a relatively short period of time (4.4 months on average), their recidivism rate is well below state and natioral averages aversitnilar time periocs. California has one of the highest recidiviem ratesin ‘the country, Over 16 percent of inr-ates released from California prisons between 2008 and 2004 violated ‘the terms ofthelr parole due to new criminal charges within the frst 90 days “Assessing Parole Violations" (2009},) Nationwide, on average, 44 percent of inmates leaving state prisons are re-arvested within one year. (Langen & Levin, “Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report,” U.S. Department. of Justice (June 2002).) The iow recidivism rate of inmates released under Proposition 36 confirms the Department of Corrections’ static risk projections that inmates sentenced to life under the Thres Strikes law for non-serious, non-violent crimes are among the safest to release from custody. of their release, Within a year, over 40 percent ware retumedto custody. These. 90 days from 6 monthsfrom 1 year from - release release _folease California Average 16% 27% 40% National Average | 30% 44% inmatesall received post- release support and parole Since Nov. 2012 ‘Average4,4 months from release) supervision, unlike Inmates released under Proposition 36. (Petersilia, at al Proposition 36 Less than 2% gets & Levin (2002): California Departmentat Sh Sources: Petersilia, ot ai, (2009); Corrections and Rehabilitation and county records (2013), Reentering the Community After a Life Sentence Perhapsthe best predictor of whether 2 prisoner reentering the community will return to a life of crime is whether he has a stable, supportive, and soberliving environment upon his release ‘romcustody, Unlikeall other prisoners released! from state custocy, no public resources are avaliable to inmates released unger Proposition 36, Inmates granted reiief under Progosition 36 ate released from custody without warning or money, anc frequently without adequate clothing-—sometimes nothing more than a cisposable plastic jumpsuit. Mentally and physically disabled inmates released under Proposition 36 are especially regress Reoort Thre Sikes Ref(Prep Couttsbyte Stated Law Soa! These Stites Po wilnerabie and su‘fer d'sproportionately fromthe lack of reentry resources, ‘Due to the state's failure to provide services, reantry service organizations across Ca ifornia are struggling to find thu resources to meet the gap and help maintain the low recidivism rate of inmates released under Proposition 36. These organizations provide temporary housing, mental health services, sobriety maintenance, andjob training at no cost. Leadersin this effort include the Delancey Street Foundation, Arrity Foundation, the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, The Last Mile, ard Californians for Safely and Justice.In in 861 1,000 Srioners Reese ® 123 HAACP lege! Osanie etd Eoscaton Fund addition, the Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership has taken the lead in atterating to secure free housing, employment and rehabilitative services for the more than 1,000 inmates that are likely to return to Southern California under Proposition 36, Over ane hundted additional organizations in the counties most impacted by theinitiative are willing to hetp provide reentry services to inmates oon me =aecoeslIRSeaten) ecomtcrosoe MINT) Post-Release Community Supervision $6,350 Parole $6,000 Prop. 36 (“gate money”) | $200 Source: Legislative Analyst's Office (Aug. 2013). funding and support, and there are frequently service released from custody under Proposition 36, gaps in critical areas such as housing, employment and ‘These volunteer efforts are laurahle Hnwever fowaf drug treatment and rehabilitation. SANTA CLARA COUNTY REENTRY RESOURCECENTER ‘Srta Gara Canyisthearly cuntyin Gaifaria thet has a conpretersivereertry carte which provcks freeservices and sippat tolnrates réeened urcer Pepostion 36, Feleesed inmtes aedlighletorendvethe saresavioss proidatto | invesreese undks county s-periscn indueingha.sirg chgariaechd carsding expoyrert arndheath services, dcting archer suppatthreugh theQauty Retry Resarce | Oster ingente Santa Clara County ReentryResource Center I Utter lescershp fromthe