Webmaster's Comment: When I prepared this 3-Strikes Initiative Page documenting the efforts of Sam Clauder, I did not realize that his petition was in direct competition with an earlier initiative. In an effort to encourage the competing parties to unite and consolidate their efforts, I am presenting the original petition prepared by Jan Tucker and Valerie Monroe on a 2nd page to follow this one.
"California's three-strikes law is the most severe in the nation, defining a third felony as virtually any crime beyond misdemeanor, including such nonviolent offenses as drug possession, petty theft, writing bad checks and burglary. These offenses must be prosecuted, but it doesn't follow that conviction should automatically trigger life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Most of the 24 states with three-strikes laws require that all three strikes be serious or violent crimes to merit a life sentence. That's the direction in which California should move."
LOS ANGELES TIMES editorial, August 24, 1999
Citizens Against Violent Crime: The Three Strikes Act of 2000
Sam H. Clauder II, Proponent
12922 Harbor Boulevard
Garden Grove, California, USA 92840
(714) 543-6400, Fax (714) 542-2224
CAVC.Sam@att.net
Dear Friend,
It's only a beginning, but...Thousands of distinguished Californians, from all walks of life,
are coming to the realization that the application of the current three-strikes law is draconian, fiscally irresponsible and simply unjust. They want to change the law, and, by joining with CITIZENS AGAINST VIOLENT CRIME, you can lead the way.
Let me explain.
When passed in 1994, the so-called 'three-strikes' law called for a mandatory sentence of 25-years-to-life for anyone convicted of a third felony. What distinguished California's three-strikes law from the versions in other states was that, in California's version, almost any violation of the law can become a third strike.
CALIFORNIA'S THREE-STRIKES LAW IS UNJUST!
California is the ONLY state in the nation with a three-strikes law where THE THIRD STRIKE IS NOT A VIOLENT OR SERIOUS FELONY! The residual effect of this law has been a dramatic increase in prison population and a 100% increase in the budget for the Department of Corrections.
Allow me to put some of this in perspective.
Dozens of other state legislatures, including notoriously zealous 'law and order' states such as Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, have passed some form of a three-strikes law, but NONE OF THEM HAVE DESIGNATED THE INCLUSION OF PETTY, NON-VIOLENT CRIMES IN THE THREE-STRIKES EQUATION!
And no one would consider the legislatures of these states as a haven for coddling criminals, or claim that they are being 'soft' on crime. But they have all agreed that including non-violent crimes in three-strikes legislation is both inappropriate, and costly.
LET'S RESTORE BALANCE TO THE SYSTEM!
I'm asking you to help me, and CITIZENS AGAINST VIOLENT CRIME, bring balance back to our justice system by sending us a check for $35, $50, $100, $250, or whatever you can reasonably afford.
CITIZENS AGAINST VIOLENT CRIME will use your contribution to qualify an initiative for the next state-wide ballot in November, 2000. The initiative is called THE THREE STRIKES ACT OF 2000, and it has already been written and filed.
Now, we need your help in building a state-wide organization to help qualify the initiative for the ballot, and to get this information out to the general public.
THE LAW MUST BE CHANGED!
We realize that, for many people, any discussion of issues surrounding crime and punishment is difficult, and emotionally charged. For us it is a simple truth -- "the punishment must fit the crime."
CITIZENS AGAINST VIOLENT CRIME is not advocating the abandonment of the three-strikes law. We simply want to see sensible balance brought to it. We want a three-strikes law that reflects our concern for dealing with career criminals, but does it in a way that brings balance back to the application of the law.
CITIZENS AGAINST VIOLENT CRIME believes that, for someone to receive a mandatory sentence of 25-years-to-life, they should be a very serious threat to society. We also believe that there are thousands of cases where the legal system, and its sense of justice, have been perverted and distorted by the application of this law.
