BILL NUMBER: ABX3 37 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 28, 2009
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Evans
JUNE 18, 2009
An act relating to the Budget Act of 2009.
An act to amend Section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend
Sections 68085.1, 68086.1, 69926, 69927, 69957, 70602, and 70626 of,
to add Sections 68511.9 and 77202.5 to, to add Chapter 2.1
(commencing with Section 68650) to Title 8 of, and to a dd
and repeal Section 68106 of, the Government Code, to amend Section
11050.5 of, and to amend, repeal, and add Section 1465.8 of, the
Penal Code, and to amend Sections 1955 and 1961 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, relating to courts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 37, as amended, Evans. Budget Act of 2009.
Courts omnibus bill: public safety.
(1) Existing law sets the fees at $15 or $20 for various court
services, including, but not limited to, issuing a writ for the
enforcement of an order or judgment, issuing an abstract of judgment,
recording or registering any license or certificate, issuing an
order of sale, and filing and entering an award under the Workers'
Compensation Law.
This bill would increase those fees by $10, and would provide that
the $10 fee increase shall be transmitted quarterly for deposit in
the Trial Court Trust Fund and, commencing July 1, 2011, used by the
Judicial Council for implementing and administering the civil
representation pilot program described in (5) below.
(2) Under existing law, $25 of each specified filing fee in
connection with certain civil proceedings is required to be used for
services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings.
This bill would increase the amount of those filing fees required
to be used for services of an official court reporter in civil
proceedings to $30.
(3) Under existing law, to the extent that a memorandum of
understanding for trial court employees designates certain days as
unpaid furlough days for employees assigned to regular positions in
the superior court, the court may not be in session on those days
except as ordered by the presiding judge.
This bill, until July 1, 2010, would authorize the Judicial
Council to provide that the courts be closed for the transaction of
judicial business for one day per month, which would be treated as a
judicial holiday, and to adopt court rules to implement these
provisions, subject to specified conditions. The bill would authorize
a judge or justice to sign a form, to be prepared by the
Administrative Office of the Courts, stating that the judge or
justice voluntarily agrees to irrevocably waive an amount equal to
4.62% of his or her monthly salary, as specified. The bill also would
require a reduction in the amount of compensation due to the sheriff
for court security services because of the closure of the courts
under these provisions, and would, where a memorandum of
understanding has been executed, require the court and the sheriff,
county, or sheriff and county to negotiate that reduction and amend
the memorandum of understanding accordingly. By imposing additional
duties on county officials, the bill would create a state-mandated
local program.
(4) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to provide an
annual status report to the chairpersons of the budget committee in
each house of the Legislature and the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee regarding the California Case Management System and Court
Accounting and Reporting System, as specified. Under existing law,
the office of the State Chief Information Officer is responsible for
the approval and oversight of information technology projects.
This bill would provide that the California Case Management
System, and all other administrative and infrastructure information
technology projects of the courts with total costs estimated at more
than $1,000,000, shall be subject to the review and recommendations
of the office of the State Chief Information Officer. The bill would
require the State Chief Information Officer to submit a copy of those
reviews and recommendations to the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee.
(5) The State Bar Act provides for the licensure and regulation of
attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation.
Existing law provides that it is the duty of an attorney to, among
other things, never reject, for any consideration personal to himself
or herself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed. Existing law
provides that a lawyer may fulfill his or her ethical commitment to
provide pro bono services, in part, by providing financial support to
organizations providing free legal services to persons of limited
means.
This bill would, commencing July 1, 2011, and subject to funding
specifically provided for this purpose, require the Judicial Council
to develop one or more model pilot projects in selected courts for
3-year periods pursuant to a competitive grant process and a request
for proposals. The bill would provide that legal counsel shall be
appointed to represent low-income parties in civil matters involving
critical issues affecting housing-related matters, domestic violence
restraining orders, probate conservatorships, guardianships of the
person, elder abuse, and the termination of a parent's legal custody
of a child in those courts selected by the Judicial Council, as
specified. The bill would provide that each pilot project shall be a
partnership between the court, a qualified legal services project
that shall serve as the lead agency for case assessment and
direction, and other legal services providers in the community who
are able to provide the services for the pilot project. The bill
would require the lead legal services agency, to the extent
practical, to identify and make use of pro bono services in order to
maximize available services efficiently and economically. The bill
would provide that the court partner is responsible for providing
procedures, personnel, training, and case management and
administration practices that reflect best practices, as specified.
The bill would require a local advisory committee to be formed to
facilitate the administration of the local project and to ensure that
the project is fulfilling its objectives. The bill would require the
Judicial Council to conduct a study to demonstrate the effectiveness
and continued need for the pilot program, and to report its findings
and recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on or before
March 1, 2015, and every 3 years thereafter.
(6) The Superior Court Law Enforcement Act of 2002 authorizes the
presiding judge of each superior court to contract with a sheriff or
marshal for the necessary level of law enforcement services in the
courts. Existing law requires the sheriff or marshal and presiding
judge of any county to develop a court security plan to be utilized
by the court, as specified, and requires the Judicial Council to
establish a process for its review of court security plans in the
California Rules of Court. Existing law requires the superior court
and the sheriff or marshal to enter into a memorandum of
understanding specifying the agreed upon level of court security
services and their cost and terms of payment, and requires the
sheriff or marshal to provide specified information to the courts by
April 30 of each year, with actual court security allocations subject
to the approval of the Judicial Council. Existing law requires the
Administrative Office of the Courts to use the actual salary and
benefits costs approved for court law enforcement personnel as of
June 30 of each year in determining the annual funding request for
the courts that will be presented to the Department of Finance.
This bill would provide that the cost of services specified in the
memorandum of understanding shall be based on the estimated average
cost of salary and benefits for equivalent personnel classifications
in that county, not including overtime pay. In calculating the
average cost of benefits, the bill would provide that only specified
benefits may be included. The bill would require the Administrative
Office of the Courts to use the average salary and benefits costs
approved for court law enforcement personnel as of June 30 of each
year in determining the annual funding request for the courts that
will be presented to the Department of Finance.
(7) Existing law permits limited use of electronic recording
devices in court proceedings under certain circumstances, but
prohibits a court from expending funds for electronic recording
technology or equipment to make an unofficial record of an action or
proceeding or to use that technology or equipment to make the
official record of an action or proceeding in any circumstance that
is not authorized. Existing law also requires each superior court to
report semiannually to the Judicial Council, and the Judicial Council
to report semiannually to the Legislature, regarding all purchases
and leases of electronic recording equipment that will be used to
record superior court proceedings.
This bill would prohibit a court from expending funds for or using
electronic recording technology or equipment to make an unofficial
record of an action or proceeding, including for purposes of judicial
notetaking, or to make the official record of an action or
proceeding in any circumstance that is not authorized. The bill would
authorize a court to use electronic recording equipment for the
internal personnel purpose of monitoring judicial officer
performance, if notice is provided to litigants that the proceeding
may be recorded for that purpose, as specified. The bill would
require a court, prior to purchasing or leasing any electronic
recording technology or equipment, to obtain advance approval from
the Judicial Council.
(8) Existing law states the intent of the Legislature to establish
a moratorium on increases in filing fees until January 1, 2012.
This bill would provide that, due to the economic crisis facing
California in the 2009-10 fiscal year, a first paper filing fee
increase is included in conjunction with the Budget Act of 2009.
(9) Existing law requires the Legislature to make an annual
appropriation to the Judicial Council for the general operations of
the trial courts based upon the request of the Judicial Council.
Existing law requires the annual budget request to include, among
other items, a cost-of-living and growth adjustment based on the
year-to-year change in the state appropriations limit, and additional
funding for the trial courts for costs resulting from the
implementation of statutory changes that result in either an
increased level of service or a new activity that directly affects
the programmatic or operational needs of the courts.
This bill would require the Judicial Council to report all
approved allocations and reimbursements to the trial courts in each
fiscal year, including funding received through augmentations for
costs resulting from the implementation of statutory changes, as
described above, to the chairs of the Senate and Assembly Committees
on Budget and the Judiciary on or before September 30 following the
close of each fiscal year. The bill would specify the information to
be included in the report, and would require the Administrative
Office of the Courts to summarize that information by court and
report it to the chairs of the Senate and Assembly Committees on
Budget and the Judiciary on or before November 1, 2009, and each
November 1 thereafter. The bill would require the trial courts to
report to the Judicial Council on or before September 15 of each year
all court revenues, expenditures, reserves, and fund balances from
the prior fiscal year, as specified, and would require the Judicial
Council to summarize and report that information to the chairs of
those committees, and to post that information on a public Internet
Web site, on or before December 31 of each year.
