Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A Citrus Heights man has been sentenced to four years in state prison after he gained access to women's Facebook accounts, found nude photos or videos of the women, and then distributed those images to people on the women's contact lists.

George Bronk pled guilty to violating Penal Codes 502(c)(1), 529, and 311.11(a).

PC 502(c)(1) makes it a crime to gain access to computer data with the purpose of deceiving, defrauding, or extorting. PC 529 makes it illegal to falsely impersonate someone. And PC 311.11(a) makes it a crime to possess or control an image of someone under the age of 18 engaged in or simulating a sexual act.

Beginning in late 2009, Bronk began gaining access to women's Facebook accounts by reviewing their Facebook pages and using the posted information to answer security questions, such as a person's elementary school. If Bronk found compromising photos or videos, he emailed those images to other people on the women's contact lists.

This case has two lessons. First, gaining access without permission to another person's online information is treated under the law just like entering someone's home without permission. In other words, it's an intrusion that can be charged as a criminal act. Second, the information that people post on Facebook and other social sites can be used by others to answer security questions allowing access to data and images that are supposedly private. Use a great deal of caution when posting and sharing information about yourself.

In 1994, California enacted one of the nation's first three-strikes laws, substantially increasing prison terms for people convicted of multiple felonies. That law remains one of the harshest in the country, doubling penalties for a second felony and allowing sentences of 25 years to life for a third felony, even if the most recent conviction is for a non-violent crime. The three-strikes law was passed by voter initiative after the 1993 murder of 12 year old Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis, who had been been previously convicted of multiple felonies but remained free.

When the law first went into effect, prosecutors and courts applied it vigorously. But over the last decade and a half, as some people received 25 to life sentences for non-violent third offenses such as drug possession or theft, application of the law has evolved. The Sacramento Bee last week reported that statewide in 1996 over 1700 people were sentenced under the maximum terms allowed by the three-strikes law, while less than 200 were sentenced annually in recent years.

This decrease reflects both changes in how prosecutors apply the law as well as changes in the law itself.

Changes in how district attorney offices apply the law came about in response to changes in public sentiment toward rigid sentencing rules for people with multiple convictions. That change in public sentiment occurred because of well-publicized instances of 25 to life sentences for third felony convictions involving non-violent offenses. Specifically, prosecutors were put on notice by the near passage in 2004 of an initiative that would have gotten rid of the three-strikes law. They realized that seeking maximum penalties for non-violent and less serious crimes was not what people wanted. Thus, in general, D.A.'s offices now seek a 25 to life sentence only for the most serious crimes. This is the case in Sacramento County where the district attorney now asks for life sentences in less than 20 cases each year, down from nearly 100 in 1996.

Three-strikes law itself changed in 1996 when the California Supreme Court gave judges discretion to dismiss strikes. Thus, judges can review someone's entire record and determine whether it is in the interest of justice to reduce the number of strikes, even if prosecutors think otherwise.

Even with these changes, three-strikes law remains controversial. Most importantly, California's three-strikes law is not interpreted and applied uniformly throughout the state. Each district attorney's office can have its own policy about whether to seek the maximum penalty and its own system of reviewing cases, and each individual judge can exercise his/her discretion differently. One solution would be to have a commission that could set guidelines ensuring more equitable application of sentencing laws statewide, with only the most serious offenses subject to 25 to life prison terms. Other less serious cases should be treated differently so as to reduce prison costs and maximize the chances for rehabilitation. Moreover, it's not clear that sentencing more people to prison for longer terms leads to less crime. A study by the Pew Center for the States indicates that all of the states that reduced their prison populations in the last 10 years also saw a decrease in their crime rates.

Alternative sentencing programs allow people convicted of crimes to participate in programs that attempt to alter behavior patterns and enhance skills and therefore reduce the likelihood of committing crimes in the future. Though each program has its own way of doing things, typically a judge will tell the convicted person that he can avoid going to jail if he fulfills all of the program requirements, such as counseling, community service, and testing. Failure to meet these requirements will result in expulsion from the program and imposition of the original jail sentence.

Sacramento County has a new alternative sentencing program called Ascend. It is like other programs in that it offers something different - and hopefully more beneficial - than typical jail sentences. The Ascend program is available for certain misdemeanor cases - determined by the judge - and provides an array of self-improvement activities, such as community service, career counseling, and daily monitoring.

What's different about Ascend is that it is funded by program participants rather than the county or state. Because the program's eight three-hour classes cost $500, not everyone will be able to take part. Organizers hope, however, that as the program shows positive results, funding can be obtained to allow some people to participate at lower cost.

To put this in context, drug court - used extensively in Sacramento, Placer, and Yolo Counties - is a well established example of alternative sentencing. There are a couple different options, but the basic structure is participation in a drug treatment program rather than being sentenced to jail. The idea behind these programs is that helping people beat their drug addiction makes more sense than locking them up. The hope is that this results in reduced drug use and less money spent on incarceration. Unlike Ascend, however, drug court programs are government funded.