Locking up someone for the rest of their life because they stole a loaf of bread, possessed a small amount of drugs, or passed a bad check, is not justice -- IT IS MINDLESS VENGEANCE!
THE THREE STRIKES ACT OF 2000
THE THREE STRIKES ACT OF 2000 is designed to amend California's three-strikes law so it only applies to violent or serious crimes. It also prohibits more than one strike being applied to any criminal act.
This will unclog the legal system of thousands of trials for petty crimes that can't be plea-bargained because the current law allows them to be prosecuted as three-strikes felonies.
THE THREE STRIKES ACT OF 2000 provides for the re-sentencing of cases that were strike-able' offenses under the old law, but not so under the new law. As many as 3,500 third-strikers and 25,000 second-strikers could qualify for re-sentencing. This will relieve the over-crowding of our prisons and save the state as much as one billion dollars a year in court and prison costs.
THE THREE STRIKES ACT OF 2000 allows the three-strikes law to be amended further if a majority of the Legislature agrees, and then the Legislature places the amendment on the ballot and a majority of the voters agree. The current law can only be amended by a vote of the people, or if 2/3 of the Legislature and the Governor agree, and it's literally impossible for the Legislature to EVER agree that much.
So, the only feasible way to amend the law is by a vote of the people and that's why we're asking you to send $35, $50, $100, $250, or whatever you can afford, to help us put the initiative on the ballot.
THE VOTERS ARE READY FOR A CHANGE!
A variety of polls have underscored the fact that the vast majority of Californians, when they voted for the three-strikes law in 1994, believed that they were only targeting violent criminals.
A Rand Corporation study released earlier this year determined that the three-strikes law has had no effect on the crime rate, while it continues to swell the cost of running the state's correctional facilities.
The polls also show that Californians are shocked to find out that the three-strikes law is being used to put people away for petty crimes, like the recent case of a homeless man who was sentenced to 25-years-to-life in state prison for stealing a slice of pizza. The most recent poll, released this month by the University of California, Riverside, shows that a majority of Californians oppose the current three-strikes law, and THEY WOULD VOTE FOR OUR INITIATIVE TODAY IF IT WAS ON THE BALLOT!
YOUR SUPPORT IS NECESSARY TO SUCCEED!
In order to bring this law back into balance, it will have to be done through the initiative process. To place a state-wide initiative before the voters, many things will need to happen, and your help is crucial if we are going to succeed.
The most important element to insure our success is money. For a campaign of this size to have a chance of succeeding we will have to spend money to qualify the initiative for the ballot. After that, we will have the daunting task of educating the public on the inherent flaws in the current three-strikes law.
Which is why CITIZENS AGAINST VIOLENT CRIME needs your help right now! Please join with us to bring balance, common sense and justice back to the courthouses of California.
SEND YOUR CHECK TODAY for $35, $50, $100, $250, or whatever you can reasonably afford, to CITIZENS AGAINST VIOLENT CRIME, 12922 Harbor Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, 92840.
Or call (714) 543-6400, or e-mail CAVC.Sam@att.net, to find out about other ways you can help support THE THREE STRIKES ACT OF 2000.
Please don't hesitate because time is of the essence!
Thank you so very much, in advance, for your support!
Sincerely,
Sam H. Clauder II, Proponent
The Three Strikes Act of 2000
P.S. I know you want to amend the three-strikes law, and this initiative represents our best hope. So, please don't delay, and send us your contribution today. Thanks again.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Citizens Against Violent Crime: The Three Strikes Act of 2000
Sam H. Clauder II, Proponent
12922 Harbor Boulevard
Garden Grove, CA 92840
714.543.6400, Fax 714.542.2224
email: CAVC.Sam@att.net
NEW INITIATIVE FILED TO AMEND THREE STRIKES LAW
Garden Grove, California
A new initiative entitled "The Three Strikes Act of 2000" has been filed with the Attorney General's office. If approved by the voters next November, it would amend California's three strikes law to apply only to violent and/or serious felonies. This is the second initiative to be filed to amend the three strikes law.