Carty Picbation Depertrrer, the Sata Gara Brad of S.panviscrs approved a len for inate redeemed |__ unde Proposition 96 toreneve resarces provides uncer Caifarriais Pos-Rélease Cormsity Sipavisin progam Athaghall Courts in Calforiaresivefrerrial stppatt fortis progam Serta Gara Cartyard Main Garty arethecriy carties toeterd thesesevioes toirenetes relessed unr Pcpasiton 36 Farraeiniarretion abot theSta Oara Pesrtry escurce Oster vist soogovergsites'reertry, Challenges & Recommendations Despite the eariy success o* Proposition 36, more work ‘must be done in orderto realize maximum benefit from the reform. More resources need to be directed to processing petitions in county court systems. District Attorneys, and Public Defenders alike must ensure that adequate resources are committed to processing Proposition 36 oetitions in the county courts, For example, in Los Angeles County, which has the largest number of pending cases, ane of the chief constraints in processing Proposition 36 cases is the relatively small numberof prosecutors assigned to ackdress them. Prosecutors are thefirst ne in reviewing an inmate's Petition for release, and they must evaluate each case to determine whether the setitioner is a genuine risk to public safety. In Los Angeles, ~urdreds of inmates have vwealted mate then six months for prosecutors to respond to thelr petitions. Progress Rept: ToreStrites Refer: Proastion 26) 1,060 \Sopuicdea 2 the Stator ta& Tiree Stokes Paget ana NAACP Lega! 0 At ine same time, public defender offices must also ensure thatsufficient resources are devoted to Proposition 36 cases. In Kern County, for example, only one Deputy Public Defender has beenassigned responsibility for handling over 180 Proposition 36 cases, Providing sufficient resources for counsel representing inmates under Proposition 36 Is erlticat to the effective administration of the reform. In order to pravide adequate representation, defense atiomeys must have access to thelr clients to conduct thorough rivestigations of their criminal histories and records of rehabilitation in prisons, Attorneys should consult with prison and mental health exoerts, develop risk analyses, and secure robust reentryplans te ensure that their clisets have professional housing, drug treatment, and empioyment support servicesavailable upon release, An inmate with a comprehensive, professional reentry planis far less of a risk to public safety and ore likely to win relief under the initiative. sans Reiegsog 1 Judges must ensure that Proposition 36 is applied consistently throughout thestate, Superior Court judges must follow consistent legal standards and burdens of proof. For example, urder the Propasition 36petition process, prosecutors bear the burden af proving that an eligibic inmate poses an unreasonable tisk to pubii¢ Safety. This rule has been upheld oy Une California Court of Appeal ia People v. Superior Court (Kaulick). However some: Superior Court judges have ruled that the burden is on prisoners lo rove that they are not a public safety threat. Proposition 36 has no such legal requirement, and shifting the burden to prisoners is contrary to controtling case law. In any legal proceeding, the burden of proof is 2 bedrock procedural requirement that should bestrictly and consistently enforced. Judges shauld also mon'tor prosecutors and public defenders to ensure that they are processing cases in a fair and effective manner. Curtis Wilkerson, released after serving 16 yearsfor shoplitting, oF probation, and state and county agencies have refused to extend to Proposition 36 inmates the same resources provided ¢0 ail other inmates leaving custody, To ensure the continued success of thosereleased under Propasitian 36, these released inmates should More resources must be devoted to prisoner reentry _D# afforded parity ofresources, Currently, Santa Clara services. The low recidivism rate of inmates released 3 Marin are the only countiesto extend the services under Proposition 36 is all the more remarkable given, Provided under California's Post-Release Community that inmates released under Proposition 36 receive Supervision program to Proposition36 inmates. Ail Virtually no state or county support or supervision for