(10) Existing law imposes a fee of $20 upon every conviction for a
criminal offense, other than parking offenses, for funding of court
security.
This bill would increase that court security fee to $30 until July
1, 2011.
(11) Existing law authorizes the Department of Justice to charge a
fee for any laboratory services it performs at the request of a
local law enforcement agency, as specified.
This bill would require the Department of Justice to charge a fee
for any laboratory services performed at the request of a local law
enforcement agency. This bill would require the fee charged to be
based on a sliding scale fee structure, based on an agency's ability
to pay. This bill would also require the department to report to the
Legislature on the implementation of the fee structure, as specified.
(12) Existing law establishes the Youthful Offender Block Grant
Program to enhance the capacity of county departments to provide
appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to youthful
offenders. Existing law requires the Director of Finance to determine
for each fiscal year the total amount of the Youthful Offender Block
Grant pursuant to a specified formula and the allocation for each
county, and to report those findings to the Controller to make an
annual allocation to each county from the Youthful Offender Block
Grant Fund. Existing law requires each county, on or before January
1, 2008, to prepare and submit to the Corrections Standards Authority
for approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan for youthful
offenders that includes a description of the programs, placements,
services, or strategies to be funded by the block grant allocation.
This bill instead would require the allocation amount for each
county from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund to be allocated in
four equal installments, to be paid in September, December, March,
and June, pursuant to the existing formula. The bill would require
each county, on or before May 1 of each year, to prepare and submit
to the Corrections Standards Authority for approval a Juvenile
Justice Development Plan on its proposed expenditures for the next
fiscal year of block grant funds that includes a description of the
programs, placements, services, or strategies to be funded by the
block grant allocation and other specified information. The bill
would require each county receiving block grant funds, by October 1
of each year, to submit an annual report to the authority on its
utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year. By
increasing the duties of local officials, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
This bill would require the Corrections Standards Authority to
develop and provide a format for the Juvenile Justice Development
Plan, and would authorize the authority to develop and provide a dual
format for counties for the submission together of that plan and the
county multiagency juvenile justice plan, as specified. The bill
would require the authority to prepare and make available to the
public on its Internet Web site summaries of the annual county
reports on the utilization of block grant funds, and would require
the authority, by March 15th of each year, to prepare and submit to
the Legislature a report summarizing county utilizations of block
grant funds in the preceding fiscal year.
(13) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.
This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact
statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2009.
The
(14) The California Constitution
authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the
Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor
issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a
special session for this purpose, on December 19, 2008.
This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency
declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on December 19, 2008,
pursuant to the California Constitution.
(15) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no
yes . State-mandated local program: no
yes .
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and
declares all of the following:
(a) There is an increasingly dire need for legal services for poor
Californians. Due to insufficient funding from all sources, existing
programs providing free services in civil matters to indigent and
disadvantaged persons, especially underserved groups such as elderly,
disabled, children, and non-English-speaking persons, are not
adequate to meet existing needs.
(b) The critical need for legal representation in civil cases has
been documented repeatedly, and the statistics are staggering.
California courts are facing an ever increasing number of parties who
go to court without legal counsel. Over 4.3 million Californians are
believed to be currently unrepresented in civil court proceedings,
largely because they cannot afford representation. Current funding
allows legal services programs to assist less than one-third of
California's poor and lower income residents. As a result, many
Californians are unable to meaningfully access the courts and obtain
justice in a timely and effective manner. The effect is that critical
legal decisions are made without the court having the necessary
information, or without the parties having an adequate understanding
of the orders to which they are subject.
(c) The modern movement to offer legal services for the poor was
spearheaded by Sargent Shriver in 1966, aided by the American Bar
Association, then headed by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis
Powell, driven by the large disparity that existed between the number
of lawyers available for poor Americans compared with the
availability of legal services for others. While much progress has
been made since then, significant disparity continues. According to
federal poverty data, there was one legal aid attorney in 2006 for
every 8,373 poor people in California. By contrast, the number of
attorneys providing legal services to the general population is
approximately one for every 240 people - nearly 35 times higher.
(d) The fair resolution of conflicts through the legal system
offers financial and economic benefits by reducing the need for many
state services and allowing people to help themselves. There are
significant social and governmental fiscal costs of depriving
unrepresented parties of vital legal rights affecting basic human
needs, particularly with respect to indigent parties, including the
elderly and people with disabilities, and these costs may be avoided
or reduced by providing the assistance of counsel where parties have
a reasonable possibility of achieving a favorable outcome.
(e) Expanding representation will not only improve access to the
courts and the quality of justice obtained by these individuals, but
will allow court calendars that currently include many
self-represented litigants to be handled more effectively and
efficiently. Increasing the availability of legal representation for
litigants who must currently represent themselves or face loss of
their legal rights is a key priority of the Judicial Council and
Chief Justice Ronald M. George. As the Chief Justice has noted, the
large and growing number of self-represented litigants is one of the
most challenging issues in the coming decade, imposing significant
costs on the judicial system and the public by impairing the ability
of the courts to efficiently process heavy caseloads, and eroding the
public's confidence in our judicial system. While court self-help
services are important, those services are insufficient alone to meet
all needs. Experience has shown that those services are much less
effective when, among other factors, unrepresented parties lack
income, education, and other skills needed to navigate a complex and
unfamiliar court process, and particularly when unrepresented parties
are required to appear in court or face opposing counsel.
Recognizing that not all indigent parties may be allowed
representation, even when they have meritorious cases, and that
self-help services cannot meet the needs of all unrepresented
parties, courts presented with disputes regarding basic human needs
that involve low-income litigants facing parties who are represented
by counsel have a special responsibility to employ best practices
designed to ensure that unrepresented parties obtain meaningful
access to justice and to guard against the involuntary waiver or
other loss of rights or the disposition of those cases without
appropriate information and regard for potential claims and defenses,
consistent with principles of judicial neutrality. The experience
and data collected through a pilot program will assist the courts and
the legal community in developing new strategies to provide legal
representation to overcome this challenge.
(f) The doctrine of equal justice under the law is based on two
principles. One is that the substantive protections and obligations
of the law shall be applied equally to everyone, no matter how high
or low their station in life. The second principle involves access to
the legal system. Even if we have fair laws and an unbiased
judiciary to apply them, true equality before the law will be
thwarted if people cannot invoke the laws for their protection. For
persons without access, our system provides no justice at all, a
situation that may be far worse than one in which the laws expressly
favor some and disfavor others.
(g) Many judicial leaders acknowledge that the disparity in
outcomes is so great that indigent parties who lack representation
regularly lose cases that they would win if they had counsel. A
growing body of empirical research confirms the widespread perception
that parties who attempt to represent themselves are likely to lose,
regardless of the merits of their case, particularly when the
opposing party has a lawyer, while parties represented by counsel are
far more likely to prevail. Judicial leaders and scholars also
believe that the presence of counsel encourages settlements. Just as
importantly, court opinion surveys show that more than two-thirds of
Californians believe low-income people usually receive worse outcomes
in court than others. Unfairness in court procedures and outcomes,
whether real or perceived, threatens to undermine public trust and
confidence in the courts. The sense that court decisions are made
through a process that is fair and just, both in substance and
procedure, strongly affects public approval and confidence in
California courts. As many legal and judicial leaders have noted, the
combined effect of widespread financial inability to afford
representation coupled with the severe disadvantages of appearing in
court without an attorney foster a destructive perception that money
drives the judicial system. Respect for the law and the legal system
is not encouraged if the public perceives, rightly or wrongly, that
justice is mainly for the wealthy.
(h) Equal access to justice without regard to income is a
fundamental right in a democratic society. It is essential to the
enforcement of all other rights and responsibilities in any society
governed by the rule of law. It also is essential to the public's
confidence in the legal system and its ability to reach just
decisions.
(i) The adversarial system of justice relied upon in the United
States inevitably allocates to the parties the primary responsibility
for discovering the relevant evidence, finding the relevant legal
principles, and presenting them to a neutral judge or jury.
Discharging these responsibilities generally requires the knowledge
and skills of a legally trained professional. The absence of
representation not only disadvantages parties, it has a negative
effect on the functioning of the judicial system. When parties lack
legal counsel, courts must cope with the need to provide guidance and
assistance to ensure that the matter is properly administered and
the parties receive a fair trial or hearing. Those efforts, however,
deplete scarce court resources and negatively affect the court's
ability to function as intended, including causing erroneous and
incomplete pleadings, inaccurate information, unproductive court
appearances, improper defaults, unnecessary continuances, delays in
proceedings for all court users, and other problems that can
ultimately subvert the administration of justice.
