California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 1202 — Sentencing.

Last action — August 11 hearing. Held in committee and under submission.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, until January 1, 2017, specifies, when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies 3 possible terms, that the choice of the appropriate term shall rest within the sound discretion of the court. Existing law, on and after January 1, 2017, requires, in that situation, the court to order imposition of the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime. Existing law also requires the court to set forth on the record the facts and reasons for imposing the upper or lower term and the reason for its sentencing choice. Existing law prohibits the court from imposing an upper term based upon the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed. This bill would also prohibit the court from imposing an upper term based upon aggravating facts unless those facts are presented to, and found to be true by, the factfinder. The bill would require the court to specify on the record the specific facts in aggravation, if any, the court relied upon to impose an upper term. The bill would also prohibit a fact pleaded in the indictment, information, or accusatory pleading in aggravation of sentence from being used as an aggravating factor in sentencing unless that fact has been proven to the trier of fact or admitted by the defendant. The bill would also require the bifurcation of the trial of all facts pleaded in aggravation of sentence, as specified. By increasing the duties of local prosecutors with regards to presenting and proving aggravating facts, 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. August 11 hearing. Held in committee and under submission.

  2. August 3 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  5. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 21. Noes 15. Page 4113.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  7. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 4006.) (May 27).

  9. Set for hearing May 27.

  10. May 2 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  11. Set for hearing May 2.

  12. April 25 hearing postponed by committee.

  13. Set for hearing April 25.

  14. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1. Page 3522.) (April 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. Set for hearing April 12.

  16. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  17. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  18. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 20.

  19. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Leno · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Leno

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

3rd Reading

Passed 21 Yea · 15 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 211303
Democratic 0201
Total 211504
% of votes cast 53%38%0%10%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Block — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huff — Nay
Lara — Yea
Liu — Yea
Pan — Yea
Roth — Not Voting
Vidak — Nay
Allen — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Galgiani — Nay
Cannella — Nay
Runner — Not Voting
Glazer — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Bates — Nay
Beall — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leno — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mendoza — Not Voting
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Not Voting
McGuire, Mike Democratic Nay
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 1000
Unaffiliated 4200
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Mendoza — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Bates — Nay
Beall — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Lara — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Hill — Yea
Bates — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 1202 do?
Existing law, until January 1, 2017, specifies, when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies 3 possible terms, that the choice of the appropriate term shall rest within the sound discretion of the court. Existing law, on and after January 1, 2017, requires, in that situation, the court to order imposition of the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime. Existing law also requires the court to set forth on the record the facts and reasons for imposing the upper or lower term and the reason for its sentencing choice. Existing law prohibits the court from imposing an upper term based upon the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed. This bill would also prohibit the court from imposing an upper term based upon aggravating facts unless those facts are presented to, and found to be true by, the factfinder. The bill would require the court to specify on the record the specific facts in aggravation, if any, the court relied upon to impose an upper term. The bill would also prohibit a fact pleaded in the indictment, information, or accusatory pleading in aggravation of sentence from being used as an aggravating factor in sentencing unless that fact has been proven to the trier of fact or admitted by the defendant. The bill would also require the bifurcation of the trial of all facts pleaded in aggravation of sentence, as specified. By increasing the duties of local prosecutors with regards to presenting and proving aggravating facts, 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.
Who sponsors SB 1202?
SB 1202 is sponsored by Leno.
What is the current status of SB 1202?
This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 1202?
Track SB 1202 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1202

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 1202

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →