This Sac'to Bill Would Restrict Judges Statewide In Applying Sentencing Enhancements; It Goes Beyond LA DA Gascon's Charging Policies; It's Advancing Now

LBReport.com

News

This Sac'to Bill Would Restrict Judges Statewide In Applying Sentencing Enhancements; It Goes Beyond LA DA Gascón's Charging Policies; It's Advancing Now

If LBREPORT.com didn't tell you,
who would?No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report.

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(March 18, 2021) -- A bill authored by state Senator Nancy Skinner (D, Berkeley) has been amended and advanced through the state Senate Public Safety Committee in ways that would restrict grounds on which judges statewide could apply sentencing enhancements to those found guilty of certain crimes.

As SB 81 would apply statewide at the decision-making judicial sentencing level, in that respect it goes beyond controversial policies of L,.A, County DA George Gascón' who has refused to pursue certain sentencing enhancements. Some judges have declined to follow Gascón's stance and, without mentioning it, Senator Skinner's SB 81 as a practical matter targets that judicial decisionmaking.

SB 81 recites: "Existing law generally authorizes a court to dismiss an action or to strike or dismiss an enhancement in the furtherance of justice. This bill would, with exceptions, require a court to dismiss an enhancement in specified circumstances unless overcome by clear and convincing evidence that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety."

....(c) (1) Except as specified in paragraphs (2) and (4), the court shall dismiss an enhancement upon finding any of the following circumstances to be true:
(A) Application of the enhancement would result in a disparate racial impact.
(B) Multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case or the total sentence is over 20 years.
(C) The current offense is connected to mental health issues.
(D) The current offense is connected to prior victimization or childhood trauma.
(E) The current offense is nonviolent.
(F) The defendant was a juvenile when they committed the current offense or prior offenses.
(G) The enhancement is based on a prior conviction that is over five years old.
(H) Though a firearm was used in the current offense, it was inoperable or unloaded.
(2) The court may decline to dismiss a charged sentencing enhancement pursuant to paragraph (1) upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that dismissal of an enhancement would endanger public safety.
(3) The circumstances listed in paragraph (1) are not exclusive and the court maintains authority to dismiss or strike an enhancement in accordance with subdivision (a).
(4) This subdivision does not apply to an enhancement if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.

[Scroll down for further.] .