(j) Because in many civil cases lawyers are as essential as judges
and courts to the proper functioning of the justice system, the
state has just as great a responsibility to ensure adequate counsel
is available to both parties in those cases as it does to supply
judges, courthouses, and other forums for the hearing of those cases.
(k) Many of those living in this state cannot afford to pay for
the services of lawyers when needed for them to enjoy fair and equal
access to justice. In some cases, justice is not achievable if one
side is unrepresented because the parties cannot afford the cost of
representation. The guarantees of due process and equal protection as
well as the common law that serves as the rule of decision in
California courts underscore the need to provide legal representation
in critical civil matters when parties cannot afford the cost of
retaining a lawyer. In order for those who are unable to afford
representation to exercise this essential right of participants in a
democracy, to protect their rights to liberty and property, and to
the pursuit of basic human needs, the state has a responsibility to
provide legal counsel without cost. In many cases decided in the
state's adversarial system of civil justice the parties cannot gain
fair and equal access to justice unless they are advised and
represented by lawyers. In other cases, there are some forums in
which it may be possible for most parties to have fair and equal
access if they have the benefit of representation by qualified
nonlawyer advocates, and other forums where parties can represent
themselves if they receive self-help assistance.
(l) The state has an interest in providing publicly funded legal
representation and nonlawyer advocates or self-help advice and
assistance, when the latter is sufficient, and doing so in a
cost-effective manner by ensuring the level and type of service
provided is the lowest cost type of service consistent with providing
fair and equal access to justice. Several factors can affect the
determination of when representation by an attorney is needed for
fair and equal access to justice and when other forms of assistance
will suffice. These factors include the complexity of the substantive
law, the complexity of the forum's procedures and process, the
individual's education, sophistication, and English language ability,
and the presence of counsel on the opposing side of the dispute.
(m) If those advised, assisted, or represented by publicly funded
lawyers are to have fair and equal access to justice, those lawyers
must be as independent, ethical, and loyal to their clients as those
serving clients who can afford to pay for counsel.
(n) The services provided for in Section 7 of this act are not
intended to, and shall not, supplant legal services resources from
any other source. This act does not entitle any person to receive
services from a particular legal services provider, nor shall this
act override the local or national priorities of existing legal
services programs. The services provided for in Section 7 of this act
are likewise not intended to undermine any existing pilot programs
or other efforts to simplify court procedures or provide assistance
to unrepresented litigants. Furthermore, nothing in this act shall be
construed to prohibit the provision of full legal representation or
other appropriate services funded by another source.
SEC. 2. Section 135 of the Code of
Civil Procedure is amended to read:
135. Every full day designated as a holiday by Section 6700 of
the Government Code, including that Thursday of November declared by
the President to be Thanksgiving Day, and one day each month as
designated by the Judicial Council pursuant to Section 68106 of the
Government Code, is a judicial holiday, except September 9,
known as "Admission Day," and any other day appointed by the
President, but not by the Governor, for a public fast, thanksgiving,
or holiday. If a judicial holiday falls on a Saturday or a Sunday,
the Judicial Council may designate an alternative day for observance
of the holiday. Every Saturday and the day after Thanksgiving Day is
a judicial holiday. Officers and employees of the courts shall
observe only the judicial holidays established pursuant to this
section.
SEC. 3. Section 68085.1 of the
Government Code is amended to read:
68085.1. (a) This section applies to all fees and fines that are
collected on or after January 1, 2006, under all of the following:
(1) Sections 177.5, 209, 403.060, 491.150, 631.3, 683.150,
704.750, 708.160, 724.100, 1134, 1161.2, 1218, and 1993.2 of,
subdivision (g) of Section 411.20 and subdivisions (c) and (g) of
Section 411.21 of, and Chapter 5.5 (commencing with Section 116.110)
of Title 1 of Part 1 of, the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2) Section 3112 of the Family Code.
(3) Section 31622 of the Food and Agricultural Code.
(4) Subdivision (d) of Section 6103.5, Sections 68086 and 68086.1,
subdivision (d) of Section 68511.3, Sections 68926.1 and 69953.5,
and Chapter 5.8 (commencing with Section 70600).
(5) Section 103470 of the Health and Safety Code.
(6) Subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 166 and Section 1214.1 of
the Penal Code.
(7) Sections 1835, 1851.5, 2343, 7660, and 13201 of the Probate
Code.
(8) Sections 14607.6 and 16373 of the Vehicle Code.
(9) Section 71386 of this code, Sections 304, 7851.5, and 9002 of
the Family Code, and Section 1513.1 of the Probate Code, if the
reimbursement is for expenses incurred by the court.
(10) Section 3153 of the Family Code, if the amount is paid to the
court for the cost of counsel appointed by the court to represent a
child.
(b) On and after January 1, 2006, each superior court shall
deposit all fees and fines listed in subdivision (a), as soon as
practicable after collection and on a regular basis, into a bank
account established for this purpose by the Administrative Office of
the Courts. Upon direction of the Administrative Office of the
Courts, the county shall deposit civil assessments under Section
1214.1 of the Penal Code and any other money it collects under the
sections listed in subdivision (a) as soon as practicable after
collection and on a regular basis into the bank account established
for this purpose and specified by the Administrative Office of the
Courts. The deposits shall be made as required by rules adopted by,
and financial policies and procedures authorized by, the Judicial
Council under subdivision (a) of Section 77206. Within 15 days after
the end of the month in which the fees and fines are collected, each
court, and each county that collects any fines or fees under
subdivision (a), shall provide the Administrative Office of the
Courts with a report of the fees by categories as specified by the
Administrative Office of the Courts. The Administrative Office of the
Courts and any court may agree upon a time period greater than 15
days, but in no case more than 30 days after the end of the month in
which the fees and fines are collected. The fees and fines listed in
subdivision (a) shall be distributed as provided in this section.
(c) (1) Within 45 calendar days after the end of the month in
which the fees and fines listed in subdivision (a) are collected, the
Administrative Office of the Courts shall make the following
distributions:
(A) To the small claims advisory services, as described in
subdivision (f) of Section 116.230 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(B) To dispute resolution programs, as described in subdivision
(b) of Section 68085.3 and subdivision (b) of Section 68085.4.
(C) To the county law library funds, as described in Sections
116.230 and 116.760 of the Code of Civil Procedure, subdivision (b)
of Section 68085.3, subdivision (b) of Section 68085.4, and Section
70621 of this code, and Section 14607.6 of the Vehicle Code.
(D) To the courthouse construction funds in the Counties of
Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Francisco, as described in
Sections 70622, 70624, and 70625.
(E) Commencing July 1, 2011, to the Trial Court Trust Fund, as
described in subdivision (d) of Section 70626, to be used by the
Judicial Council to implement and administer the civil representation
pilot program under Section 68651.
(2) If any distribution under this subdivision is delinquent, the
Administrative Office of the Courts shall add a penalty to the
distribution as specified in subdivision (i).
(d) Within 45 calendar days after the end of the month in which
the fees and fines listed in subdivision (a) are collected, the
amounts remaining after the distributions in subdivision (c) shall be
transmitted to the State Treasury for deposit in the Trial Court
Trust Fund and other funds as required by law. This remittance shall
be accompanied by a remittance advice identifying the collection
month and the appropriate account in the Trial Court Trust Fund or
other fund to which it is to be deposited. Upon the receipt of any
delinquent payment required under this subdivision, the Controller
shall calculate a penalty as provided under subdivision (i).
(e) From the money transmitted to the State Treasury under
subdivision (d), the Controller shall make deposits as follows:
(1) Into the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, the Judges'
Retirement Fund, and the Equal Access Fund, as described in
subdivision (c) of Section 68085.3 and subdivision (c) of Section
68085.4.
(2) Into the Health Statistics Special Fund, as described in
subdivision (b) of Section 70670 of this code and Section 103730 of
the Health and Safety Code.
(3) Into the Family Law Trust Fund, as described in Section 70674.
(4) Into the Immediate and Critical Needs Account of the State
Court Facilities Construction Fund, established in Section 70371.5,
as described in Sections 68085.3, 68085.4, and 70657.5, and
subdivision (e) of Section 70617.
(5) The remainder of the money shall be deposited into the Trial
Court Trust Fund.
(f) The amounts collected by each superior court under Section
116.232, subdivision (g) of Section 411.20, and subdivision (g) of
Section 411.21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 304, 3112,
3153, 7851.5, and 9002 of the Family Code, subdivision (d) of Section
6103.5, subdivision (d) of Section 68511.3 and Sections 68926.1,
69953.5, 70627, 70631, 70640, 70661, 70678, and 71386 of this code,
and Sections 1513.1, 1835, 1851.5, and 2343 of the Probate Code shall
be added to the monthly apportionment for that court under
subdivision (a) of Section 68085.
