BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Mark Leno, Chair A 2009-2010 Regular Session B 1 9 2 AB 1925 (Salas) 5 As Amended May 28, 2010 Hearing date: June 29, 2010 Penal Code JM:mc VETERANS COURTS HISTORY Source: Vietnam Veterans of America, California State Council Prior Legislation: AB 2671 (Salas) - 2008, vetoed SB 851 (Steinberg) - 2007, vetoed AB 1542 (Parra) - 2006, vetoed AB 2586 (Parra) - Ch. 788, Stats. 2006 Support: American Legion, Department of California; AMVETS, Department of California; AMVETS Post 40 of Sonoma County; California Association of County Veterans Service Officers; California Public Defenders Association; Public Counsel Law Center of Los Angeles; Swords to Plowshares; Veterans Village of San Diego; Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of California; California State Commanders Veterans Council; National Alliance on Mental Illness, California; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Psychiatric Association; California Psychological Association; Michael Ottolini AMVETS Post 40 of Sonoma County Opposition:Crime Victims United of California Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 76 - Noes 0 (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageB KEY ISSUES SHOULD SPECIAL VETERANS COURT PROGRAMS BE ESTABLISHED TO HANDLE CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING VETERANS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, AS SPECIFIED? SHOULD THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF VETERANS COURTS BE TO PLACE MENTALLY ILL VETERANS IN COMMUNITY TREATMENT, TO THE EXTENT SUCH PLACEMENTS ARE FEASIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC SAFETY? SHOULD PARTICIPATION BY ANY COUNTY IN THE VETERANS COURT PROGRAM BE VOLUNTARY? SHOULD ANY COUNTY THAT DOES PARTICIPATE BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH SPECIFIED STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES? PURPOSE The purposes of this bill are to 1) establish standards and procedures for veterans courts that would handle criminal cases involving mentally ill veterans, as specified; 2) provide that county participation is voluntary; and 3) provide that the underlying purpose of a veterans court is to provide treatment for mentally ill veterans and thereby reduce recidivism and the involvement of veterans in the criminal justice system, to the extent consistent with public safety. Existing law states that in the case of any person convicted of a criminal offense who would otherwise be sentenced to county jail or state prison and who alleges that he or she committed the offense as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance abuse, or psychological problems stemming from service in a combat theater in the United States military, the court shall, prior to sentencing, hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant was a member of the military forces of the (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageC United States who served in combat and shall assess whether the defendant suffers from PTSD, substance abuse, or psychological problems as a result of that service. (Pen. Code 1170.9, subd. (a).) Existing law allows a defendant convicted of a criminal offense who committed the offense as a result of PTSD, substance abuse, or psychological problems stemming from service in a combat theater in the United States military, and if the defendant is otherwise eligible for probation and the court places the defendant on probation, the court may order the defendant into a local, state, federal, or private nonprofit treatment program for a period not to exceed that which the defendant would have served in state prison or county jail, provided the defendant agrees to participate in the program and the court determines that an appropriate treatment program exists. (Pen. Code 1170.9, subd. (b).) Existing law provides for diversion from criminal prosecution through a deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) and sentence when an open case is before any court for specified violations of drug possession, paraphernalia possession, being in the presence of drug use, misdemeanor transportation of marijuana, or harvesting of marijuana for personal use and it appears to the prosecuting attorney that, all of the following apply to the defendant (Penal Code 1000): The defendant has no conviction for any offense involving controlled substances prior to the alleged commission of the charged offense; The offense charged did not involve a crime of violence or threatened violence; There is no evidence of a violation relating to narcotics or restricted dangerous drugs other than a violation of the sections listed in this subdivision; The defendant's record does not indicate that probation or parole has ever been revoked without thereafter being completed; The defendant's record does not indicate that he or she has successfully completed or been terminated from diversion or DEJ pursuant to this chapter within five years prior to the (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageD alleged commission of the charged offense; and, The defendant has no prior felony conviction within five years prior to the alleged commission of the charged offense. Existing law effectuates July 1, 2001, except as specified, a person convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense shall receive probation with completion of a drug treatment program as a condition of probation. (Pen. Code 1210, 1210.1, added by Prop. 36, approved November 7, 2000.) Existing law provides that certain defendants and parolees are ineligible for the Substance Abuse Treatment Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA), enacted by Proposition 36. These ineligible persons include persons who possessed drugs other than for personal use; committed other offenses along with a drug possession offense; used a firearm while in possession or under the influence of heroin, cocaine or PCP; previously convicted of a serious felony and have not been free of custody or commission of felonies or dangerous misdemeanors within five years (parolees may not have ever been convicted of a serious felony); participated in two prior Proposition 36 treatment programs; and refused treatment. (Pen. Code 1210.03.) Existing law allows a superior court, with the concurrence of the prosecuting attorney of the county, may create a "Back on Track" deferred entry of judgment reentry program aimed at preventing recidivism among first-time nonviolent felony drug offenders. No defendant who has been convicted of a violation of a sex offense shall be eligible for the program established in this chapter. When creating this program, the prosecuting attorney, together with the presiding judge and a representative of the criminal defense bar selected by the presiding judge of the superior court may agree to establish a "Back on Track" deferred entry of judgment program pursuant to the provisions, as specified. The agreement shall specify which low-level nonviolent felony drug offenses under the Health and (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageE Safety Code will be eligible for the program and a process for selecting participants. The program shall have the following characteristics: A dedicated calendar; Leadership by a superior court judicial officer who is assigned by the presiding judge; Clearly defined eligibility criteria to enter the program and clearly defined criteria for completion of the program; Legal incentives for defendants