Administration of Justice update 6/27/2014
Inter-county Inmate Transfers
AB 1512 (Stone) – Support
Chapter No. 44, Statutes of 2014
AB 1512, by Assembly Member Mark Stone, allows the Board of Supervisors of a county to enter into a transfer agreement with another county to house local jail inmates when certain criteria are met. The Governor signed the bill into law this week.
Under current law, a county may enter into a transfer agreement with another county to house local jail inmates when it is deemed — in the opinion of the sheriff of the transferring county — that the current facilities for housing inmates are inadequate to serve the population. The sheriff of the receiving county must also concur that the facility where the inmates are to be transferred has the capacity to handle the new population. Once these two conditions have been satisfied, the boards of supervisors in the two counties may enter into an inmate transfer agreement.
AB 1512 (Stone) would extend the provisions under existing law and allow for county inmate transfers to continue until July 1, 2018.
Juvenile Placements
AB 2607 (Skinner) – Request for Comment
As Amended June 15, 2014
AB 2607, by Assembly Member Nancy Skinner, seeks to facilitate swift placements of juveniles into out-of-home placements. CSAC supports the objective of the bill, which seeks to minimize to the greatest extent possible keeping juveniles detained while awaiting an appropriate placement. The most recent set of amendments, particularly the newly proposed Welfare and Institutions Code 737(d), does not seem to fully acknowledge the complexities of first finding and then placing a youth in an appropriate and available placement.
CSAC is appreciative of the efforts of the author’s office and sponsors to work toward a solution that can both meet the objective of the bill and acknowledge the reality of the challenges county probation departments face often with limited local options.
Court Witnesses: Local Agency Employees
AB 2727 (Frazier) – Support
As Introduced February 21, 2014
AB 2727, by Assembly Member Jim Frazier, which would increase the deposit amount paid to local public agencies when an employee is subpoenaed to appear as a witness in civil litigation.
Specifically, this bill increases the amount that a party must pay to a local agency for each day an employee is required to remain in attendance and participate in court-related activities pursuant to a civil subpoena issued at the party’s request. The current deposit amount under existing law is $125 dollars per day. Assembly Bill 2727 would increase this amount to $275 dollars per day. The bill awaits action on the Senate floor.
Counties: Search and Rescue Costs
AB 2151 (Wagner) – Support
As Amended June 24, 2014
AB 2151, by Assembly Member Don Wagner, would allow a city or county to seek reimbursement from residents in specified instances when search and rescue costs are incurred.
Specifically, this measure allows a city or county to seek reimbursement from a resident when search and rescue efforts necessitate the use of extraordinary methods and certain acts or omissions were a contributing factor to the need for search and rescue. The bill would further require a person who is deemed as having the ability to pay to remit those funds to the city or county within 30 days.
Recent amendments require that a county or city wishing to implement the reimbursement provisions in the bill may only do so if the board of supervisors of that county or city passes a resolution or ordinance consistent with the bill. Recent amendments also clarify that an act in violation of any federal or state law or local ordinance must be intentional and in knowing violation.
Assembly Bill 2151 awaits action on the Senate Floor.
Mandatory Supervision
AB 2199 (Muratsuchi) – Support
As introduced February 20, 2014
AB 2199, by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, would authorize the court to direct specified defendants to pay all or a portion of the reasonable cost of probation-related services.
Specifically, AB 2199 responds to the December 2013 (Peo. v. Fandinola) appellate court opinion that found that neither section 1203.1b of the California Penal Code, nor any other statutory provision permits charging probation fees to a person on mandatory supervision. As a result, this bill simply amends current law to allow the court to order an individual on mandatory supervision to contribute toward the reasonable costs of probation-related services and fees. As you recall, mandatory supervision was a status created under 2011 Public Safety Realignment to give counties needed tools to manage the realigned criminal justice population.
From the county perspective, AB 2199 makes a great deal of sense given that there is virtually no difference between the probation-related duties and responsibilities associated with mandatory supervision and other types of probation services where defendants currently contribute toward the cost of supervision. All existing provisions regarding the ability to set up payment plans and evaluate a defendant’s ability to pay remain.
The bill awaits action on the Senate Floor.
Criminal Procedure: Video Appearances
AB 2397 (Frazier) – Support
As Amended June 16, 2014
AB 2397, by Assembly Member Jim Frazier, amends current law to allow for increased use of video technology for inmate court appearances. The bill is co-sponsored by the California State Sheriffs’ Association and the Chief Probation Officers of California.
Specifically, the bill would authorize a defendant who does not wish to be personally present for noncritical portions of trial to submit an oral waiver in open court prior to the proceeding, or submit a written request to the court and would allow the court to grant the request in its discretion. Further, if the defendant is represented by counsel, the bill provides that a defendant’s attorney shall not be required to be personally present with the defendant for noncritical portions of the trial if the audio video conferencing system or other technology allows for private communication between the defendant and the attorney. Finally, the bill makes legislative findings making it clear that the bill does not expand or limit the right of a defendant to be personally present with his or her counsel at a particular proceeding as required by the California Constitution.
This bill has the potential to reduce costs associated with various judicial hearings and specified proceedings for local law enforcement without limiting inmate access to due process under the law.
This bill awaits action on the Senate floor.
Non-Homicide Trials Cost Assistance
SB 16 (Gaines) – Support
As amended June 17, 2014
SB 16, by Senator Ted Gaines, seeks to address cost assistance in non-homicide criminal cases. CSAC and RCRC jointly support this measure.
The program contemplated in SB 16 is modeled largely modeled after the homicide reimbursement program in which state financial assistance may be sought when costs greatly exceed a county’s financial capacity. Under this measure, counties could apply to the State Controller’s Office for reimbursement of the costs incurred by the county. The program would be subject to an appropriation by the Legislature.
In our view, SB 16 is narrowly crafted and seeks to address only the most complex and costly cases that threaten to overwhelm a county’s ability to provide an appropriate defense. The reimbursement program only would apply to cases in which the Attorney General is handling the prosecution due to the matter’s scope and complexity. The bill stems from a case in the author’s jurisdiction where a case involving a complex financial scheme is severely taxing the county’s resources.
This week SB 16 was passed by the Assembly Local Government Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
BSCC Request for Comment on Draft Definition of Recidivism
Public Hearings Scheduled for June
As counties may recall, in an effort to collect more consistent criminal justice-related data across the 58 counties, Governor Brown signed AB 1050 (Dickinson, 2013) into law, which requires the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to develop key definitions that counties can use as a standard to measure and compare the effectiveness of evidence-based rehabilitative practices.
The BSCC AB 1050 Executive Steering Committee recently released a draft of its definition of “recidivism.” The proposed definition is as follows: Recidivism is defined as a conviction of a new crime committed within three years of release from custody or committed within three years of placement on supervision for a previous criminal conviction.
Given that this definition will be used by policy makers and other public safety stakeholders in the future, CSAC strongly urges counties to review the definition, consult with local public safety partners, and weigh in with their feedback prior to the July 3, 2014 deadline.
Electronic comments may be submitted to recidivism@bscc.ca.gov or written comments may be sent by mail to:
Board of State and Community Corrections
Attn: Ricardo Goodridge
600 Bercut Drive
Sacramento, CA 95811
To learn more about the BSCC’s definitions committee visit this page.
Collection of Court-Ordered Debt
Distribution Guidelines Training Offered; Advance Registration Required
Each year, any relevant legislative changes require State Controller Office to update its Trial Court Distribution Guidelines (Appendix C). The members of the Court-Ordered Debt Task Force, established by the Judicial Council pursuant to Penal Code section 1463.02, have collaborated to provide an annual Revenue Distribution Training Program, first launched in March 2013, for court, county, city, and parking entities that perform revenue collection. Two members of the task force, the State Controller’s Office (SCO) and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), will conduct the training.
This year’s revenue distribution training will be held on Wednesday, July 9, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the AOC’s Sacramento Office at 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400. The training is open to all interested individuals and will be provided in-person and by Webinar.
Advance registration is required for this training session. Interested parties must register via email no later than Wednesday, July 2. The registration email should include the following details: name, job title, organization, telephone number, email address and participation method (in-person or webinar).
On-site check-in will begin at 9:00 a.m. Lunch will be provided for all in-person attendees. Webinar details will be provided prior to the event. Depending on responses and space limitations, there is a possibility your entity may be asked to reduce the number of participants attending in person.
The 2014 training will focus on the resources available for determining distributions, the 2013 statutory changes affecting distributions, discussion of frequently asked distribution questions, and examples of distribution calculations. In an effort to provide the most comprehensive curriculum, the State Controller’s Office (SCO) and AOC are requesting input and questions in advance from participants that may be included in these training sessions. If you would like to see specific topics incorporated into the training curriculum, please send your suggestions to RevenueDistribution@jud.ca.gov no later than Friday, June 13, 2014.
The Judicial Council’s Court-Ordered Debt Task Force was established for the purpose of actively seeking ways to identify and simplify the challenges of the distribution of collected revenues by courts and counties. The annual Revenue Distribution Training Program has been developed to further accomplish these goals. The task force is also charged with making recommendations to the Judicial Council and the Legislature for the consolidation and simplification of the imposition of criminal and traffic-related court-ordered debt to improve the process for those entities that benefit from the revenues.