SB 81 faces a deadline of Sept. 10 for final passage (in this case state Senate concurrence in Assembly amendments) or it dies.
An enhancement" is "an additional term of imprisonment added to the base term." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.405(3).) The issue of not applying sentencing enhancements is prominent in efforts to recall L.A. County DA George Gascón...but SB 81 (authored by state Senator Nancy Skinner (D, Berkeley) and joined by co-author Assemblyman Alex Lee (D, San Jose) -- would apply statewide.
...(c) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.
(2) In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. "Endanger public safety" means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.
(3) While the court may exercise its discretion at sentencing, nothing in this subdivision shall prevent a court from exercising its discretion before, during, or after trial or entry of plea.
(A) Application of the enhancement would result in a discriminatory racial impact as described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 745.
(B) Multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case. In this instance, all enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed.
(C) The application of an enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years. In this instance, the enhancement shall be dismissed.
(D) The current offense is connected to mental illness.
(E) The current offense is connected to prior victimization or childhood trauma.
(F) The current offense is not a violent felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5.
(G) The defendant was a juvenile when they committed the current offense or any prior juvenile adjudication that triggers the enhancement or enhancements applied in this case.
(H) The enhancement is based on a prior conviction that is over five years old.
(I) Though a firearm was used in the current offense, it was inoperable or unloaded.
(4) The circumstances listed in paragraph (2) are not exclusive and the court maintains authority to dismiss or strike an enhancement in accordance with subdivision (a).
(5) For the purposes of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2), a mental illness is a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including, but not limited to, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder, but excluding antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and pedophilia. A court may conclude that a defendant’s mental illness was connected to the offense if, after reviewing any relevant and credible evidence, including, but not limited to, police reports, preliminary hearing transcripts, witness statements, statements by the defendant’s mental health treatment provider, medical records, records or reports by qualified medical experts, or evidence that the defendant displayed symptoms consistent with the relevant mental disorder at or near the time of the offense, the court concludes that the defendant’s mental illness substantially contributed to the defendant’s involvement in the commission of the offense.
