BILL NUMBER: AB 2075	CHAPTERED  09/26/02

	CHAPTER  919
	FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE  SEPTEMBER 26, 2002
	APPROVED BY GOVERNOR  SEPTEMBER 25, 2002
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY  AUGUST 30, 2002
	PASSED THE SENATE  AUGUST 28, 2002
	AMENDED IN SENATE  AUGUST 26, 2002
	AMENDED IN SENATE  AUGUST 13, 2002
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 25, 2002

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Chavez
   (Coauthors:  Assembly Members Dickerson and La Suer)

                        FEBRUARY 19, 2002

   An act to add and repeal Section 1203.1bc of the Penal Code,
relating to probation costs.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 2075, Chavez.  Probation costs.
   In any case in which the defendant is convicted of an offense,
existing law authorizes the court to make a determination of the
ability of the defendant to pay all or a portion of certain costs
that accrue to the county probation department.  Those include the
cost of probation, of conducting any presentence investigation, of
preparing a specified presentence report, of conducting any preplea
investigation, and of preparing a specified preplea report.  Existing
law requires the county probation department to make a
recommendation to the court on the defendant's ability to pay these
amounts, and the defendant can accept that finding or request a
hearing.
   This bill would extend these provisions to apply to the reasonable
costs of other probation department activities, including pretrial
monitoring, pretrial reports, and postsentence reports for defendants
convicted of specified offenses or sets of offenses.
   Under existing law, a court must order a defendant to pay that
portion of those costs which is reasonable and compatible with the
defendant's financial ability.  Under existing law, the defendant's
ability to pay is determined in part based on the probation costs
chargeable to the defendant.
   This bill would require the court also to consider the new
probation costs described above when determining the defendant's
ability to pay.
   Because the county probation department would have to consider
additional factors in making its recommendation on a defendant's
ability to pay, this bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
   This bill would repeal these changes to existing law on January 1,
2006.
   This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature that this
act increase local revenues by permitting courts to order defendants
to repay specified local costs that are not currently subject to
reimbursement.
   The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state.  Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
   This bill would provide that the Legislature finds there is no
mandate contained in the bill that will result in costs incurred by a
local agency or school district for a new program or higher level of
service which require reimbursement pursuant to these constitutional
and statutory provisions.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


  SECTION 1.  Section 1203.1bc is added to the Penal Code, to read:
   1203.1bc.  (a) Subject to the provisions of Section 1203.1b, in
addition to the costs discussed therein, the court may order a
defendant described in any of the following to pay the reasonable
costs of pretrial monitoring, or any pretrial or postsentence report:

   (1) A defendant convicted of violating of Health and Safety Code
Section 11352, 11375 or 11379.
   (2) A defendant convicted of violating Section 186.22, or any
felony provision for which punishment is enhanced pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 186.22, if the court finds the crime was
committed for financial gain.
   (3) A defendant convicted of committing two or more related
felonies, a material element of which is fraud or embezzlement.
   (b) These costs shall be considered costs under Section 1203.1b
for all purposes, including determining the defendant's ability to
pay.
  (c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2006,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute,
that is enacted before January 1, 2006, deletes or extends that date.

  SEC. 2.  It is the intent of the Legislature that this act increase
local revenues by permitting courts to order defendants to repay
specified local costs that are not currently subject to
reimbursement.
  SEC. 3.  Pursuant to Section 17579 of the Government Code, the
Legislature finds that no reimbursement is required by this act
pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution because this act provides for offsetting savings to
local agencies or school districts that result in no net costs to the
local agencies or school districts within the meaning of Section
17556 of the Government Code.