AB38 amends Penal Code §667.5 to impose structured consecutive enhancements based on a defendant’s prior prison terms. When a new offense is one of the violent felonies listed in subdivision (c), the court must add a consecutive three‑year term for each prior separate prison term served for a listed violent felony, subject to a 10‑year washout.
If subdivision (a) does not apply, the bill imposes a consecutive one‑year enhancement for each prior separate prison term served for a sexually violent offense identified under Welfare & Institutions Code §6600(b), subject to a five‑year washout.
The text also clarifies many operational details: which offenses qualify as violent felonies, how to treat out‑of‑state convictions and institutional commitments, what counts as a prior separate prison term (including revocations and escapes), and that enhancements must be charged and admitted or found true. A specific clause treats crimes committed while a person is temporarily out of custody (furloughs, transfers, or temporary removals) as fully subject to these enhancements.
For practitioners, the bill changes proof and charging incentives, affects sentence length calculations, and reshapes how prior custody records are gathered and litigated.
At a Glance
What It Does
Imposes a consecutive three‑year enhancement per prior separate prison term when the new offense is a listed violent felony; otherwise imposes a consecutive one‑year enhancement per prior separate prison term for prior sexually violent offenses. Establishes 10‑ and 5‑year temporal limits (washout periods) for counting prior terms and requires enhancements be charged and admitted or found true.
Who It Affects
Prosecutors, defense counsel, and sentencing judges who handle violent and sexual felony cases; CDCR and county jail administrators who track custody histories; defendants with prior prison terms (including out‑of‑state terms and certain institutional commitments); victims and victim advocates seeking longer consecutive time.
Why It Matters
It systematically increases consecutive time on top of base sentences for a broad list of violent offenses and narrows the conditions under which prior terms drop off a defendant’s record. That shifts bargaining leverage, raises the stakes of proving or disputing priors, and has direct implications for prison population and sentence lengths.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB38 creates a two‑tier prior‑prison enhancement regime. First, if one of the new crimes is among the violent felonies listed in subsection (c), the court must add a consecutive three‑year term for each prior separate prison term the defendant served for an offense that also appears on that list.
That three‑year enhancement is subject to a 10‑year ‘‘washout’’: prior prison time does not count if it was followed by a continuous 10‑year period during which the defendant stayed free of prison custody and free of any new felony conviction.
Second, when subdivision (a) does not apply, the statute imposes a consecutive one‑year enhancement for each prior separate prison term the defendant served for a ‘‘sexually violent offense’’ as defined in WIC §6600(b). That one‑year enhancement uses a shorter five‑year washout tied to remaining free of felony conviction and custody (including certain county jail terms imposed under Section 1170(h)).The bill contains detailed definitions and operational rules that matter in practice.
It defines ‘‘prior separate prison term’’ to include continuous completed incarceration for the offense and expressly covers reimprisonment on parole revocation (when not accompanied by a new commitment) and reimprisonment after escape. It treats confinement in federal institutions or state hospitals (when credited as prison time) as serving a prison term, and it deems long commitments to state hospitals for mentally disordered sex offenders to be prior prison terms if longer than one year.
The statute also allows out‑of‑state convictions to count as prior prison terms if the out‑of‑state offense would be punishable in California and the defendant served one year or more there.Procedurally, the statute makes enhancement penalties inapplicable unless they are charged and either admitted by the defendant or found true in the new proceeding, which preserves the need for a specific pleading and proof process. Finally, the bill closes a potential loophole: crimes committed while a person is temporarily removed from prison (for medical transfers, furloughs, or specified transfers to community facilities) are treated as occurring while in custody and thus are fully subject to the enhancements, unless a different law already imposes a full separate consecutive term.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires a consecutive three‑year enhancement for each prior separate prison term when the new offense is one of the violent felonies listed in subdivision (c).
A prior prison term does not count under the three‑year enhancement if it was followed by 10 years during which the defendant stayed free of prison custody and free of any new felony conviction.
When subdivision (a) does not apply, the bill requires a consecutive one‑year enhancement per prior separate prison term for prior sexually violent offenses, subject to a five‑year washout tied to custody and felony convictions.
Out‑of‑state convictions count as prior prison terms only if the foreign offense would be punishable in California and the defendant served one year or more in prison for that offense.
A commitment exceeding one year to the State Department of State Hospitals as a mentally disordered sex offender counts as a prior prison term for enhancement purposes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Three‑year enhancement for listed violent felonies
This subsection compels courts to add a consecutive three‑year term for each prior separate prison term when the current offense is a violent felony enumerated in subdivision (c). Practically, that means multiple prior terms can stack into significant added custody. The provision includes a 10‑year washout: any prior prison time served before a continuous 10‑year period free of both prison custody and felony conviction does not trigger the enhancement, which is crucial when counsel evaluates long‑ago priors.