The Attorney General's office is due to release the title and summary for the initiative on December 16, after which the proponents will have five months to collect 450,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. It was originally filed on October 22, and was being re-written until the final language was filed last Friday, November 12.
The initiative's purposes claim it will "protect the people by ensuring greater punishment and longer prison sentences for those who commit violent and/or serious felonies." It "makes no changes in existing law, other than to specify that only violent and/or serious felonies qualify for increased punishment due to prior strike convictions, and to require that no more than one strike be applied to each criminal act."
The initiative proponent is Sam H. Clauder II, a Garden Grove-based political consultant who worked on behalf of the original three strikes law, but has a had a change of heart. In 1994, Clauder collected signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. He also campaigned for its election, donated money to it, and voted for it.
"I was fed up with a system that gave more rights to criminals than it did to the victims," Clauder explained. "So, like millions of other Californians, I supported the three strikes law because I thought it would keep violent, heinous criminals, like the ones that slaughtered Polly Klaas and Kimber Reynolds, off the streets.
"Unfortunately, I was wrong. The current three strikes law allows any crime, even ones that should be misdemeanors, to be prosecuted as a third strike. So now we have thousands of people in prison, for 25-years-to-life, for such petty crimes as stealing a loaf of bread, a slice of pizza, a bottle of vitamins, or forging a small check.
"This is not appropriate justice. Neither is it good public policy because it costs the state more than eight hundred million dollars a year. This situation must be corrected and that can only be done by a vote of the people."
Clauder drafted the initiative with help from various public defenders, district attorneys, judges, and some crime victims. "Families to Amend California's Three Strikes," or FACTS, a three-year-old organization dedicated to amending the three strikes law, has officially endorsed the initiative. (Webmaster's Note: Also be sure to visit the site of "Californians 2 Amend 3 Strikes," or C.A.T.S.)
A new political action committee, "Citizens Against Organized Crime is being formed to manage the campaign. Further information, and copies of the initiative, are available from Citizens Against Violent Crime by calling (714)543-6400.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 29, 1999
The Three Strikes Act of 2000
Sam H. Clauder II, Proponent
Joe Klaas, Proponent
Citizens Against Violent Crime
12922 Harbor Blvd., Garden Grove, CA 92840
714.5543.6400., Fax 714.542.2224
email CAVC.Sam@att.net
JOE KLAAS JOINS CAMPAIGN TO AMEND THREE-STRIKES LAW
Pebble Beach, California
Joe Klaas has joined the campaign to amend California's three-strikes law as a proponent for THE THREE STRIKES ACT OF 2000. If approved by the voters next November, it would amend the law to apply only to violent and serious felonies.
Joe Klaas is the grandfather of Polly Klaas, a 12-year-old girl who was kidnaped at knife-point from her Petaluma home in 1993, then raped and murdered by Richard Allen Davis, now on California's death row.
"After Polly's memorial in December, 1993, I supported the first three-strikes initiative," Klaas recounted. "My heart was broken by the kidnap, rape and murder of my granddaughter, and I was fed up with a justice system whose revolving doors freed heinous felons to roam the streets.
"Now, just five years later, a staggering 78% of second-strikers, and 50% of third-strikers, have been sentenced for non-violent offenses. California's prisons are bursting at the seams with more than 160,000 inmates jammed into cells that were made to house 80,000, and almost one-third of those are serving second- or third-strike sentences.
"I've become a proponent of The Three Strikes Act of 2000 because it will amend the three-strikes law to apply only to violent or serious felonies. It still doubles prison terms for second-strike convictions and mandates 25-years-to-life for third-strikes, so it's certainly not 'soft' on crime. But it won't apply to petty shoplifters, check-bouncers, or drug users, like the current law does.