Counties should corsider adopting this model their transition from custody to the community. All other inmates leaving prison recelve significantfinancial support, reentry services, and public safety supervision under either the state parole system or county probation departments. The vast majority of inmates released under Proposition $6 are not eligible for paraie Progress Report: itvee Stes Raton (Prpostion 3611,060 PrisarereRetased nCerpunishoa oy the Stanarc Lau Seton! Tee Stns Project ane NAACP Lega Defense end Edscetios Fone ATTACHED IS A COPY OF Docket and order denying rehearing IN THE Court of Appealof the State of California IN AND FOR THE Fifth Appellate District : mal THE PEOPLE, | , F067946 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No, CRF30714) v. DAVID JOHN VALENCIA, | ORDER !Defendant and Appeliant. Appellant's request for judicial notice filed on January 6, 2016,in the above entitled case is hereby granted Appellant's petition for rehearingfiled on January 7, 2015,in the aboveentitled caseis denied. tee JEN, J. WE CONCUR: Ent Pd fin. PENA, J California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information lots Appellate Courts Case Information Sth Appellate District ‘ip: ‘appellatecases,courtinto.ca.gov’search/ease/dockets.ctin?dist™ CALIFORNIA COURTS | JUSICIAL BUNCH OFCALTON (Change court Court data last updated! 01/08/2015 01:59 PM Docket (Registerof Actions) The People v. Valencia Case Number FOS7946 Date Description 09/11/2013 Notice of appeal lodgedireceived (criminal) 09/11/2013 Noticeto reporter to prepare transcript 09/26/2013 Received 10/10/2013 Appointmentirecommendetion rq. for counselfiled 10/16/2013. Receivedcorrected transcript. 10/16/2013 Record on appeal fled, 11/26/2013 Change ofaddress filedfor 11/25/2013 Appellant's opening brief. Notes appit. Valencia appeals fromorder held on 8/9/13 denial of petition; request for appointmentof counselin notice of appeal; copy to CCAP sent to cts Capuccini, wilson, Grimm & Wood by superior court on 8727/13 RAF - record corrections requested - documents needed wioriginat signatures for: Cerificate of Court Clerk (with court seal), Notice of Completion of Transcript(s} on Appeal, Clerk's Certificate or Service by Mail, cover sheet for etx showing correct party role description for each party and serve CCAPwith the record: from superior court clerk atty Gunther retained for appit Certification page, Notice of Completion, Clerk’s Certificate of Malling, Cover sheet for citx and service an CCAP for the record (61/209 pages; R2/504 pages; letter sent to all parties Te aob duein 40 days, David John Valencia old address 2: P.O. Box 3471 new address 2: P.O. Box 8800 Per AOB byAtty: Gunther obo applt.; address screen modified Defendantand Appellant: David John Valencia Attomey: Stephanie L Gunther 1/8/2015 2:57 PR California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information 12/09/2013, 12/09/2013 12/11/2013 12/11/2013 o1vos2014 avaw2014 o1eti2014 onezi2014 01/22/2014 ogizorz014 oat12014 osniagrg ost712014 ogrz2014 09/26/2014 2of6 bitp://appellatecases. courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfin’dist Requestfiled to Received: Orderfiled Supplemental brieffled by Granted - extension of time. Requestfled to Received: Order filed, Supplemental brieffled by Respondent's brief. Appellants reply brieffiled Case fully briefed 10 dayletter sent (8.T.C. case). BTC. Conditional waiverfled by: for Leaveto file a supplemental brief submitted by atty Gunther ob0 applt (CSMGR) applt's supplemental brief submitted by atty Gunther (CSMGR) Appellant's requestto fle a supplemental opening briefis granted. Respondent is granted an additional 18 days to file their respondent's brlef. Respondent's briefs now due forfling on January 19, 2014. (CSMGR) Defendant and Appellant David John Valencia Attomey: Stephanie L Gunther Pursuant fothe order of 4213 Respondent's brief. Due on 02/10/2014 By 31 Dayis) Ast request for Leave ta filea supplemental brief submitted by atty Gunther obo appit (CSMGR) appit's second supplemental brief submitted byatty Gunther (CSMGR) Appellant's request for leave to fla a supplemental brief is granted. Respondents brief is due forfing 30 days from the date of this order. «CSMGR) Defendant and Appetiant: David John Valencia Attomey: Stephanie L Gunther (2nd) Pursuant to the order flea wae Plaintiff and Respondent: The People Attomey: Peter Thompson Defendantand Appellant: David JohnValencia Attorney. Stephanie L Gunther jad JAD atty Stephanie L. 1/8/2015 2:57 PY California Couns - Appellate Court CaseInformation 11/13/2014 Letter breffiled 11/20/2014 Letter brieffiled, 11/26/2044 Telephoneconversation with: 12/01/2014 Letter bretfiled. 