One‑year enhancement for prior sexually violent offenses
If the three‑year enhancement of (a) does not apply, subsection (b) imposes a one‑year consecutive term for each prior separate prison term served for a sexually violent offense under WIC §6600(b). The statute narrows the look‑back to five years free of felony conviction and custody (explicitly including some county jail terms under Section 1170(h)), changing how recent priors must be to be legally operative for enhancement purposes.
Enumerated list of violent felonies
Subdivision (c) lists the predicate violent felonies that trigger the three‑year enhancement and establishes the legislative rationale for treating those crimes as meriting ‘‘special consideration.’' It combines traditional violent offenses (murder, mayhem, kidnapping, robbery, arson, etc.), sexual crimes (rape, sodomy, lewd acts), certain firearm‑related and great‑bodily‑injury felonies, and specified gang‑related and degree‑elevated crimes. Practitioners must map each prior conviction to this list to determine whether it qualifies as a triggering prior.
Proof, timing, and what counts as a prior separate prison term
These subsections set procedural and definitional rules: enhancements are inapplicable unless charged and admitted or found true; a ‘‘prior separate prison term’’ includes completed continuous incarceration for the offense and covers reimprisonment on revocation when not accompanied by a new commitment, as well as reimprisonment after escape. Subdivision (f) explains how out‑of‑state convictions qualify, conditioning them on punishability in California and at least one year of prison service in that jurisdiction. These mechanics drive discovery demands and evidentiary contests over historical custody records.
What constitutes serving a prison term and special inclusions
The statute treats service of a prison term broadly: time in any state or federal penal institution, including credited confinement in hospitals or other facilities, may count. It specifically designates commitments to state hospitals as prior prison terms when they exceed one year and treats incarceration in Division of Juvenile Justice facilities for persons under CDCR custody as state prison time. Those inclusions require cross‑system record searches and can convert nontraditional confinement into qualifying priors.
Enhancements apply to crimes committed while temporarily out of custody
Subdivision (k) closes a timing loophole by making the full enhancements applicable when a new offense occurs while the defendant is temporarily removed from prison (per Section 2690), transferred to a community facility (specified sections), or on furlough. The clause protects against arguments that temporary transfers defeat prior‑term enhancements, though it preserves the alternative rule where another law already requires a full separate consecutive term.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims of listed violent and sexual offenses — the statute increases the likelihood of longer consecutive sentences for offenders with prior qualifying prison terms, which prosecutors can use to secure lengthier custodial outcomes.
- Prosecutors — clearer statutory enhancements provide leverage in charging and plea negotiations and reduce reliance on ad hoc enhancement theories.
- Victim‑advocacy organizations — the express legislative list and the ‘‘society’s condemnation’’ framing can be used to advocate for stricter sentencing in covered cases.
- State correctional administrators — statutory clarity on what counts as prior prison time (including hospital commitments and out‑of‑state service) standardizes intake calculations and sentence computation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defendants with qualifying priors — those with old or out‑of‑state prison terms face added consecutive years, often transforming moderate sentences into substantially longer ones.
- County and state correctional systems — longer consecutive terms will increase population and sentence‑processing complexity, raising operational and fiscal strain.
- Defense counsel and public defenders — added burdens to investigate, litigate, and prove timing and service details of priors (including obtaining out‑of‑state and institutional records).
- Courts — more hearings to litigate whether priors qualify, whether washout periods apply, and factual disputes over custody timelines may increase judicial workload and evidentiary proceedings.
- Municipalities and taxpayers — expanded custody time has downstream fiscal impacts on incarceration, reentry services, and parole supervision.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade‑off is between public safety and retributive certainty—longer, stacked consecutive enhancements aim to punish and deter repeat violent offenders and offer victims a sense of accountability—but they also increase incarceration time, complicate parity between different forms of confinement, and create administrative and evidentiary burdens that can strain courts, defense systems, and correctional budgets.
The bill produces several implementation challenges and policy trade‑offs. First, the washout mechanics (10 years for violent felonies; five years for sexually violent priors) introduce sharp temporal cliffs that will generate litigation over precise custody and conviction timelines: records gaps, ambiguous discharge dates, and differing interstate record formats will complicate proof.
Second, counting hospital commitments, Division of Juvenile Justice confinement, and out‑of‑state prison service as prior prison terms raises difficult questions about equivalency and proportionality—treating a civil commitment or juvenile confinement the same as adult state prison may be contested on fairness grounds.
Operationally, requiring enhancements to be charged and found true preserves due process but also shifts resources toward discovery and proof; prosecutors must locate old institutional files and defense counsel must have capacity to challenge them. The provision that offenses committed during temporary transfers or furloughs are fully subject to enhancement will reduce a narrow avenue for mitigation but may incentivize litigation over whether a transfer was ‘‘temporary’’ or whether another law imposes a full separate consecutive term.
Finally, the aggregate effect of stacking multiple three‑ and one‑year enhancements could materially increase prison population growth, forcing policymakers to weigh the statutory goal of ‘‘condemnation’’ against capacity constraints and rehabilitative objectives.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.