(g) If any of the fees provided in subdivision (a) are partially
waived by court order or otherwise reduced, and the fee is to be
divided between the Trial Court Trust Fund and any other fund or
account, the amount of the reduction shall be deducted from the
amount to be distributed to each fund in the same proportion as the
amount of each distribution bears to the total amount of the fee. If
the fee is paid by installment payments, the amount distributed to
each fund or account from each installment shall bear the same
proportion to the installment payment as the full distribution to
that fund or account does to the full fee. If a court collects a fee
that was incurred before January 1, 2006, under a provision that was
the predecessor to one of the paragraphs contained in subdivision
(a), the fee may be deposited as if it were collected under the
paragraph of subdivision (a) that corresponds to the predecessor of
that paragraph and distributed in prorated amounts to each fund or
account to which the fee in subdivision (a) must be distributed.
(h) Except as provided in Sections 470.5 and 6322.1 of the
Business and Professions Code, and Sections 70622, 70624, and 70625
of this code, no agency may take action to change the amounts
allocated to any of the funds described in subdivision (c), (d), or
(e).
(i) The amount of the penalty on any delinquent payment under
subdivision (c) or (d) shall be calculated by multiplying the amount
of the delinquent payment at a daily rate equivalent to 11/2 percent
per month for the number of days the payment is delinquent. The
penalty shall be paid from the Trial Court Trust Fund. Penalties on
delinquent payments under subdivision (d) shall be calculated only on
the amounts to be distributed to the Trial Court Trust Fund and the
State Court Facilities Construction Fund, and each penalty shall be
distributed proportionately to the funds to which the delinquent
payment was to be distributed.
(j) If a delinquent payment under subdivision (c) or (d) results
from a delinquency by a superior court under subdivision (b), the
court shall reimburse the Trial Court Trust Fund for the amount of
the penalty. Notwithstanding Section 77009, any penalty on a
delinquent payment that a court is required to reimburse pursuant to
this section shall be paid from the court operations fund for that
court. The penalty shall be paid by the court to the Trial Court
Trust Fund no later than 45 days after the end of the month in which
the penalty was calculated. If the penalty is not paid within the
specified time, the Administrative Office of the Courts may reduce
the amount of a subsequent monthly allocation to the court by the
amount of the penalty on the delinquent payment.
(k) If a delinquent payment under subdivision (c) or (d) results
from a delinquency by a county in transmitting fees and fines listed
in subdivision (a) to the bank account established for this purpose,
as described in subdivision (b), the county shall reimburse the Trial
Court Trust Fund for the amount of the penalty. The penalty shall be
paid by the county to the Trial Court Trust Fund no later than 45
days after the end of the month in which the penalty was calculated.
SEC. 4. Section 68086.1 of the
Government Code is amended to read:
68086.1. (a) Commencing January 1, 2006, for each
three-hundred-fifty-dollar ($350) For each
three-hundred-fifty-five-dollar ($355) fee collected under
Section 70611, 70612, or 70670, twenty-five dollars ($25)
thirty dollars ($30) of the amount distributed
to the Trial Court Trust Fund shall be used for services of an
official court reporter in civil proceedings.
(b) Commencing January 1, 2006, for each
three-hundred-twenty-five-dollar ($325) For
each three-hundred-thirty-dollar ($330) fee collected under
subdivision (a) of Section 70613 or subdivision (a) of Section 70614,
twenty-five dollars ($25) thirty dollars
($30) of the amount distributed to the Trial Court Trust Fund
shall be used for services of an official court reporter in civil
proceedings.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature, in approving the
twenty-five-dollar ($25) thirty-dollar ($30)
distribution out of each filing fee listed in subdivisions (a) and
(b), to continue an incentive to courts to use the services of an
official court reporter in civil proceedings. However, nothing in
this section shall affect the Judicial Council's authority to
allocate these revenues to replace reductions in the General Fund
appropriation to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
(d) The portion of the distribution to the Trial Court Trust Fund
to be used for services of an official court reporter in civil
proceedings pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) shall be used only
in trial courts that utilize the services of an official court
reporter in civil proceedings.
SEC. 5. Section 68106 is added to the
Government Code , to read:
68106. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that the current
fiscal crisis, one of the most serious and dire ever to affect the
state, threatens the continued operations of the judicial branch.
This situation requires a unique response to effectively use judicial
branch resources while protecting the public by ensuring that courts
remain open and accessible and that the core functions of the
judicial branch are maintained to the greatest extent possible.
(b) Notwithstanding any other law, the Judicial Council may
provide that the courts be closed for the transaction of judicial
business for one day per month and may adopt rules of court to
implement this section, subject to the following conditions:
(1) If the Judicial Council has provided for the closure of courts
pursuant to this section, the day so designated shall be treated as
a judicial holiday for purposes of performing any act requiring the
transaction of judicial
business, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) The transaction of judicial business under Section 134 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
(B) The sitting or holding of a court under Section 136 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
(C) The computation of time under Sections 12 and 12a of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
(D) The computation of time under all time-dependent provisions,
including, but not limited to, Sections 825, 859b, 1050, 1191, 1382,
and 1449 of the Penal Code, and Sections 313, 315, 631, 632, 637,
657, 702, 704, 708, and 777 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(2) A court may still receive papers for filing on a day
designated for closure, but the time of filing of the papers shall be
the next court day on which the court is open for the transaction of
judicial business. The receipt of papers pursuant to this
subdivision shall not constitute opening of the court for any
purpose. A day designated for closure under this section is not
governed by Section 68108.
(3) The impact of the court closure shall be subject to
subdivision (c) of Section 71634 and subdivision (c) of Section
71816. Notwithstanding any other law, any court closure or reduction
in earnings as a result of this section shall not constitute a
reduction in salary or service for the purpose of calculation of
retirement benefits or other employment-related benefits for court
employees otherwise eligible for those benefits. Nothing in this
section shall relieve a trial court of its obligation to meet and
confer concerning the impact of a court closure pursuant to Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 71600) and Chapter 7.5 (commencing with
Section 71800) of Title 8 of the Government Code, and the trial
courts, rather than the Judicial Council or Administrative Office of
the Courts, shall remain responsible for meeting and conferring
concerning that impact.
(4) A judge or justice may sign a form, to be prepared by the
Administrative Office of the Courts, which shall provide that the
judge or justice voluntarily agrees to irrevocably waive, in advance,
on a monthly basis, an amount equal to 4.62 percent of the monthly
salary otherwise payable to the judge or justice in the absence of a
waiver. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall transmit the
form to the Controller, county, or other entity paying the salary of
the judge or justice, except that the form shall only be transmitted
to the entity that pays the greatest portion of the salary if the
judge or justice is paid by more than one entity. The entity
receiving the form shall reduce the payment otherwise due to the
judge or justice from that entity by an amount that takes into
account the full effect of the 4.62 percent reduction of the total
monthly salary of the judge or justice received from all entities.
Notwithstanding any other law, a judge or justice who elects to sign
the form under this section shall not be deemed by that act to be
holding office for other than full-time service during the time
covered by the voluntary waiver of salary, and that waiver shall not
be deemed a reduction in salary or service for purposes of the
calculation of any retirement benefits, supplemental judicial
benefits provided pursuant to Section 68220, or other job-related
benefits. Except as necessary for purposes of paragraph (5), a judge
or justice who makes a waiver is not obligated to appear for work at
the courthouse on any day that a court is closed under this section.
(5) A judicial officer shall be available for the signing of any
necessary documents on an emergency basis during the time a court is
closed under this section on the same basis as a judicial officer is
available on Saturdays, Sundays, and judicial holidays, and any other
time a court is closed.
(6) As a result of the closures authorized by this subdivision,
court security shall not be required on any day in which courts are
closed pursuant to this section.
(A) If a superior court has executed a memorandum of understanding
as required by Section 69926 with a sheriff, county, or sheriff and
county, the court and the sheriff, county, or sheriff and county
shall negotiate a reduction in the amount of compensation due to the
sheriff because of the reduced amount of security resulting from the
closure of the courts under this section. If necessary, the court and
sheriff, county, or sheriff and county shall amend the memorandum of
understanding required under Section 69926 to reflect that
reduction. Notwithstanding any other law or memorandum of
understanding, if the court and sheriff are unable to reach an
agreement within 30 days of the first court closure, the sheriff
shall continue to provide on days the court is open the same level of
service previously required under its memorandum of understanding,
but the amount of compensation payable to the sheriff under the
memorandum of understanding shall be reduced by an amount equal to
4.62 percent of those allowable costs authorized to be paid under
paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 69927. Upon reaching an
agreement, the court and sheriff may reconcile any prior payments
based on the terms subsequently agreed upon by the court and sheriff.
(B) If a superior court and a sheriff, county, or sheriff and
county, have not executed a memorandum of understanding as required
by Section 69926, the sheriff shall continue to provide security
services as required by the court, but the compensation payable to
the sheriff shall be no more than the rate of the average monthly
amount paid by the court to the sheriff in the 2008-09 fiscal year,
reduced by 4.62 percent, to reflect the reduced level of security
required as a result of the closure of the courts under this section.
(c) To the extent practicable, the impact of the court closure on
the availability of courtrooms and court services shall be spread in
a proportional manner that reflects the caseload of the court.
(d) This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2010, and, as
of January 1, 2011, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute,
that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2011, deletes or
extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed.
SEC. 6. Section 68511.9 is added to the
Government Code , to read:
68511.9. Notwithstanding any other law, the California Case
Management System, as well as all other administrative and
infrastructure information technology projects of the courts with
total costs estimated at more than one million dollars ($1,000,000),
shall be subject to the reviews and recommendations of the office of
the State Chief Information Officer, as provided in Section 11546.
The State Chief Information Officer shall submit a copy of those
reviews and recommendations to the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee.
SEC. 7. Chapter 2.1 (commencing with Section
68650) is added to Title 8 of the Government Code
, to read:
CHAPTER 2.1. CIVIL LEGAL REPRESENTATION
68650. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the
Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act.
68651. (a) Legal counsel shall be appointed to represent
low-income parties in civil matters involving critical issues
affecting basic human needs in those specified courts selected by the
Judicial Council as provided in this section.
(b) (1) Subject to funding specifically provided for this purpose
pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 70626, the Judicial Council
shall develop one or more model pilot projects in selected courts
pursuant to a competitive grant process and a request for proposals.
Projects authorized under this section shall provide representation
of counsel for low-income persons who require legal services in civil
matters involving housing-related matters, domestic violence
restraining orders, probate conservatorships, guardianships of the
person, elder abuse, and the termination of a parent's legal custody
of a child, as well as providing court procedures, personnel,
training, and case management and administration methods that reflect
best practices to ensure unrepresented parties in those cases have
meaningful access to justice, and to gather information on the
outcomes associated with providing these services, to guard against
the involuntary waiver of those rights or their disposition by
default. These pilot projects should be designed to address the
substantial inequities in timely and effective access to justice that
often give rise to an undue risk of erroneous decision because of
the nature and complexity of the law and the proceeding or
disparities between the parties in education, sophistication,
language proficiency, legal representation, access to self-help, and
alternative dispute resolution services. In order to ensure that the
scarce funds available for the program are used to serve the most
critical cases and the parties least able to access the courts
without representation, eligibility for representation shall be
limited to clients whose household income falls at or below 200
percent of the federal poverty level. Projects shall impose asset
limitations consistent with their existing practices in order to
ensure optimal use of funds. No more than 20 percent of available
funds may be directed to projects regarding civil matters involving
the termination of a parent's legal custody of a child.
(2) Each project shall be a partnership between the court, a
qualified legal services project, as defined by subdivision (a) of
Section 6213 of the Business and Professions Code, that shall serve
as the lead agency for case assessment and direction, and other legal
services providers in the community who are able to provide the
services for the project. The lead legal services agency shall be the
central point of contact for receipt of referrals to the project and
to make determinations of eligibility based on uniform criteria. The
lead legal services agency shall be responsible for providing
representation to the clients or referring the matter to one of the
organization or individual providers with whom the legal services
agency contracts to provide the service. Funds received by a
qualified legal services project shall not qualify as expenditures
for the purposes of the distribution of funds pursuant to Section
6216 of the Business and Professions Code. To the extent practical,
the lead legal services agency shall identify and make use of pro
bono services in order to maximize available services efficiently and
economically. Recognizing that not all indigent parties can be
afforded representation, even when they have meritorious cases, the
court partner shall, as a corollary to the services provided by the
legal services agency, be responsible for providing procedures,
personnel, training, and case management and administration practices
that reflect best practices to ensure unrepresented parties
meaningful access to justice and to guard against the involuntary
waiver of rights, as well as to encourage fair and expeditious
voluntary dispute resolution, consistent with principles of judicial
neutrality.
(3) The participating courts shall be selected by a committee
appointed by the Judicial Council with representation from key
stakeholder groups, including judicial officers, legal services
providers, and others, as appropriate. The committee shall assess the
applicants' capacity for success, innovation, and efficiency,
including, but not limited to, the likelihood that the project would
deliver quality representation in an effective manner that would meet
critical needs in the community and address the needs of the court
with regard to access to justice and calendar management, and the
unique local unmet needs for representation in the community.
Projects approved pursuant to this section shall initially be
authorized for a three-year period, commencing July 1, 2011, subject
to renewal for a period to be determined by the Judicial Council, in
consultation with the participating court in light of the court's
capacity and success. Projects shall be selected on the basis of
whether in the case type proposed for service the persons to be
assisted would otherwise be likely to be opposed by a party who is
represented by counsel. The Judicial Council may also consider the
following factors:
(A) The likelihood that representation in the proposed case type
tends to affect whether a party prevails or otherwise obtains a
significantly more favorable outcome in a matter in which they would
otherwise frequently have judgment entered against them or suffer the
deprivation of the basic human need at issue.
(B) The likelihood of reducing the risk of erroneous decision.
(C) The nature and severity of potential consequences for the
unrepresented party regarding the basic human need at stake if
representation is not provided.
(D) Whether the provision of legal services may eliminate or
reduce the potential need for and cost of public social services
regarding the basic human need at stake for the client and others in
the client's household.
(E) The unmet need for legal services in the geographic area to be
served.
(F) The availability and effectiveness of other types of court
services, such as self-help.
(4) Each applicant shall do all of the following:
(A) Identify the nature of the partnership between the court, the
lead legal services agency, and the other agencies or other providers
that would work within the project.
(B) Describe the referral protocols to be used, the criteria that
would be employed in case assessment, why those cases were selected,
the manner to address conflicts without violating any attorney-client
privilege when adverse parties are seeking representation through
the project, and the means for serving potential clients who need
assistance with English.
(C) Describe how the project would be administered, including how
the data collection requirements would be met without causing an
undue burden on the courts, clients, or the providers, the particular
objectives of the project, strategies to evaluate their success in
meeting those objectives, and the means by which the project would
serve the particular needs of the community, such as by providing
representation to limited-English-speaking clients.
(5) To ensure the most effective use of the funding available, the
lead legal services agency shall serve as a hub for all referrals,
and the point at which decisions are made about which referrals will
be served and by whom. Referrals shall emanate from the court, as
well as from the other agencies providing services through the
program, and shall be directed to the lead agency for review. That
agency, or another agency or attorney in the event of conflict, shall
collect the information necessary to assess whether the case should
be served. In performing that case assessment, the agency shall
determine the relative need for representation of the litigant,
including all of the following:
(A) Case complexity.
(B) Whether the other party is represented.
(C) The adversarial nature of the proceeding.
(D) The availability and effectiveness of other types of services,
such as self-help, in light of the potential client and the nature
of the case.
(E) Language issues.
(F) Disability access issues.
(G) Literacy issues.
(H) The merits of the case.
(I) The nature and severity of potential consequences for the
potential client if representation is not provided.
(J) Whether the provision of legal services may eliminate or
reduce the need for and cost of public social services for the
potential client and others in the potential client's household.
(6) If both parties to a dispute are financially eligible for
representation, each proposal shall ensure that representation for
both sides is evaluated. In these and other cases in which conflict
issues arise, the lead agency shall have referral protocols with
other agencies and providers, such as a private attorney panel, to
address those conflicts.
(7) Each pilot project shall be responsible for keeping records on
the referrals accepted and those not accepted for representation,
and the reasons for each, in a manner that does not violate any
privileged communications between the agency and the prospective
client. Each pilot project shall be provided with standardized data
collection tools, and required to track case information for each
referral to allow the evaluation to measure the number of cases
served, the level of service required, and the outcomes for the
clients in each case. In addition to this information on the effect
of the representation on the clients, data shall be collected
regarding the outcomes for the trial courts.
(8) A local advisory committee shall be formed for each pilot
project, to include representatives of the bench and court
administration, the lead legal services agency, and the other
agencies or providers that are part of the local project team. The
role of the advisory committee is to facilitate the administration of
the local pilot project, and to ensure that the project is
fulfilling its objectives. In addition, the committee shall resolve
any issues that arise during the course of the pilot project,
including issues concerning case eligibility, and recommend changes
in project administration in response to implementation challenges.
The committee shall meet at least monthly for the first six months of
the project, and no less than quarterly for the duration of the
pilot period. Each authorized pilot project shall catalog changes to
the program made during the three-year period based on its
experiences with best practices in serving the eligible population.
