Archives

By: TERI FIGUEROA - Staff Writer

The stories are out there. The pot smoker, the pizza thief, the videotape shoplifter who were two-time felons slammed with life sentences after getting nabbed a third time, committing a third felony.

Such sentences have come down for 10 years, thanks to California's 1994 three-strikes law, which is designed to punish repeat offenders.

In essence, it works like this: A person with two serious or violent felonies on his record faces life in prison if convicted of a third felony, a third "strike." A strike is akin to a black mark on a criminal record. Get three of them, face 25 years-to-life in prison.

This November, three-strikes law opponents will ask voters to overhaul the decade-old law with Proposition 66, a ballot initiative that would require a person's final felony ---- the one that could send him or her away for life ---- to be serious or violent.

Supporters say it's time to mete out appropriate sentences for crimes. There should be no more stories of petty thieves locked up for life, said proposition proponent Jim Benson, vice chairman of the committee that put the initiative on the ballot.

But hold on, opponents say. There's more.

The proposition would narrow the list of crimes that qualify as serious or violent. It's also retroactive, meaning some inmates could be released early.

San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, a Prop. 66 opponent, said the proposition could lead to "thousands of convicted felons being released back into our neighborhoods."

The California District Attorneys Association estimates that as many as 26,000 inmates throughout the state could see shorter sentences.

Supporters of Prop. 66 say opponents are using scare tactics and inflated numbers.

San Diego County Public Defender Steve Carroll said the changes do not mean murderers, rapists and the like would spill out onto the streets because their crimes carry long sentences with or without the three-strikes law. Instead, he said, it will allow the courts to sentence criminals appropriately for the crimes they've committed.

The original three-strikes law

The current three-strikes law, approved by 72 percent of the voters in 1994, sends some three-time felons to jail for 25 years to life.

The first strike comes when a person is convicted of a felony defined as serious or violent ---- think rape and murder, but also residential burglary or arson.

A person's next conviction for any felony can bring him or her twice as much time behind bars ---- but it only counts as a second strike if the crime falls into the category of serious or violent.

Strike three comes if a person with two serious or violent felonies on his or her record commits another felony.

That newest felony, violent or not, serious or not, could land the person in prison for 25 years to life.

If Prop. 66 passes, all three strikes ---- including the third ---- must be for crimes considered serious or violent.

Redefining crimes

The proposition also narrows the list of crimes that qualify as serious or violent. Supporters of the change point out that the reclassified felonies primarily deal with property crimes and drug offenses ---- not crimes that should be considered serious, they say.

Gone from the list of serious or violent crimes would be residential burglaries in which no one was home.

For example, a burglar who breaks into homes while the residents are at work would no longer get a strike if convicted, said David Greenberg, head of the district attorney's North County branch.

Gone from the list of officially serious crimes would be participation in street gang felonies. Gone would be nonresidential arsons that leave no one injured.

Also off the list: accidentally hurting someone while committing a felony, such as a drunken driving crash or the Oceanside street racing crash in July that left a 61-year-old motorist hospitalized.

That Oceanside crash would no longer count as a strike for the driver who hit her.

"Tell that to the woman and her husband," said Greenberg, whose office is prosecuting the case. The woman, he said, is facing a year of rehabilitation for her injuries.

The proposition also would limit the number of strikes to one per trial. Thus, if prosecutors wanted to give a serial burglar a strike for each theft, the charges would have to be brought in separate trials.

In addition, Prop. 66 seeks to increase sentences for sex offenders whose crimes were committed against children under 14.

Resentencing of inmates

If Prop. 66 becomes law, the state must resentence third-strikers currently in jail if their third strike was for a felony considered nonviolent or nonserious by the state.

The resentencing would mean the release of some third-strikers already in jail for nonviolent and nonserious felonies, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office, a nonpartisan arm of the state Legislature.

It would also translate into shorter sentences for others, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. The scrutiny comes as part of the office's analysis of the proposition for the ballot.

In San Diego County, at least 2,000 people could see their sentences reduced if Prop. 66 is approved, according to the San Diego district attorney's office.

The resentencing must come within 180 days after the law goes into effect.

As of mid-August, the district attorney's office has had about 11,000 felony cases across the county so far this year. Of those, about 2 percent of the defendants were facing their third strike.

In the North County courthouse in Vista, 34 defendants ---- less than 1.5 percent ---- were facing a conviction for their third strike and a possible life sentence, as of the end of August.

Discretion in sentencing

Opponents of the initiative point out that under current law, not every third-striker automatically gets 25 years-to-life for new felonies. Prosecutors and judges can and do choose to overlook previous strikes.

But discretion doesn't mean the system always has adequate checks and balances, said San Diego County Public Defender Steve Carroll.

Carroll said he is aware of people who have gone to prison for life for third-strike crimes like swiping a bike out of an open garage ---- a residential burglary.

Carroll acknowledges the potential that some of those released under the law would slide back into illegal activities, "but we can't just lock them up because we are afraid that at some point they will commit a crime."

"Morally unjust"

Jim Benson is one of the state's leading proponents of the initiative and the vice president of Citizens Against Violent Crime, which put the proposition on the ballot. Benson has been pushing for the initiative since 1998, arguing that the law as it stands is unfair.

"It's not about giving somebody a second chance," Benson said. "It's about spending tax dollars where they should be spent. It doesn't make sense to spend $1 million to put somebody away for life."

Supporters of Prop. 66 also include Joe Klaas, the chairman of Citizens Against Violent Crime, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

Joining them is state Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who heads up the Assembly's Public Safety Committee.

Also committed to the passage of the proposition is Sam H. Clauder II, who leads the Yes on 66 Committee. He said the law as it stands is "morally unjust."

"I don't care what they did in their past," Clauder said of the three-strikers in prison for nonserious or nonviolent crimes. "Sentence them to the crime they have committed, not the crime for which they already served their time."

'Tough but fair'

Lined up against Prop. 66 are Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat. Joining them are a slew of other people and organizations, including statewide law-enforcement groups and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Also standing firmly against the proposition are Marc Klaas, the son of proponent Joe Klaas, and Mike Reynolds ---- both the fathers of slain girls.

For Klaas, whose daughter was Polly Klaas, a 12-year-old Petaluma girl kidnapped and murdered in 1993 by a parolee, his move to fight changes to three-strikes is a shift from his earlier stand, when he supported narrowing the law.

But judges and prosecutors now have discretion, Marc Klaas said, and prison populations didn't balloon from the three-strikes law. Now Klaas is willing to "eat crow."

"It seems to me it doesn't make sense to change or modify a law that seems to be working well," Marc Klaas said.

Mike Reynolds from Fresno, who pushed for the original three-strikes law after his 18-year-old daughter, Kimber, was killed by repeated felons in 1992, was able to get the three-strikes initiative passed on the heels of Polly's murder. Reynolds said Prop. 66 is "a train wreck waiting to happen."

"(Three-strikes) is a tough law but extraordinarily fair," Reynolds said.

He argues that opponents are trying to tug at voters' heartstrings by riding atop the stories of a few convicts that seem to have been unfairly put away for life.

"I don't care what the sad story is. Just stop doing crime." Reynolds said.

Contact staff writer Teri Figueroa at (760) 740-3517 or tfigueroa@nctimes.com.

Squeezing the strike zone

As a result of Proposition 66:

- A third strike must be for a violent or serious crime.

- Fewer types of felonies would be classified as serious by the courts.

- Each strike must come as a result of separate trials.

- Some felons in prison would become eligible for resentencing.

- Sentences for sex crimes against children under 14 would be increased.