Posted on 02/08/2007 6:32:27 PM PST by NormsRevenge
California lawmakers are poised to vote on legislation to counter a U.S. Supreme Court ruling invalidating the state's criminal sentencing law.
Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, the proposal's chief architect, said SB40 is set to go before the state Senate on Tuesday. Her announcement Thursday came a day after the California Supreme Court also weighed into the dispute and urged lawmakers to respond to the Jan. 22 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
At issue is a California law that currently demands that judges "shall" sentence inmates to the middle of three options unless factors, many that did not go before the jury, justify a shorter or longer prison term.
But the U.S. Supreme Court said such a sentencing scheme violates defendants' rights to be tried before a jury. In short, it's unconstitutional to increase a sentence based on facts that were not found true by a jury, the justices ruled.
In response, Romero's legislation gives judges the discretion to impose the lower, middle or upper terms, so the measure would not unconstitutionally increase sentences because no base term would exist. A judge also would no longer be bound to increase a sentence.
The U.S. Supreme Court suggested such a solution in its ruling.
"We think it's the most practical response," Romero, D-Los Angeles, said in an interview Thursday. "We have a patient that has been declared dead."
The bill, supported by California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, faces an uncertain fate in the Assembly.
Bill Maile, a spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the Republican governor does not comment on pending legislation.
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday asked lawmakers to rewrite California's sentencing law and also agreed to deal with the 10,000 or so inmates who must be re-sentenced under the high court's decision.
Romero said it was the job of the judiciary, not the Legislature, to deal with the flood of appeals for re-sentencing.
California's justices ordered briefing by month's end in five cases. The appeals are by criminal defendants basing their claims on the U.S. Supreme Court decision that the upper terms they received for various crimes were unconstitutional.
Gerald Uelmen, a Santa Clara University School of Law scholar who closely follows California's justices, said the likely outcome is that inmates sentenced to the high terms will get them reduced to the middle term, which might be a difference of between one and four years.
"The middle term on these cases will now be the maximum," Uelmen said.
The cases are People v. Hernandez, S148974; People v. French, S148845; People v. Pardo, S148914; People v. Mveumba, S149247; People v. Sandoval, S148917.
But the U.S. Supreme Court said such a sentencing scheme violates defendants' rights to be tried before a jury. In short, it's unconstitutional to increase a sentence based on facts that were not found true by a jury, the justices ruled.
-----
Remember, that to voice of law, in any form, does NOT MATTER to liberals. The law is an obstacle to their agenda, in this case again, to protect criminals.
"We HAVE to release these fine folks. The CA Supreme Court so ordered!"
How much more can we take?????????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.