(c) The Judicial Council shall conduct a study to demonstrate the
effectiveness and continued need for the pilot program established
pursuant to this section and shall report its findings and
recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on or before
March 1, 2015, and every three years thereafter. The study shall
report on the percentage of funding by case type and shall include
data on the impact of counsel on equal access to justice and the
effect on court administration and efficiency, and enhanced
coordination between courts and other government service providers
and community resources. This report shall describe the benefits of
providing representation to those who were previously not
represented, both for the clients and the courts, as well as
strategies and recommendations for maximizing the benefit of that
representation in the future.
(d) This section shall not be construed to negate, alter, or limit
any right to counsel in a criminal or civil action or proceeding
otherwise provided by state or federal law.
(e) The section shall become operative on July 1, 2011.
SEC. 8. Section 69926 of the Government
Code is amended to read:
69926. (a) This section applies to the superior court and the
sheriff or marshal's department in those counties in which either of
the following apply:
(1) The sheriff's department was otherwise required by law to
provide court security services on and after July 1, 1998.
(2) Court security was provided by the marshal's office on and
after July 1, 1998, the marshal's office was subsequently abolished
and succeeded by the sheriff's department, and the successor sheriff'
s department is required to provide court security services as
successor to the marshal.
(b) The superior court and the sheriff or marshal shall enter into
an annual or multiyear memorandum of understanding specifying the
agreed upon level of court security services, cost of services, and
terms of payment. The cost of services specified in the
memorandum of understanding shall be based on the estimated average
cost of salary and benefits for equivalent personnel classifications
in that county, not including overtime pay. In calculating the
average cost of benefits, only those benefits listed in paragraph (6)
of subdivision (a) of Section 69927 shall be included. For purposes
of this article, "benefits" excludes any item not expressly listed in
this subdivision, including, but not limited to, any costs
associated with retiree health benefits. As used in this subdivision,
retiree health benefits includes, but is not limited to, the current
cost of health benefits for already retired personnel and any amount
to cover the costs of future retiree health benefits for either
currently employed or already retired personnel.
(c) The sheriff or marshal shall provide information as identified
in the contract law enforcement template by April 30 of each year to
the superior court in that county, specifying the nature, extent,
and basis of the costs, including negotiated or projected salary
increases of court law enforcement services that the sheriff proposes
to include in the budget of the court security program for the
following state budget year. Actual court security allocations shall
be subject to the approval of the Judicial Council and the funding
provided by the Legislature. It is the intent of the Legislature that
proposed court security expenditures submitted by the Judicial
Council to the Department of Finance for inclusion in the Governor's
Budget shall be as defined in the contract law enforcement template.
(d) If the superior court and the sheriff or marshal are unwilling
or unable to enter into an agreement pursuant to this section on or
before August 1 of any fiscal year, the court or sheriff or marshal
may request the continuation of negotiations between the superior
court and the sheriff or marshal for a period of 45 days with
mediation assistance, during which time the previous law enforcement
services agreement shall remain in effect. Mutually agreed upon
mediation assistance shall be determined by the Administrative
Director of the Courts and the president of the California State
Sheriffs' Association.
SEC. 9. Section 69927 of the Government
Code is amended to read:
69927. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this
section to develop a definition of the court security component of
court operations that modifies Function 8 of Rule 10.810 of the
California Rules of Court in a manner that will standardize billing
and accounting practices and court security plans, and identify
allowable law enforcement security costs after the operative date of
this article. It is not the intent of the Legislature to increase or
decrease the responsibility of a county for the cost of court
operations, as defined in Section 77003 or Rule 10.810 of the
California Rules of Court, as it read on January 1, 2007, for court
security services provided prior to January 1, 2003. It is the intent
of the Legislature that a sheriff's or marshal's court law
enforcement budget not be reduced as a result of this article. Any
new court security costs permitted by this article shall not be
operative unless the funding is provided by the Legislature.
(1) The Judicial Council shall adopt a rule establishing a working
group on court security. The group shall consist of six
representatives from the judicial branch of government, as selected
by the Administrative Director of the Courts, two representatives of
the counties, as selected by the California State Association of
Counties, and three representatives of the county sheriffs, as
selected by the California State Sheriffs' Association. It is the
intent of the Legislature that this working group may recommend
modifications only to the template used to determine that the
security costs submitted by the courts to the Administrative Office
of the Courts are permitted pursuant to this article. The template
shall be a part of the trial court's financial policies and
procedures manual and used in place
of the definition of law enforcement costs in Function 8 of Rule
10.810 of the California Rules of Court. If the working group
determines that there is a need to make recommendations to the
template that specifically involve law enforcement or security
personnel in courtrooms or court detention facilities, the membership
of the working group shall change and consist of six representatives
from the judicial branch of government selected by the
Administrative Director of the Courts, two representatives of the
counties selected by the California State Association of Counties,
two representatives of the county sheriffs selected by the California
State Sheriffs' Association, and two representatives of labor
selected by the California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations.
(2) The Judicial Council shall establish a working group on court
security to promulgate recommended uniform standards and guidelines
that may be used by the Judicial Council and any sheriff or marshal
for the implementation of trial court security services. The working
group shall consist of representatives from the judicial branch of
government, the California State Sheriffs' Association, the
California State Association of Counties, the Peace Officer's
Research Association of California, and the California Coalition of
Law Enforcement Associations, for the purpose of developing
guidelines. The Judicial Council, after requesting and receiving
recommendations from the working group on court security, shall
promulgate and implement rules, standards, and policy directions for
the trial courts in order to achieve efficiencies that will reduce
security operating costs and constrain growth in those costs.
(3) When mutually agreed to by the courts, county, and the sheriff
or marshal in any county, the costs of perimeter security in any
building that the court shares with any county agency, excluding the
sheriff's or marshal's department, shall be apportioned based on the
amount of the total noncommon square feet of space occupied by the
court and any county agency.
(4) "Allowable costs for equipment, services, and supplies," as
defined in the contract law enforcement template, means the purchase
and maintenance of security screening equipment and the costs of
ammunition, batons, bulletproof vests, handcuffs, holsters, leather
gear, chemical spray and holders, radios, radio chargers and holders,
uniforms, and one primary duty sidearm.
(5) "Allowable costs for professional support staff for court
security operations," as defined in the contract law enforcement
template, means the salary, benefits, and overtime of staff
performing support functions that, at a minimum, provide payroll,
human resources, information systems, accounting, or budgeting.
Allowable costs for professional support staff for court security
operations in each trial court shall not exceed 6 percent of total
allowable costs for law enforcement security personnel services in
courts with total allowable costs for law enforcement security
personnel services less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) per
year. Allowable costs for professional support staff for court
security operations for each trial court shall not exceed 4 percent
of total allowable costs for law enforcement security personnel
services in courts with total allowable costs for law enforcement
security personnel services exceeding ten million dollars
($10,000,000) per year. Additional costs for services related to
court-mandated special project support, beyond those provided for in
the contract law enforcement template, are allowable only when
negotiated by the trial court and the court law enforcement provider.
Allowable costs shall not exceed actual costs of providing support
staff services for law enforcement security personnel services.
The working group established pursuant to paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) may periodically recommend changes to the limit for
allowable costs for professional support staff for court security
operations based on surveys of actual expenditures incurred by trial
courts and the court law enforcement provider in the provision of law
enforcement security personnel services. Limits for allowable costs
as stated in this section shall remain in effect until changes are
recommended by the working group and adopted by the Judicial Council.
(6) "Allowable costs for security personnel services," as defined
in the contract law enforcement template, means the salary and
benefits of an employee, including, but not limited to, county health
and welfare, county incentive payments, deferred compensation plan
costs, FICA or Medicare, general liability premium costs, leave
balance payout commensurate with an employee's time in court security
services as a proportion of total service credit earned after
January 1, 1998, premium pay, retirement, state disability insurance,
unemployment insurance costs, workers' compensation paid to an
employee in lieu of salary, workers' compensation premiums of
supervisory security personnel through the rank of captain, line
personnel, inclusive of deputies, court attendants, contractual law
enforcement services, prisoner escorts within the courts, and weapons
screening personnel, court required training, and overtime and
related benefits of law enforcement supervisory and line personnel.
(A) The Administrative Office of the Courts shall use the
actual average salary and benefits costs
approved for court law enforcement personnel as of June 30 of each
year in determining the funding request that will be presented to the
Department of Finance.
(B) Courts and court security providers shall manage their
resources to minimize the use of overtime.
(7) "Allowable costs for vehicle use for court security needs," as
defined in the contract law enforcement template, means the per-mile
recovery cost for vehicles used in rendering court law enforcement
services, exclusive of prisoner or detainee transport to or from
court. The standard mileage rate applied against the miles driven for
the above shall be the standard reimbursable mileage rate in effect
for judicial officers and employees at the time of contract
development.
(b) Nothing in this article may increase a county's obligation or
require any county to assume the responsibility for a cost of any
service that was defined as a court operation cost, as defined by
Function 8 of Rule 10.810 of the California Rules of Court, as it
read on January 1, 2007, or that meets the definition of any new law
enforcement component developed pursuant to this article.
SEC. 10. Section 69957 of the
Government Code is amended to read:
69957. (a) Whenever an official reporter or
an official reporter pro tempore is unavailable to report an action
or proceeding in a court, subject to the availability of approved
equipment and equipment monitors, the court may order that, in a
limited civil case, or a misdemeanor or infraction case, the action
or proceeding be electronically recorded, including all the
testimony, the objections made, the ruling of the court, the
exceptions taken, all arraignments, pleas, and sentences of
defendants in criminal cases, the arguments of the attorneys to the
jury, and all statements and remarks made and oral instructions given
by the judge. A transcript derived from an electronic recording may
be utilized whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required.
The electronic recording device and appurtenant equipment shall be of
a type approved by the Judicial Council for courtroom use and shall
only be purchased for use as provided by this section. A court shall
not expend funds for or use electronic recording
technology or equipment to make an unofficial record of an action or
proceeding , including for purposes of judicial notetaking,
or to use that technology or equipment to
make the official record of an action or proceeding in circumstances
not authorized by this section.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a court may use electronic
recording equipment for the internal personnel purpose of monitoring
judicial officer performance if notice is provided to litigants that
the proceeding may be recorded for that purpose. An electronic
recording made for the purpose of monitoring judicial officer
performance shall not be used for any other purpose and shall not be
made publicly available. Any recording made pursuant to this
subdivision shall be destroyed two years after the date of the
proceeding unless a personnel matter is pending relating to
performance of the judicial officer.
(c) Prior to purchasing or leasing any electronic recording
technology or equipment, a court shall obtain advance approval from
the Judicial Council, which may grant that approval only if the use
of the technology or equipment will be consistent with this section.
SEC. 11. Section 70602 of the
Government Code is amended to read:
70602. (a) It is the intent of the
Legislature to establish a moratorium on increases in filing fees
until January 1, 2012. No filing fee provided for in this
chapter may be changed before January 1, 2012.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), due to the economic crisis
facing California in the 2009-10 fiscal year, a first paper filing
fee increase is included in conjunction with the Budget Act of 2009.
This increase shall not be construed to otherwise affect the
moratorium created pursuant to subdivision (a).
SEC. 12. Section 70626 of the
Government Code is amended to read:
70626. (a) The fee for each of the following services is
fifteen dollars ($15). Amounts twenty-five dollars
($25). Subject to subdivision (d), amounts collected shall be
distributed to the Trial Court Trust Fund under Section 68085.1.
(1) Issuing a writ of attachment, a writ of mandate, a writ of
execution, a writ of sale, a writ of possession, a writ of
prohibition, or any other writ for the enforcement of any order or
judgment.
(2) Issuing an abstract of judgment.
(3) Issuing a certificate of satisfaction of judgment under
Section 724.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(4) Certifying a copy of any paper, record, or proceeding on file
in the office of the clerk of any court.
(5) Taking an affidavit, except in criminal cases or adoption
proceedings.
(6) Acknowledgment of any deed or other instrument, including the
certificate.
(7) Recording or registering any license or certificate, or
issuing any certificate in connection with a license, required by
law, for which a charge is not otherwise prescribed.
(8) Issuing any certificate for which the fee is not otherwise
fixed.
(b) The fee for each of the following services is twenty
dollars ($20). Amounts thirty dollars ($30). Subject
to subdivision (d), amounts collected shall be distributed to
the Trial Court Trust Fund under Section 68085.1.
(1) Issuing an order of sale.
(2) Receiving and filing an abstract of judgment rendered by a
judge of another court and subsequent services based on it, unless
the abstract of judgment is filed under Section 704.750 or 708.160 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3) Filing a confession of judgment under Section 1134 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
(4) Filing an application for renewal of judgment under Section
683.150 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(5) Issuing a commission to take a deposition in another state or
place under Section 2026.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or
issuing a subpoena under Section 2029.300 to take a deposition in
this state for purposes of a proceeding pending in another
jurisdiction.
(6) Filing and entering an award under the Workers' Compensation
Law (Division 4 (commencing with Section 3200) of the Labor Code).
(7) Filing an affidavit of publication of notice of dissolution of
partnership.
(8) Filing an appeal of a determination whether a dog is
potentially dangerous or vicious under Section 31622 of the Food and
Agricultural Code.
(9) Filing an affidavit under Section 13200 of the Probate Code,
together with the issuance of one certified copy of the affidavit
under Section 13202 of the Probate Code.
(10) Filing and indexing all papers for which a charge is not
elsewhere provided, other than papers filed in actions or special
proceedings, official bonds, or certificates of appointment.
(c) The fee for filing a first petition under Section 2029.600 or
2029.620 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the petitioner is not a
party to the out-of-state case, is eighty dollars ($80). Amounts
collected shall be distributed to the Trial Court Trust Fund pursuant
to Section 68085.1.
(d) Of the amounts collected pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b),
ten dollars ($10) of each fee shall be transmitted quarterly to be
deposited in the Trial Court Trust Fund and, beginning July 1, 2011,
used by the Judicial Council for the expenses of the Judicial Council
in implementing and administering the civil representation pilot
program under Section 68651.
SEC. 13. Section 77202.5 is added to the
Government Code , to read:
77202.5. (a) The Judicial Council shall report all approved
allocations and reimbursements to the trial courts in each fiscal
year, including funding received through augmentations in accordance
with paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 77202, to the chairs
of the Senate Committees on Budget and Fiscal Review and Judiciary
and the Assembly Committees on Budget and Judiciary on or before
September 30 following the close of each fiscal year. The report
shall include all of the following:
(1) A statement of the intended purpose for which each allocation
or reimbursement was made.
(2) The policy governing trial court reserves.
(3) All revenues, expenditures, reimbursements, and reserves,
including Trial Court Trust Fund and non-Trial Court Trust Fund
sources.
(4) An itemization of all funding allocations, expenditures, and
reimbursements, including those associated with administrative costs,
by purpose, program, object, or function for which the funding is
intended to address.
(b) The Administrative Office of the Courts shall summarize the
information listed in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of
subdivision (a), by court and report it to the chairs of the Senate
and Assembly Committees on Budget and the Judiciary on or before
November 1, 2009, and on or before November 1 following the close of
each fiscal year thereafter.
(c) The trial courts shall report to the Judicial Council on or
before September 15 following the close of each fiscal year all court
revenues, expenditures, reserves, and fund balances from the prior
fiscal year for funding from all fund sources. The report shall
specify all expenditures, including those associated with
administrative costs, by program, component, and object. The Judicial
Council shall summarize this information by court and report it to
the chairs of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Budget and the
Judiciary and post that information on a public Internet Web site on
or before December 31, 2009, and on or before December 31 following
the close of each fiscal year thereafter.
(d) Nothing in this section is intended to restrict public access
to information otherwise authorized by statute, rule, or case law.
SEC. 14. Section 1465.8 of the Penal
Code is amended to read:
1465.8. (a) (1) To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court
security, a fee of twenty dollars ($20)
thirty dollars ($30) shall be imposed on every conviction for a
criminal offense, including a traffic offense, except parking
offenses as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 1463, involving a
violation of a section of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance
adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "conviction" includes the
dismissal of a traffic violation on the condition that the defendant
attend a court-ordered traffic violator school, as authorized by
Sections 41501 and 42005 of the Vehicle Code. This security fee shall
be deposited in accordance with subdivision (d), and may not be
included with the fee calculated and distributed pursuant to Section
42007 of the Vehicle Code.
(b) This fee shall be in addition to the state penalty assessed
pursuant to Section 1464 and may not be included in the base fine to
calculate the state penalty assessment as specified in subdivision
(a) of Section 1464. The penalties authorized by Chapter 12
(commencing with Section 76000) of Title 8 of the Government Code,
and the state surcharge authorized by Section 1465.7, do not apply to
this fee.
(c) When bail is deposited for an offense to which this section
applies, and for which a court appearance is not necessary, the
person making the deposit shall also deposit a sufficient amount to
include the fee prescribed by this section.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the fees collected
pursuant to subdivision (a) shall all be deposited in a special
account in the county treasury and transmitted therefrom monthly to
the Controller for deposit in the Trial Court Trust Fund.