"If THE THREE STRIKES ACT OF 2000 were in effect years ago, my granddaughter, Polly Klaas, would still be alive today. Please join me in supporting this tough, but legally and fiscally balanced, anti-crime initiative."
Joe Klaas retired as a Lieutenant Colonel from the USAF Reserve in 1970. He is a decorated veteran of World War II who flew Spitfires as a Yank in the RAF, transferred to the USAF in 1942, and participated in the invasion of North Africa with the 31st Fighter Group. After being shot down and captured in Tunisia, Klaas spent 25 months in Nazi prison camps where he worked for the X-Committee which planned The Great Escape.
After the war, Klaas received degrees in public relations and creative writing from the University of Washington. He belongs to the Sigma Delta Chi fraternity of journalism, the Authors Guild, and the Amelia Earhart Society of Researchers. Klaas has also been a newspaper reporter, correspondent, screenwriter, and broadcast journalist. He retired in 1979 as an account executive for the American Broadcasting Company.
Klaas is the author of nine books, including 'Amelia Earhart Lives' about the Earhart mystery, 'Maybe I'm Dead' about a death march across Nazi Germany, and 'The 12 Steps to Happiness' currently in its 18th printing by Ballantine and Hazelden. "Redwing," a motion picture version of 'Amelia Earhart Lives,' is now in pre-production.
Klaas is now an active advocate for child safety in the memory of his granddaughter, Polly. He joins Sam H. Clauder II, a Garden Grove-based political consultant, as co-proponents for the initiative.
The Attorney General's office is due to release the title and summary for the initiative on December 16, after which the proponents will have five months to collect 450,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Further information is available, and interviews can be arranged, by calling Citizens Against Violent Crime at (714) 543-6400, or by e-mail at CAVC.Sam@att.net.
The Following is the complete text of "The Three Strikes Act of 2000"
THE THREE STRIKES ACT OF 2000:
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS
TO THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of the State of California, residents of the afore-described County (or City and County), hereby propose amendments to Penal Code Sections 667 and 1170.12, relating to the sentencing of individuals for a third serious or violent felony after having been convicted of two prior serious or violent felonies, and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding primary or general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that primary or general election or as otherwise provided by law. The proposed statutory initiative reads as follows:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. TITLE
This initiative shall be known and may be cited as the Three Strikes Act of 2000.
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
The People of the State of California do hereby find and declare that:
(a) Proposition 184 was overwhelmingly approved in 1994 with the intent of protecting law-abiding citizens by enhancing the sentences of offenders who commit violent and/or serious felonies;
(b) Proposition 184 has permitted prosecutors too much discretion in determining what criminal acts to prosecute as a second and/or third strike resulting in thousands of petty crimes being prosecuted as second and third strikes;
(c) Proposition 184 has been used to enhance the sentences of more than 35,000 persons who did not commit a serious and/or violent crime against another person, at a cost to taxpayers of more than eight hundred million dollars ($800,000,000) per year.
SECTION 3. PURPOSES
The People of the State of California do hereby enact this measure to:
(a) Protect the people from criminals who commit violent and/or serious crimes;
(b) Ensure greater punishment and longer prison sentences for those who have been previously convicted of violent and/or serious felonies, and who commit another violent and/or serious felony;
(c) Make no changes in existing law, other than to specify that only violent and/or serious felonies qualify for increased punishment due to prior strike convictions, and to require that no more than one strike be prosecuted for each criminal act;
(d) Reduce the cost to taxpayers for warehousing offenders who commit crimes that do not qualify for increased punishment according to this Act.
SECTION 4. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 667 OF THE PENAL CODE
(This format presents struck wording in [brackets and bold] and new wording in italics.)
Section 667 of the Penal Code is hereby amended to read:
(a)
(1) In compliance with subdivision (b) of Section 1385, any person convicted of a violent and/or serious felony who previously has been convicted of a violent and/or serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includes all of the elements of any violent and/or 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 of the present offense and each enhancement shall run consecutively.
