Patterico's Pontifications

8/4/2009

Lede Buried

Filed under: Crime,No on 66 — Patterico @ 12:08 am



L.A. Times: Clerical error may have put suspect in Burk’s slaying back on street.

Indeed. A “clerical error” must be the culprit. Because who could have guessed that a burglary, charged in the same case as a residential robbery, would turn out to be a residential burglary? Shocka!

(And when the L.A. Times claimed he had only one strike (“Samuel has been sentenced to state prison three times, but only one of those offenses was considered a strike under California’s Three Strikes Law”), they got it wrong. Shocka!)

There is a blockbuster story lurking in the details of the article, for anyone willing and able to see it.

It’s hiding in plain sight.

7/30/2009

Hiding in Plain Sight

Filed under: Crime,No on 66 — Patterico @ 7:31 am



There is a blockbuster story lurking in the details of this blog post, for anyone willing and able to see it.

1/11/2006

New Proposals for Changing Three Strikes

Filed under: Crime,General,No on 66 — Patterico @ 7:30 pm



The L.A. Times reports that my boss, Steve Cooley, has joined up with defense attorney Brian Dunn to co-sponsor an amendment to the Three Strikes Law. You can read the proposal here.

The L.A. Times does not mention that another proposal to amend the law has been submitted — this one by Deputy District Attorney Steve Ipsen. Ipsen is the president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys. He is someone I know personally (though not well), and he was a tireless opponent of Proposition 66. His proposal is here.

Close readers of the comments here already knew about both proposals, as commenter Steve M. provided both links four days ago.

I have not had time to read either proposal, and I am too busy to do so for the next few days at least. So I’m not wading into the middle of this right now. However, I provide the links as a public service, and invite comments from anyone who has read the proposals.

One thing is obvious, however: opponents of Proposition 66 (including both Cooley and Ipsen) apparently feel a need to change the law in some way. The only question is how best to do so. (By mentioning Cooley’s proposal and ignoring Ipsen’s, editors of the L.A. Times apparently are throwing in their lot with Cooley’s version.) It sounds like a pretty good bet that some version of reform will pass . . .

UPDATE: Xrlq identifies a potential issue with the drafting of the Cooley proposal.

12/13/2005

Chuck Nickel on the New Prop. 66

Filed under: Crime,No on 66 — Patterico @ 6:20 am



I have more on that new anti-Three Strikes proposition, which I told you about and analyzed in this post. Courtesy of the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys, I have obtained an analysis of the proposition by Chuck Nickel, a San Diego County Deputy District Attorney who is considered to be one of the top experts on criminal sentencing in the state.

Nickel’s analysis tends to reinforce the conclusions I came to in my earlier post. Here it is:

ANALYSIS OF THE NEW PROP 66 “THE THREE STRIKES REFORM ACT OF 2006″

“The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2006″ is an initiative measure that has been submitted to the Attorney General for preparation of the Title and Summary. This measure could appear on the November 7, 2006 ballot if the proponents are successful in their signature-gathering effort.

This measure would be a disaster for the Three Strikes and serious felony statutes. It would significantly reduce the application of those statutes, and it would apply retroactively to release probably several thousand three-strike prisoners.

The current Three Strikes statutes provide two levels of punishment as follows:

· “Two-strike” punishment: PC 667(e)(1); PC 1170.12(c)(1) – If the current offense is any felony, and the defendant has one qualifying prior “strike” conviction for a serious or violent felony, the term for the crime is doubled; probation denial with a prison sentence is mandatory; consecutive sentencing for crimes on separate occasions is mandatory; there is no aggregate term limitation on consecutive sentences; and prison conduct credit reduction is limited to one-fifth of the total term.

· “Three-strike” punishment: PC 667(e)(2); PC 1170.12(c)(2) – If the current offense is any felony, and the defendant has two or more qualifying prior “strike” convictions for serious or violent felonies, the term for the crime is life imprisonment with a minimum term calculated as the greatest of the following three options: (i) triple the term for the crime, or (ii) 25 years, or (iii) the term determined under general statutes, including enhancements; probation denial with a prison sentence is mandatory; consecutive sentencing for crimes on separate occasions is mandatory; there is no aggregate term limitation on consecutive sentences; and there is no conduct credit reduction of the minimum term.

The following are some of the major provisions of “The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2006″:

· The Three Strikes statutes, for both two-strike and three-strike defendants, would apply only if the current offense is a serious or violent felony as defined and limited by this measure, instead of applying to any current felony.

· The number of crimes that are defined as serious or violent felonies would be significantly reduced for qualifying current offenses, for prior “strikes,” and for enhancements for serious felony priors.

· The following crimes would be eliminated as serious or violent felonies:
1. Residential burglary (unless someone other than an accomplice is in the residence at the time of the burglary) – PC 459. Note: This eliminates virtually all residential burglary priors and almost all residential burglary current offenses.
2. Assault with a deadly weapon – PC 245(a).
3. Assault with a deadly weapon on a school employee – PC 245.5.
4. Shooting at an inhabited dwelling or occupied vehicle – PC 246.
5. Shooting from a motor vehicle – PC 12034(d).
6. Grand theft of a firearm – PC 487(d)(2).
7. Criminal threats – PC 422.
8. Witness intimidation – PC 136.1(a) or (b).
9. Participating in a criminal street gang – PC 186.22(a).
10. Any wobbler felony committed for gang purposes – PC 186.22(b)(1)(A).
11. Any wobbler felony with personal use of a deadly weapon – PC 12022(b).
12. Any wobbler felony with personal use of a firearm – PC 12022.5.
13. Any wobbler felony with personal infliction of great bodily injury – PC 12022.7.

· Judicial plea bargaining would be allowed in cases involving Three Strikes, serious felonies, and driving under the influence. This would allow the judge to make a deal directly with the defense attorney, to the exclusion of the prosecutor.

· The sentencing provisions of this measure would apply retroactively to many three-strike cases, resulting in the immediate or early release of probably several thousand three-strike prisoners. (The issue of retroactivity and the full implications of the complex resentencing provisions require further study.)
1) It appears that most of the provisions of this measure would apply to all pending strike cases and all strike cases that are not final on appeal.
2) Defendants who are serving a three-strike life sentence for a current offense that is not a serious or violent felony as defined and limited by this measure will be resentenced within 180 days as follows:
a) Most of these defendants will be resentenced to a determinate term that is twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony (similar to a two-strike penalty).
b) Defendants who have one prior conviction for a sexually violent offense, second degree murder, or felony murder, will have the minimum term of their life sentence reduced to twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony. (A prior PC 288(a) without substantial sexual conduct probably does not qualify.)
c) Defendants who have one prior conviction for first degree murder (except felony murder), PC 288a(c)(1), or PC 289(j), or more than one prior conviction for a sexually violent offense or PC 288, will be excluded from the resentencing provisions.
3) Defendants who are serving a three-strike life sentence for a current offense that is a serious or violent felony as defined and limited by this measure are not covered by the resentencing provisions. (The issue of retroactive benefits, if any, for these defendants requires further study.)
4) Defendants who are serving a two-strike sentence are excluded from the resentencing provisions. It appears that resentencing three-strike defendants to a two-strike penalty solves the equal protection problem with respect to two-strike defendants that was raised by Proposition 66.
5) Other than the resentencing of three-strike defendants as described above, the amendments to the definition of serious and violent felonies are not to be applied retroactively.

There you have it.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1566 secs.