Fixing California Sentencing Law - The Problem with Piecemeal Reform
![handle is hein.journals/mcglr39 and id is 595 raw text is: Fixing California Sentencing Law-The Problem with
Piecemeal Reform
Stephanie Watson
Code Sections Affected
Penal Code §§ 1170, 1170.3 (new, amended, and repealed).
SB 40 (Romero); 2007 STAT. Ch. 3 (Effective March 30, 2007).
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 22, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court in Cunningham v. California
held California's determinate sentencing law unconstitutional.' The law violated
the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because the law authorized
a judge-rather than a jury-to find facts that potentially warranted an increased
term. The Court presented California two options with which to remedy its
sentencing system.The first option would allow juries to find the facts on which
to base an upper sentencing term, and the second option would increase the
discretion of the judges to select an appropriate sentencing term.4
Prison reform advocates found that the Cunningham ruling provided a rare
opportunity for thoughtful and effective long-term sentencing reform.5
California's legislature, however, recognized that without a constitutional
sentencing structure in place, chaos would quickly consume the courts.6 Thus, the
Legislature hastily complied with Cunningham in Chapter 3 by increasing
judicial discretion, but did not address long-term prison reform.7 One might ask
whether a prudent response is just as important as a prompt one.'
1. Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856, 871 (2007).
2. Id. (Because the [determinate sentencing law] authorizes the judge, not the jury, to find the facts
permitting an upper term sentence, the system cannot withstand measurement against our Sixth Amendment
precedent.).
3. Id. (California may follow the paths taken by its sister States or otherwise alter its system, so long as
the State observes Sixth Amendment limitations declared in this Court's decisions.).
4. See id. (noting that in response to the newly developing Sixth Amendment case law, states have either
required juries to determine any fact that may be used to increase a sentence or granted judges the broad
discretion to determine a sentence within a defined statutory range).
5. B. Cayenne Bird, SB40 Is Not a Prison Sentencing Fix Kill this Bill Now!, AM. CHRON., Mar. 21,
2007, http://www.americanchronicle.conarticles/viewArticle.asp?articlelD=22554 [hereinafter Bird, Kill this
Bill] (on file with the McGeorge Law Review) (The Supreme Court ruling was a rare ray of hope to everyone
whose lives have been devastated under this harshness.); see also STANFORD CRIMINAL JUSTICE CTR.,
CALIFORNIA SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS: SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 6 (2007), http://www.pewpublicsafety.
org/pdfs/CA%20Sentencing%201ssues.pdf [hereinafter SIGNIFICANT ISSUES] (on file with the McGeorge Law
Review) ([S]ome argue that to ensure long-term improvements in the California correction's system, the
Legislature must reconceive its entire scheme of sentencing statutes.).
6. See ASSEMBLY FLOOR, COMMITTEE ANALYSIS OF SB 40, at 5 (Mar. 26, 2007) (noting that until there
is time for a thorough revision of California sentencing law this bill would bring desperately needed stability to
a court system that has been thrown into chaos by the Cunningham decision).
7. See 2007 Cal. Stat. ch. 3, § I (stating the limited intent of the statute as an answer to Cunningham but](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/mcglr39&div=37&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Fixing California Sentencing Law - The Problem with Piecemeal Reform
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most