(2) This subdivision shall not be applied when the punishment imposed under other provisions of law would result in a longer term of imprisonment. There is no requirement of prior incarceration or commitment for this subdivision to apply.
(3) The Legislature may increase the length of the enhancement 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 serious felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.
(5) This subdivision shall not apply to a person convicted of selling, furnishing, administering, or giving, or offering to sell, 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 paragraph (24) of subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.
(b) It is the intent of the [Legislature] People of the State of California in enacting subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a violent and/or serious felony and have been previously convicted of [serious] violent and/or [violent] serious felony offenses.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a defendant has been convicted of a violent and/or serious felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior violent and/or serious felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d), the court shall adhere to each of the following:
(1) There shall not be an aggregate term limitation for purposes of consecutive sentencing for any subsequent violent and/or serious 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 violent and/or serious felony conviction and the current violent and/or serious felony conviction shall not affect the imposition of the 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 commitment to 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 pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not exceed one-fifth of the total term of imprisonment imposed and shall not accrue until the defendant is physically placed in the state prison.
(6) If there is a current conviction for more than one violent and/or serious felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuant to subdivision (e).
(7) If there is a current conviction for more than one [serious or] violent and/or serious 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 pursuant to 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, and for the purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, a prior conviction of a violent and/or serious 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 as a 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 upon the date of that prior conviction and is 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 of judgment or sentence.
(B) The stay of execution of sentence, except where the sentence was stayed pursuant to Section 654.
(C) The commitment to the State Department of Health Services as a mentally disordered sex offender following a conviction of a felony.
(D) The commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center or any other facility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from the state prison.
(2) A conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that, if committed in California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. A prior conviction of a particular violent and/or serious felony shall include a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that includes all of the elements of the particular felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.
(3) A prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a prior violent and/or serious felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement if all of the following are true:
(A) The juvenile was 16 years of age or older at 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 felony.
(C) The juvenile was found to be a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law.
(D) The juvenile was adjudged a ward of 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.
(e) For purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, and in addition to any other enhancement or punishment provisions which may apply, the following shall apply where a defendant has a prior violent and/or serious felony conviction:
(1) If a defendant has one prior violent and/or serious felony conviction that has been pled and proved, the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current violent and/or serious felony conviction.
(A) If a defendant has two or more prior violent and/or serious felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d) that have been pled and proved, the term for the current violent and/or serious felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the [greater] greatest of the following:
(i) Three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current violent and/or serious felony conviction subsequent to the two or more prior violent and/or serious felony convictions.
(ii) Imprisonment in 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 commence at the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison.
(f)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be applied in every case in which a defendant is charged with a violent and/or serious felony and has a prior violent and/or serious felony conviction as defined in subdivision (d). The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior violent and/or serious felony conviction except as provided in paragraph (2).
(2) The prosecuting attorney may move to dismiss or strike a prior felony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior conviction. If upon the satisfaction of the court that there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior felony conviction, the court may dismiss or strike the allegation.
(g) Prior 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 convictions and shall not enter into any agreement to strike or seek the dismissal of any prior felony conviction allegation except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f).
(h) All references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, are to statutes as they existed on June 30, 1993.
(i) If any provision of subdivisions (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 effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of those subdivisions are severable.
(j) [The provisions of this section shall not be amended by the Legislature except by statute passed in each house by roll call vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.] The provisions of this section shall be amended only by one of the following:
(1) by statute passed in each house of the Legislature, by roll call vote entered in the journal, with two-thirds of the membership and the Governor concurring, or
(2) by statute passed in each house of the Legislature, by roll call vote entered in the journal, with a majority of the membership concurring, to be placed on the next general ballot, and with a majority of the electors concurring, or
(3) by statute that becomes effective when approved by a majority of the electors.
SECTION 5. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1170.12 OF THE PENAL CODE
(This format presents struck wording in [brackets] and new wording in italics.)
Section 1170.12 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a defendant has been convicted of a violent and/or serious felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior violent and/or serious felony convictions, as defined in subdivision (b), the court shall adhere to each of the 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 violent and/or serious felony conviction and the current violent and/or serious felony conviction shall not affect 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 commitment to 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 pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not exceed one-fifth of the total term of imprisonment imposed and shall not accrue until the defendant is physically placed in the state prison.
(6) If there is a current conviction for more than one violent and/or serious felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuant to this section.
(7) If there is a current conviction for more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6) of this subdivision, 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 pursuant to this section will be imposed consecutive to any other sentence which the defendant is already serving, unless otherwise provided by law.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and for the purposes of this section, a prior conviction of a violent and/or serious 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 as a serious felony in this state. The determination of whether a prior conviction is a prior violent and/or serious felony conviction for purposes of this section shall be made upon the date of that prior conviction and is 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 violent and/or serious felony for purposes of this section:
(A) The suspension of imposition of judgment or sentence.
(B) The stay of execution of sentence, except where the sentence was stayed pursuant to Section 654.
(C) The commitment to the State Department of Health Services as a mentally disordered sex offender following a conviction of a felony.
(D) The commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center or any other facility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from the state prison.
(2) A conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that, if committed in California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. A prior conviction of a particular violent and/or serious felony shall include a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that includes all of the elements of the particular felony as defined above in subdivision [(c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7] (b).
(3) A prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a prior violent and/or serious felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement if all of the following are true:
(A) The juvenile was 16 years of age or older at the time he or she committed the prior offense.
(B) The prior offense is listed above as a violent and/or serious felony, or is one of the following offenses listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or described in paragraph (1) or (2) as a felony.
(C) The juvenile was found to be a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law.
(D) The juvenile was adjudged a ward of 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 purposes of this section, and in addition to any other enhancements or punishment provisions which may apply, the following shall apply where a defendant has a prior violent and/or serious felony conviction:
(1) If a defendant has one prior violent and/or serious felony conviction that has been pled and proved, the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current violent and/or serious felony conviction.
(2)
(A) If a defendant has two or more prior violent and/or serious felony convictions as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) that have been pled and proved, the term for the current violent and/or serious felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the [greater] greatest of the following:
(i) [three] Three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current violent and/or serious felony conviction subsequent to the two or more prior violent and/or serious felony convictions [, or].
(ii) Imprisonment in 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) 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 commence at the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison.
(d)
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subdivisions (b) to (h) inclusive, shall be applied in every case in which a defendant is charged with a violent and/or serious felony and has a prior violent and/or serious felony conviction as defined in [this section] subdivision (b). The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior violent and/or serious felony conviction except as provided in paragraph (2).
(2) The prosecuting attorney may move to dismiss or strike a prior felony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior conviction. If upon the satisfaction of the court that there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior felony conviction, the court may dismiss or strike the allegation.
(e) Prior 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 convictions and shall not enter into any agreement to strike or seek the dismissal of any prior felony conviction allegation except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d).
(f) It is the intent of the People of the State of California in approving this Act, that, while multiple charges may be filed for and multiple convictions result from a single criminal act committed on one occasion and arising from one set of operative facts, there shall be no more than one strike charged and no more than one sentence enhancement applied for any criminal act that is committed on the same occasion and arises from the same set of operative facts.
(g) All references to existing statutes in subdivisions (b) to (f), inclusive, are to statutes as they existed on June 30, 1993.
(h) If any provision of subdivisions (a) to (g), 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 effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of those subdivisions are severable.
(i) The provisions of this section shall be amended only by one of the following:
(1) by statute passed in each house of the Legislature, by roll call vote entered in the journal, with two-thirds of the membership and the Governor concurring, or
(2) by statute passed in each house of the Legislature, by roll call vote entered in the journal, with a majority of the membership concurring, to be placed on the next general ballot, and with a majority of the electors concurring, or
(3) by statute that becomes effective when approved by a majority of the electors.
