Existing law requires a person who, having been previously convicted of specified vehicle theft offenses regardless of whether or not the person actually served a prior prison term for the offense, is subsequently convicted of any of the specified offenses to be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for 2, 3, or 4 years, or a fine of $10,000, or both that fine and the imprisonment.

This bill would instead require a person who is subsequently convicted of an above-specified vehicle theft offense to, in addition and consecutive to a sentence imposed for that conviction, serve a one-year term for each prior conviction of those offenses. By increasing the punishment for a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Sandra Uribe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:(Cervantes) – As Introduced Ver:

SUMMARY:

Adds a one-year enhancement to a sentence for auto theft for each prior auto theft committed by the defendant. Specifically, this bill:

1. Creates a one-year enhancement for prior auto-theft convictions to be served consecutively to the sentence for the offense.
   
2. Repeals the current enhanced-penalty provision for auto theft with a prior auto theft conviction.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that grand theft is committed when the property taken is an automobile. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1).)
   
2. Provides that grand theft of an automobile is an alternate felony/misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in the county jail, or in the county jail for 16 months, two or three years. (Pen. Code, § 489, subd. (c).)
   
3. Provides that the driving or taking a vehicle without the owner’s permission, with the intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of title or possession of the vehicle, with or without the intent to steal the vehicle, or being an accessory or accomplice in the driving or unauthorized taking or stealing, is an alternate felony/misdemeanor punishable by up to 1year in the county jail, or in the county jail for 16 months, two or three years, or by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or both the fine and incarceration. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).)
   
4. Punishes a second or subsequent vehicle-theft or unlawful taking of a vehicle by two, three, or four years in the county jail, a fine of $10,000, or both. (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a).)
   
5. Requires the prosecutor to plead and prove a prior vehicle-theft allegation. (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (c).)
   

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “There is clear evidence demonstrating that public safety realignment in 2011 led to an increase in auto theft. According to a 2016 report by the Public Policy Institute of California, the auto theft rate increased 17 percent post-realignment. These growing number of auto thefts tend to disproportionately affect middle- and working-class Californians. In 2015, the car that was stolen most often in California was the 1996 Honda Accord. Nine of the top ten most-stolen cars that same year were manufactured before 2007, and seven of those were models made before the year 2000. These are cars driven by middle- and working-class Californians, not millionaires. And yet, under current law, a person who is convicted of his or her tenth felony auto theft can receive the same sentence as a second-time offender. The status quo is not working to reduce auto theft and protect the cars of Californians.
   
   “AB 1475 would help address this consequence of realignment by adding a sentence enhancement to criminals convicted of repeated auto theft. For each prior conviction of auto theft, a criminal would receive a sentence enhancement of one year. This will help stop serial auto thieves who prey mostly on middle- and working-class Californians.”
   
2. Crime Rates After the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011: The California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis publishes a yearly report on crime statistics in California. The latest report notes that the motor vehicle theft rate increased 10.9 percent in 2015 from the year before (from 394.3 in 2014 to 437.1 in 2015 per 100,000). However, in the past five years the motor vehicle theft rate has fluctuated. From 2010 to 2015 there has been a 7 percent rate increase. But in 2014, the motor vehicle theft rate was close to where it was in 2010 (with 394.3 in 2014 compared to 391.3 per 100,000). (See Crime in California 2015, California Department of Justice pp. 2 & 7 (Table 2), <https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/candd/cd15/cd15.pdf?)
   
3. Enhancements: California’s Determinate Sentencing Law originally provided specified periods of incarceration and limited the court’s ability to increase sentences. However, legislators then began to enact many new sentencing laws and enhancements in response to public and political pressure. These new laws typically sought to increase sentence lengths and were often fueled by specific high-profile crimes. (S. Teji, Sentencing in California: Moving Toward a Smarter, More Cost-Effective Approach, Dec. 2015., < http://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/sentencing-in-california-moving-toward-a-smarter-more-cost-effective-approach/>.)
   
   Sentence enhancements are facts and circumstances that, if present in a particular case, allow the judge to increase or "enhance" the sentence that normally applies to the crime. Now California has over 400 sentencing enhancements for conduct such as use of a gun, infliction of great bodily injury, or having prior felony convictions. Enactment of myriad sentence enhancements led to prison overcrowding, and eventually to a federal court order requiring the State to reduce its prison population.
   
   As a result of prison overcrowding Governor Brown proposed Proposition 57 of the November 8, 2016 general election. Among other things, Proposition 57 makes prison inmates serving time for non-violent felonies eligible for parole consideration after serving the full sentence for their primary offenses, without having to serve time for additional crimes or enhancements, such as gang affiliation or prior felonies. The voters approved Proposition 57 by 65 percent of the vote.
   
   Proposition 57 has no impact on felony county jail sentences which contain a sentence enhancement, such as for the crime of auto theft.
   

Unlike other enhancements which punish conduct at the time of the commission of the crime, a recidivist enhancement simply adds punishment for prior conduct. Some legal scholars argue that from a retributive standpoint, it is debatable whether a defendant’s status as a recidivist is at all relevant to determining the just punishment for a subsequent offense. (See e.g., S. Russell, Rethinking Recidivist Enhancements: The Role of Prior Drug Convictions

in Federal Sentencing, (2009-2010) 43 U.C. Davis Law Rev. 1135 <http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/43/4/articles/43-4_russell.pdf>.) After all, the defendant has already served his or her sentence for the prior offense, and the current offense was not rendered more dangerous because of it.

Under current law, repeat auto theft offenders already face additional punishment. This bill would repeal the current sentence enhancement for auto theft with a prior auto theft conviction and replace it with a one-year sentence enhancement for each prior auto theft conviction suffered by the defendant to be served consecutively to the base term of the current offense. As a result, it increases the sentence of any defendant who has had more than one prior auto theft conviction. Is further punishment necessary?

1. Argument in Support: According to the California District Attorneys Association, the sponsor of this bill, “Existing law provides that felony auto theft is punishable by 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in county jail. Further, Penal Code section 666.5 provides that an individual with a prior conviction for auto theft, who is convicted of another auto theft, shall be sentenced to 2, 3, or 4 years in county jail. However, when an individual continues to steal cars, there is no additional punishment. A person who is convicted for the seventh time faces the same punishment as a person convicted for the second time.
   
   “In 2015, California was home to eight of the top 10 areas in the nation for auto theft, including Modesto, which ranked first with 756.3 auto thefts per 100,000 residents – more than three times the nationwide rate of 220.2. In that same year, the Los Angeles metropolitan area saw 57,247 auto thefts – more than eight percent of all cars stolen in the United States.

“Contrary to what many people would think, these auto thieves are not targeting luxury cars. Instead, they prey on individuals whose livelihood most depends on reliable transportation. Of the top ten cars stolen in California in 2015, nine were manufactured more than 10 years ago, and seven of those were manufactured before 2000. The most stolen car in California in 2015 was the 1996 Honda Accord.

“AB 1475 would provide an additional tool for combatting auto theft in California, and ensure that repeat offenders face greater consequences.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to American Civil Liberties Union of California, “Existing law already imposes a significant enhanced penalty for repeat vehicle theft offenders. Crimes which may, upon first conviction, be punishable as either misdemeanors or felonies are punished for subsequent offenses with a jail term of up to four years. AB 1475 would increase sentences without benefit to public safety. It would also add needless additional complexity to California’s sentencing laws by creating a new way to calculate sentences for repeat vehicle theft offenders applicable only to a specific set of crimes.
   
   “Governor Brown has criticized our state’s criminal laws, particularly the number of sentencing enhancements, observing, ‘[t]here are now 400 separate enhancements that can add up to 25 years, each one of them, and now you have over 5,000 separate criminal provisions.’ As the Governor stated in his veto message of several bills last session, ‘[t]his multiplication and particularization of criminal behavior creates increasing complexity without commensurate benefit.’
   
   “Nor will the increased enhancements for repeat vehicle theft crimes proposed under this bill benefit public safety. Studies have concluded that the severity of punishment does not generally have an increased effect on deterrence. Rather, researchers have found that certainty of punishment has a greater deterrent effect than the severity of the punishment itself.”
   
2. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 392 (Lackey) specifies that the crime of conspiracy occurs when two or more persons conspire to commit shoplifting and that offense is punishable as a felony. AB 392 failed passage in this Committee and reconsideration was granted.
      
   2. AB 1326 (Cooper) provides that if a person is convicted of multiple shoplifting offenses within 12 months and the aggregate value of the property is more than $950, then the person may be punished as a realigned felon. AB 1326 is pending hearing in this Committee.
      
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 751 (Garrick), of the 2009-2010 Legislative Session, would have created six new one-year enhancements for the theft of a vehicle under specified circumstances. AB 751 failed passage in this Committee.
      
   2. AB 998 (Garrick), of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session, was identical to AB 751 (Garrick). AB 998 was held on the Assembly Appropriation Committee's Suspense File.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California District Attorneys Association (Sponsor)
California New Car Dealers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
San Diego County District Attorney

Opposition

American Civil Liberties Union of California

California Immigrant Policy Center

California Public Defenders Association

Analysis Prepared by:

Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. /