(e) The Judicial Council shall provide for the administration of
this section.
(f) This section shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2011,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
is enacted before July 1, 2011, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 15. Section 1465.8 is added to the
Penal Code , to read:
1465.8. (a) (1) To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court
security, a fee of twenty dollars ($20) shall be imposed on every
conviction for a criminal offense, including a traffic offense,
except parking offenses as defined in subdivision (i) of Section
1463, involving a violation of a section of the Vehicle Code or any
local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "conviction" includes the
dismissal of a traffic violation on the condition that the defendant
attend a court-ordered traffic violator school, as authorized by
Sections 41501 and 42005 of the Vehicle Code. This security fee shall
be deposited in accordance with subdivision (d), and may not be
included with the fee calculated and distributed pursuant to Section
42007 of the Vehicle Code.
(b) This fee shall be in addition to the state penalty assessed
pursuant to Section 1464 and may not be included in the base fine to
calculate the state penalty assessment as specified in subdivision
(a) of Section 1464. The penalties authorized by Chapter 12
(commencing with Section 76000) of Title 8 of the Government Code,
and the state surcharge authorized by Section 1465.7, do not apply to
this fee.
(c) When bail is deposited for an offense to which this section
applies, and for which a court appearance is not necessary, the
person making the deposit shall also deposit a sufficient amount to
include the fee prescribed by this section.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the fees collected
pursuant to subdivision (a) shall all be deposited in a special
account in the county treasury and transmitted therefrom monthly to
the Controller for deposit in the Trial Court Trust Fund.
(e) The Judicial Council shall provide for the administration of
this section.
(f) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2011.
SEC. 16. Section 11050.5 of the Penal
Code is amended to read:
11050.5. (a) The Attorney General may, upon the request of any
district attorney, sheriff, chief of police, or other local, state or
federal law enforcement official, make available to such official so
requesting, the department's laboratory facilities and personnel and
the department's technical experts, including but not limited to
such personnel as fingerprint examiners, criminalists, document
examiners and intelligence specialists for the purpose of assisting
in the investigation of criminal matters, the detection of crimes and
the apprehension or prosecution of criminals.
(b) The Attorney General may, upon the request of any public
defender or private defense counsel appointed by the court, make
available to such public defender or such private appointed counsel,
the department's laboratory facilities and personnel and the
department's technical experts, including but not limited to such
personnel as fingerprint examiners, criminalists, document examiners
and intelligence specialists for the purpose of assisting in the
representation by such public defender or private appointed counsel
of persons in criminal proceedings. The Attorney General may contract
with each county whose public defender or such private appointed
counsel makes requests pursuant to this subdivision for the payment
of the reasonable costs of time and material in making available
information, services or facilities pursuant to this subdivision. No
information, services or facilities shall be made available to such
public defender or private appointed counsel unless the county so
contracts with the Attorney General.
(c) A copy of any information, including the results of any
analysis, furnished by the Attorney General to a public defender, or
private defense counsel appointed by the court, pursuant to
subdivision (b) shall be sent to the district attorney of the county
in which the public defender is located. If this subdivision or its
application to any person or circumstance is invalid, subdivision (b)
shall not be operative.
(d) The Department of Justice may shall
charge a fee for the laboratory services it performs on or
after July 1, 2009. The fee charged shall be based on a sliding
scale fee structure that takes into account the ability of an agency
using a laboratory to pay the fee. The department shall develop the
sliding scale fee structure in consultation with the Department of
Finance and the Legislative Analyst's Office. The Department of
Justice shall report to the Legislature no later than
January 10, 2010, on the fee structure implemented. The report shall
include the estimated laboratory fee revenue to be collected, the
impact that the fee structure will have on laboratory workload, and
the total level of General Fund savings that is expected to be
generated upon full implementation of the fee structure .
SEC. 17. Section 1955 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code is amended to read:
1955. (a) The allocation amount for each county from the Youthful
Offender Block Grant Fund for offenders subject to Sections 733,
1766, and 1767.35 shall be distributed once annually
allocated in four equal installments, to be paid in
September, December, March, and June of each fiscal year, as
follows:
(1) Fifty percent based on the number of the county's juvenile
felony court dispositions, according to the most recent data compiled
by the Department of Justice, calculated as a percentage of the
state total.
(2) Fifty percent based on the county's population of minors from
10 to 17 years of age, inclusive, according to the most recent data
published by the Department of Justice
Finance , calculated as a percentage of the state total.
(b) Each county shall receive a minimum block grant allocation of
fifty-eight thousand five hundred dollars ($58,500) for the 2007-08
fiscal year, and a minimum block grant allocation of one hundred
seventeen thousand dollars ($117,000) for each fiscal year
thereafter.
(c) Commencing with the 2008-09 fiscal year, allocations shall be
available to counties that have met the requirements of Section 1961.
SEC. 18. Section 1961 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code is amended to read:
1961. (a) On or before January 1,
2008 May 1 of each year , each county shall
prepare and submit to the Corrections Standards Authority for
approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan for youthful
offenders who have not committed an offense described in subdivision
(b) of Section 707 and are in the custody of the county commencing
September 1, 2007 on its proposed expenditures for the
next fiscal year from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund
described in Section 1951 . The plan shall include
both all of the following:
(a)
(1) A description of the programs, placements,
services, or strategies to be funded by the block grant allocation
pursuant to this chapter, including, but not limited to, the
programs, tools, and strategies outlined in Section 1960.
(2) The proposed expenditures of block grant funds for each
program, placement, service, strategy, or for any other item,
activity, or operation.
(3) A description of how the plan relates to or supports the
county's overall strategy for dealing with youthful offenders who
have not committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section
707, and who are no longer eligible for commitment to the Division
of Juvenile Facilities under Section 733 as of September 1, 2007.
(b)
(4) A description of any regional agreements or
arrangements to be supported by the block grant allocation pursuant
to this chapter.
(c)
(5) A description of how these new
the programs , placements, services, or strategies
identified in the plan coordinate with programs under Chapter
353 of the Statutes of 2000 (A.B. (AB
1913).
(b) The plan described in subdivision (a) shall be submitted in a
format developed and provided by the Corrections Standards Authority.
The Corrections
Standards Authority may develop and provide a dual format for
counties for the submission together of the county Juvenile Justice
Development Plan described in subdivision (a) and the county
multiagency juvenile justice plan described in paragraph (4) of
subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code. A county may
elect to submit both plans using the dual format and under
guidelines established by the Corrections Standards Authority.
(c) Each county receiving an allocation from the Youthful Offender
Block Grant fund described in Section 1951 shall, by October 1 of
each year, submit an annual report to the Corrections Standards
Authority on its utilization of the block grant funds in the
preceding fiscal year. The report shall be in a format specified by
the authority and shall include all of the following:
(1) A description of the programs, placements, services, and
strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal
year, and an accounting of all of the county's expenditures of block
grant funds for the preceding fiscal year.
(2) Performance outcomes for the programs, placements, services,
and strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal
year, including, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The number of youth served including their characteristics as
to offense, age, gender, race, and ethnicity.
(B) As relevant to the program, placement, service, or strategy,
the rate of successful completion by youth.
(C) For any program or placement supported by block grant funds,
the arrest, rearrest, incarceration, and probation violation rates of
youth in any program or placement.
(D) Quantification of the annual per capita cost of the program,
placement, strategy, or activity.
(d) The authority shall prepare and make available to the public
on its Internet Web site summaries of the annual county reports
submitted in accordance with subdivision (c). By March 15 of each
year, the authority also shall prepare and submit to the Legislature
a report summarizing county utilizations of block grant funds in the
preceding fiscal year, including a summary of the performance
outcomes reported by counties for the preceding fiscal year.
(e) The authority may modify the performance outcome measures
specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) if it determines that
counties are substantially unable to provide the information
necessary to support the measures specified. Prior to making that
modification, the authority shall consult with affected county and
state juvenile justice stakeholders. In the event that any adjustment
of the performance outcome measures is made, the outcome measures
shall, to the extent feasible, remain consistent with the performance
outcome measures specified in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4) of
subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code for programs
receiving juvenile justice grants from the Supplemental Law
Enforcement Services Fund.
SEC. 19. The provisions of this act are severable.
If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid,
that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications
that can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application.
SEC. 20. This act addresses the fiscal emergency
declared by the Governor by proclamation on December 19, 2008,
pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 10 of Article IV of the
California Constitution.
SEC. 21. If the Commission on State Mandates
determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs
shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of
Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature
to enact statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2009.
SEC. 2. This act addresses the fiscal emergency
declared by the Governor by proclamation on December 19, 2008,
pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 10 of Article IV of the
California Constitution.