SECTION 6. PROVISIONS FOR RE-SENTENCING
(a) Any individual sentenced under the prior three strikes law, including, but not limited to, Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(2), and Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2), for an enhanced conviction, that would not qualify for enhancement under this statute, shall qualify to be re-sentenced according to the provisions of this Act.
(b) Those individuals qualifying to be re-sentenced shall be remanded to their court of origin and re-sentenced within no more than 180 days of this Act becoming effective, unless the qualifying individual personally waives in open court the 180 day time period.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or as precluding the use of any other remedies.
SECTION 7. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
This Act is an exercise of the public power of the state for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State of California, and shall be liberally construed to effectuate these purposes.
SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Act are severable. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.
SECTION 9. CONFLICTING MEASURES
If this 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 self-executing and given the full force of law.
SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Act shall become effective immediately upon its approval by the voters.
SECTION 11. SELF-EXECUTION
This Act shall be self-executing.
SECTION 12. AMENDMENT
This Act shall not be altered or amended except by one of the following:
(a) By statute passed in each house of the Legislature, by roll call vote entered in the journal, with two-thirds of the membership and the Governor concurring, or
(b) By statute passed in each house of the Legislature, by roll call vote entered in the journal, with a majority of the membership concurring, to be placed on the next general ballot, and with a majority of the electors concurring, or
(c) By statute that becomes effective when approved by a majority of the electors.
From the Los Angeles Times, December 11th, 1999:
Repeat Offender Law Strikes Activists as Exceedingly Unjust
By Greg Krikorian
The meetings always begin with a prayer. They also end with one. And in between, it is clear why so much praying needs to be done. Because inside the old Craftsman home south of downtown Los Angeles, two dozen folks meet every Monday night to stoke a revolution.
Not a violent one, though they are angry. Not a desperate one, though they are passionate about their cause. No, this is a measured insurrection. One organized and carried out by ordinary citizens who are united in the simple yet daunting goal of changing one of the most significant criminal justice laws ever enacted in California:
Three strikes.
Now to be clear, they do not ask that the landmark 1994 law be stricken. They want it changed. Despite its original intentions to crack down on career criminals, they believe that it has gone too far. It has locked up, sometimes for life, too many members of their families for petty crimes.
How else, they ask, do you describe a law that sends someone to prison for life for stealing two sips of gin. Or making off with soda cans. Or possessing a flake of cocaine.
So five years and almost 50,000 new prisoners after the law took effect, this group, Families to Amend California's Three Strikes, is pushing to make it apply only to violent felonies, not the drug crimes, petty thefts or burglaries that make up most convictions.
Under the current law, any ex-felon convicted of a "serious"--such as a burglary--or "violent" felony can see his potential prison time greatly enhanced if he is again found guilty of a felony. Even if that offense is not classified "serious" or "violent." Even if the earlier crimes were decades ago.
For a second strike, that means doubling of a normal prison sentence. And for strike three, it means going away for 25 years to life.
The group believes that only violent felonies should be considered second or third strikes and that no juvenile crime should count as a strike. In addition, members want those now serving time under three strikes to be re-sentenced under the proposed new rules.
"Let the time fit the crime" is how members state their case.
And they have their work cut out for them.
"No question, it will be an uphill battle," said Geri Silva, co-founder of the group. "There is no hope that we're going to have all the . . . politicians moving to change the law. It's not going to happen that way."
Instead, she and the other members believe that the law will be amended through a public awareness campaign--here and throughout California--that Sacramento lawmakers cannot ignore. Toward that end, this group of mothers, fathers, grandparents and others fans out every week to churches, schools and community halls to urge a change.