12/01/2014 Cause submitted. 12/08/2014 Receives 41211612014 Opinian fled, 12/17/2014 Filed leter trom: 01/02/2016 Telephana conversation with’ 01/06/2015 Filed tetter from: butp:"fappellatecases.courtinfoca.govisearch/case/dockets.cftn?aist= Defendant and Appetiant: David John Valencia Attomey: Stephanie L Gunther Pursuantto the orderfiled 1117/14; Respondent's briefis due 10 days after appellant's brief is fied. Appellant mayfle areply bret, due 5 days after respondent's briefis fled “No EOT's will be grantad* (JAD) Plaintiff and Respondent: The People Attorney: Peter Thompson Pursuant to the order filed 1177/14; Appetiant mayFile a reply brief, due 5 days after respondent'sbriefis filed “No EOT's will be granted" (JAD) Any: Gunther malied out latter brief yesterday by priory mall Defendant and Appellant: David John Valencia Attorney: Stephanie L Gunther (reply) Pursuant to the orderfiled 11/7/14 **No EOT's will be granted(JAD) The matter will be deemed submitted uponfiling of the reply brief or expiration ofthe time within such brief may be filed pursuant to the orderfled Tha Request for Judicial Notice by appellant in pro pre - forwarded to appellant counsel wiletterre: correspond wiclient (Signed Partiat Publishea) Affirmed; Detjen, Levy (37 pages) See Concurring Opinion ; Pena(8 pages) atty Gunther dated 12/13/14; has been in contact with appellant tty Guntherindicated overighted the petition for rehearing on12/28/14, howeverfed ex is showing was refused on 12/31/14 at 8:27 am: advised if they do Not attempt again and it le retumed to resubmit and Include initial post stamped envelape Attorney Stephanie Gunther explaining why rehearing petition is untimely and 1/8/2015 2:57 PE California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information Sof6 01/08/2015 Received 01/06/2018 Requestfor judicial notice filed, 01/07/2018 Rehearing petition filed 01/08/2015 Order denying rehearing petition filed 01/08/2015 Request for judicial notice granted, btip:/appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/searchicase/dockets.cfim?dist= Fequest the court to accept petition for rehearing. (JAD} Rehearing Petition by Atty Gunther (Due 12/81/14)(JAD) byAtty Gunther. (fo JAD) atty Gunther obo appit: ok to fle per JAD(IAD) Appellant's request for judicial notice filed on January 6, 2015, in the aboveentitled case is hereby granted Appellant's petition for rehearing filed on January 7, 2016, in the above entitled caseis denied, (JAD) Not a separate order, included in order forpetition “for rehearing (JAD) _ Click hereto request automatic e-mail notifications about this case, Careers | Contact Us | Accessibilty | Public Access to Records | Terms of Use| Privacy ©2014 Judicial Council of California / Administrative Office of the Courts 1/8/2015 2:57 PR DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL I declare that I am citizen of the United States and a resident ofthe County of Ker,California; I am over the age of eighteen years; mybusiness address is the Law Office of Stephanie L. Gunther, 841 Mohawk Street, Bakersfield, California, 93309; and T am not a parlyto the cause: PEOPLE V. VALENCIA, case number F067946. On January 13, 2015, I served a copyofthe attached REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICEinsaid cause by placing a true copy thereofenclosed in a sealed envelope with first-class postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Bakersfield. California, addressedas follows: Attorney General, State ofCalifornia 1300 I Street, 125 Sacramento, CA 95814 I declare under penalty of perjuryunder the lawsofthe State of California that the foregoingis true and correct andthatthis Declaration vwasexecuted on January13, 2015, at Bakersfield, California.