Hundreds of Sonoma County defendants file for Proposition 47 resentencing

Jessica Cannon-Perez seemed like a good candidate for resentencing under Proposition 47, the voter-approved initiative that reduced penalties for a handful of low-level crimes.

The 40-year-old Santa Rosa woman was sentenced to two years in the Sonoma County Jail for stealing a pair of shoes.

But closer inspection revealed troubling facts. She had a long criminal history dating to 1992 with 21 convictions, including two crimes of violence and four drug offenses.

Further consideration of downgrading her punishment, part of a plea bargain that included participation in a drug treatment program, was postponed for additional review.

“To some extent, the proposition has unraveled the plea,” Judge Gary Medvigy told Cannon-Perez’s lawyer as he thumbed through her voluminous file this week in a Santa Rosa courtroom.

Hers was among the dozens of cases up for resentencing with the new law that lowered the penalties for crimes such as simple drug possession and shoplifting, forgery or theft not exceeding $950.

To save money on incarceration costs, the offenses have been converted from felonies to misdemeanors carrying lighter sentences.

Now, people previously punished for the crimes can petition for reductions, allowing them to finish probation early or get out of jail and prison.

Supporters hope to save millions statewide on incarceration costs and to spend the money instead on educational, mental health and drug-abuse programs.

The idea is proving popular among Sonoma County defendants serving sentences under the old guidelines.

In the three weeks since the measure passed, 319 people have filed papers for resentencing and dozens have appeared before judges who have modified their punishments, in many cases setting them free.

Jail officials could not provide the exact number of people released so far under Proposition 47, but original estimates were that about 20 percent of the jail’s 1,100 inmates could be eligible.

Correctional deputies are distributing paperwork to those who want to apply. To qualify, a defendant can’t have committed a “super strike” or serious or violent felony, including murder or sex crimes.

Confusion reigns about the rules. The court clerk’s office rejected 260 petitions that were deemed incomplete or contained other flaws, said Jose Guillen, the court’s executive officer.

Many of those came directly from defendants in the jail, Guillen said.

Another 20 inmates serving time in state prison are applying for consideration.

The court has devoted three full-time employees to processing the requests and may open a special courtroom for proceedings. Court dockets are lined with people waiting to see if they will get relief.

Lower priority is being given to people who have served their sentences and want to change their records retroactively.

“It certainly has had an impact on our court already,” Presiding Judge Ken Gnoss said.

The new law, which was favored by 70 percent of county voters, took effect immediately.

Despite local planning for it, many questions remain about how it will work and whether it will have any negative effects.

Critics fear it will increase crime, in part because police will employ a “catch-and-release” policy for certain offenses, allowing suspects to remain on the street. Also, people released from jail will have less supervision because they won’t be on felony probation.

In addition, drug offenders who would have been required to undergo residential treatment under the old system now will have the option to skip such programs.

“Obviously, what we’re watching closely is the impact on public safety,” said District Attorney Jill Ravitch, who opposed the measure along with law enforcement chiefs.

But supporters said it will relieve the state of paying hundreds of millions of dollars each year to “warehouse” small-time criminals.

The savings will be distributed to the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools fund, the Department of Education and the state’s victim compensation agency.

“Our clients are happy,” Public Defender Kathleen Pozzi said. “It’s an opportunity for them to get out, be clean and sober and crime-free.”

Still, worries continue.

Judge Medvigy voiced concerns this week as he waded through a 3-foot stack of files on his desk. A line of convicted thieves and drug users who previously faced serious punishment were having time shaved off jail sentences or being released.

Medvigy mused about the loss of deterrents and the lack of clear direction from the state Legislature about how drug offenders can take advantage of new programs.

Like many, he wondered if a rise in property crime could offset any benefits of the law.

“It promised money for programs and treatment,” Medvigy told one defendant. “And that’s not in place.”

You can reach Staff Writer ?Paul Payne at 568-5312 or paul.payne@pressdemocrat.com. ?On Twitter @ppayne.