"Each thing we do in the community makes our voices stronger, and each person we educate makes our movement bigger," said Silva, who has had friends, but no relatives, imprisoned under the law. And although the group has not reached its goal, it is also far from the place where it started. "We've taken steps," Silva said. "We're not at the beginning at all."
Launched two years ago in Los Angeles, the group now has chapters as diverse as California--in Oakland, Sacramento, San Jose, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Orange County. Statewide, according to Silva, the group has 600 to 700 active members and more than a thousand others on its mailing list.
Most of them have husbands or brothers in prison.
Micky Neal has both.
"My brother's last case was burglary. He went into a Thrifty store and stole 11 bottles of shampoo," Neal said.
Her husband, Lamont, she said, is doing 25 years to life for petty theft. "He went in on a charge of possessing a stolen credit card," she said. "He went down to Alvarado and purchased a credit card and ID. He tried to use it to buy a TV."
Carmen Ewell joined after her husband, John, was sent to prison for passing a stolen check. With two previous convictions for second-degree robbery, the 42-year-old cosmetologist pleaded guilty to the stolen check charge when authorities offered him a deal, he said from state prison in Norco. Plead guilty, prosecutors said, and we'll overlook a prior conviction, so this will count as a second, not third, strike. In doing so, Ewell avoided a trial and the possibility of a sentence of 25 years to life. Still, pleading to a second strike meant that his prison term was doubled--to seven years.
"If they were to amend three strikes, I could probably go home next year," said Ewell, whose offense normally carries a 3 1/2-year prison term.
Said his wife: "I think it's an injustice. . . . His attorney told me if my husband had not gotten the priors, he probably would have [faced] a misdemeanor."
Like many of those in the group, Carmen Ewell, an insurance claims analyst, did not know about the group until long after her husband was sent to prison.
"My niece and I were going to church and saw a demonstration. . . . It was like 50 or 60 people. They were around the whole block," she said. "I have been involved ever since."
During a recent meeting, Ewell, 37, presided over a meeting of the group's Outreach Committee. Over the course of an hourlong discussion, she and others ticked off a list of upcoming events and stressed that members must press local churches and other groups to join their cause.
Doug Kieso, an accountant and former corporate attorney who developed the group's Web site, tells the group that he will be speaking to a local school about the three-strikes law. He also mentions that a recent documentary about the law can be made available to groups.
"The big thing about our organization is that we are one of the few groups trying to change a law [in a way] that would help prisoners," Kieso said. "There are very few lobbying groups that have any power in that regard, so we are up against a huge [opponent]."
Politicians. Law enforcement organizations. Victims rights groups. "These are people who have millions of dollars . . . and we are bare bones," Kieso said.
As the meeting opens, his point becomes clear. Sitting in clusters, members salvage stamps from mailers that were never sent out.
Increasingly, the position of state and local lawmakers on three strikes infuriates some members who say they are too often brushed off by officials, including those whose poorer districts are especially affected by three strikes.
"To let them stay in office and be untouchable is an insult," said Tommy Plummer, a 51-year-old Los Angeles city employee.
Unlike most in the group, Plummer first became aware of the law serving as a juror in a 1997 case in which a drug addict's arrest for possessing $15 in rock cocaine--his first arrest in almost 20 years--would have landed him in prison for 25 years to life if a jury had not deadlocked.
Dennis Duncan, president of the group's Los Angeles chapter, is also in the minority among its members.
He voted for three strikes.
"I had voted for . . . every prison thing that came down the pike," he said.
But Duncan changed his mind after hearing about who was being swept up by the new law.
"I have not been directly affected by the three-strikes law. I am just a citizen who feels a responsibility for doing something about it," he said. "I am not saying that everybody is in prison incorrectly and [that] I want to open the gates and let everybody out.
"I do believe that people do bad things and they should be punished," he said. "But I also believe the time should fit the crime."
So do the others.
"God help me, if I knew someone in prison for three strikes," Plummer said, shaking his head, "I don't know how I could handle it."
Watch for further updates on this important issue!
|