to successfully complete the program, including dismissal or reduction of criminal charges upon successful completion of the program; and, Close supervision to hold participants accountable to program compliance, including the use of graduated sanctions and frequent, ongoing appearances before the court regarding participants' program progress and compliance with all program terms and conditions. The court may use available legal mechanisms, including return to custody if necessary, for failure to comply with the supervised plan. Appropriate transitional programming for participants, based on available resources from county and community service providers and other agencies. The transitional programming may include, but is not limited to, any of the following: Vocational training, readiness, and placement; Educational training, including assistance with acquiring a GED or high school diploma and assistance with admission to college; Substance abuse treatment; Assistance with obtaining identification cards and driver's licenses; Parenting skills training and assistance in becoming compliant with child support obligations; and, The program may develop a local, public-private partnership between law enforcement, government agencies, private employers, and community-based organizations for the purpose of creating meaningful employment opportunities for participants and to take advantage of incentives for hiring program participants. (Pen. Code 1000.8.) Existing law applies this chapter whenever a case is before any (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageF court upon an accusatory pleading at any stage of the criminal proceedings, for any person who has been evaluated by a regional center for the developmentally disabled and who is determined to be a person with a cognitive developmental disability by the regional center, and who therefore is eligible for its services. This chapter applies to any offense which is charged as or reduced to a misdemeanor, except that diversion shall not be ordered when the defendant previously has been diverted under this chapter within two years prior to the present criminal proceedings. (Pen. Code 1001.21, subd. (a) and (b).) Existing law mandates in any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in existing law. The probationer shall be informed, in his or her probation papers, of this right and privilege and his or her right, if any, to petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. The probationer may make the application and change of plea in person or by attorney, or by the probation officer authorized in writing. However, in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted or the accusation or information dismissed. The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageG order does not relieve him or her of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery. (Pen. Code 1203.4, subd. (a).) Function, Purpose and Operation of a Veterans Court This bill establishes standards and procedures for veterans courts and specifies that county participation in the veterans courts program is voluntary. This bill provides that any county that chooses to participate in the program shall conform to the procedures and standards in this bill. This bill requires any veterans court to be led by a judicial officer. A veterans court shall also include, but not be limited to, the judge, a prosecutor, public defender, county mental health liaison, substance abuse liaison, county veterans' service officer, and probation officer. The court team will set the frequency of reviews of the offender's progress in treatment so as to ensure the offender follows the treatment plan, remains in treatment, and completes treatment. This bill specifically provides that a veterans court shall do the following: Increase cooperation between the courts, criminal justice, veterans, and substance abuse systems; Use a dedicated calendar or a collaborative mental health program that will place as many mentally ill offenders who are United States veterans in treatment as is consistent with public safety. The veterans served may include those with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury, military sexual trauma, substance abuse, or other mental health problems stemming from military service. Improve access to necessary services and support; Reduce recidivism; and, Reduce the involvement of veterans in the criminal justice (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageH system and time in jail by making mental health service for veterans available in the least restrictive environment possible while promoting public safety. Procedures and Characteristics of a Veterans Court This bill specifies that a veterans court shall have the following characteristics and procedures: Leadership by a superior court judicial officer assigned by the presiding judge; Enhanced accountability by combining judicial supervision with rehabilitation services that are rigorously monitored and focused on recovery; A problem-solving focus; A team approach to decision making; Integration of social and treatment services; Judicial supervision of the treatment process, as appropriate; Community outreach efforts; and, Direct interaction between defendant and judicial officer. Required Plans for Veterans Courts This bill provides that veterans courts shall operate pursuant to a defined plan. Specifically, the presiding judge or his or her designee shall contact the county board of supervisors, the county administrative officer, or their designee to convene the county and court stakeholders and, through a collaborative process with these stakeholders, develop a plan that is consistent with this section. At least one stakeholder should be a criminal justice client who is a veteran who has lived with the experience of mental illness. The plan shall address at a minimum all of the following components: The method by which the veterans court ensures that the target population of defendants are identified and referred to the veterans court. The method for assessing defendants who are veterans for serious mental illness and co-occurring disorders. Eligibility criteria specifying what factors make the (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageI defendant eligible to participate in the veterans court, including service in the United States military, the amenability of the defendant to treatment and the facts of the case, as well as prior criminal history, United States military service history, and mental health and substance abuse treatment history. The elements of the treatment and supervision in programs. Standards for continuing participation in, and successful completion of, the veterans court program. The need for the county mental health department and the drug and alcohol department to provide initial and ongoing training for designated staff on the nature of serious mental illness and on the treatment and supportive services available in the community. The process to ensure defendants will receive the appropriate level of treatment services, the county and other local agencies shall be obligated to provide mental health treatment services only to the extent that resources are available for that purpose. The process for developing or modifying a treatment plan for each defendant, based on a formal assessment of the defendant's mental health, United States military service history, and substance abuse treatment needs. Participation in the veterans court shall require defendants to complete the recommended treatment plan, and comply with any other terms and conditions that optimize the likelihood that the defendant completes the program. The process for referring cases to the veterans court. A defendant's voluntary entry into the veterans court, the right of a defendant to withdraw from the veterans court, and the process for explaining these rights to the defendant. RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION The severe prison overcrowding problem California has experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageJ federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity -- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years. In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4, 2009, that court stated in part: "California's correctional system is in a tailspin," the state's independent oversight agency has reported. . . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report, "Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased the population of California's prisons dramatically while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a result, the state's prisons have become places "of extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house . . . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while contributing little to the safety of California's residents . . . California "spends more on corrections than most countries in the world," but the state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . . Although California's existing prison system serves neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has for years been unable or unwilling to implement the reforms necessary to reverse its continuing deterioration. (Some citations omitted.) . . . The massive 750% increase in the California prison population since the mid-1970s is the result of political decisions made over three decades, including the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole system. Unfortunately, as California's prison population has grown, California's political decision-makers have failed to provide the resources and facilities required to meet the additional need for space and for other necessities of prison (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageK existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the state could safely reduce its prison population, their recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or postponed indefinitely. The convergence of tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend the necessary funds to support the population growth has brought California's prisons to the breaking point. The state of emergency declared by Governor Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to this day, California's prisons remain severely overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison system continue to languish without constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.<1> The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the state's appeal in this case. This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis described above. COMMENTS 1. Need for This Bill According to the author: Veterans with combat-related mental illness in the criminal justice system often face unique challenges which traditional courts are often ill-equipped to address. AB 1925 modifies the California Penal Code ---------------------- <1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the Northern District of California United States District Court composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28 United States Code (August 4, 2009). (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageL to better address the particular needs of veterans by providing a template for the creation of new veterans' courts throughout the state. AB 1925 sets the stage for the formalization of relationships between judges, district attorneys, public defenders, veterans' service agencies, residential treatment organizations, and others. AB 1925 standardizes the structure of veterans' courts and establishes a clear process for the formation of new courts, while maintaining local control over the establishment of these courts. 2. Amendment to Which the Author Agreed in Senate Veterans Affairs This bill was heard in and passed by Senate Veterans Affairs on June 22, 2010. In Veterans Affairs the author agreed to take an amendment to clarify and explain the intent of the Legislature in this bill. This Committee will process these amendments. The amendments provide that this bill should augment, not replace, other programs to help veterans. The amendments specifically provide that courts should "exercise discretion and use all tools available to ensure public safety and assist defendants to successfully complete appropriate treatment ?" The amendments noted examples such as domestic violence programs and first-conviction treatment programs for persons convicted of driving under the influence. Such an approach would ensure that offense-specific programs are employed within the context of a veterans court. 3. Drug-Court, Collaborative Model This bill is largely modeled on the drug-court, collaborative courts model. In such a model, the court, prosecutors, counsel, probation, service providers and the defendant work as a collaborative team to solve problems presented by a defendant's case. The court provides close supervision of the defendant through relatively numerous court appearances. In a usual probation matter, the court places the defendant on probation and only sees the defendant again if he or she has failed on (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageM probation. The drug court model has been adapted to other circumstances, include parole reentry courts. (Pen. Code 3015.) This bill applies the model to the particular problems experienced by veterans in the criminal justice system. SHOULD A PROGRAM OF VETERANS COURTS, GENERALLY MODELED ON DRUG COURTS, BE ENACTED? (More) 4. UCSF and San Francisco VA Medical Center Study on Veterans and PTSD An article appearing in Science Daily (online) on March 13, 2007, discussed a study conducted by the University of California-San Francisco and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center finding that approximately one-third of veterans returning from Iraq received one or more mental health or psychosocial diagnoses. The study appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association and Archives Journals. Another study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004 stated that the rate of post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans increased in a linear manner with increased exposure to combat. (Hoge, Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care (2004) 351 N. Engl. J. Med. 13-22.) Studies also indicate that PTSD may drive or exacerbate drug and alcohol abuse by veterans. (Stress & Substance Abuse: A Special Report, National Institute on Drug Abuse (Sept. 12, 2005).) Mental health and substance abuse problems are linked to future incarceration in veterans. In a Bureau of Justice study, 35% to 45% of incarcerated veterans reported symptoms of mental health disorders in the previous 12 months, including mania, psychotic disorders, and major depressive episodes. (Noonan & Mumola, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Veterans in State and Federal Prison, 2004 (2007), p. 6.) Three-quarters of veterans in state prisons reported past drug use and one-quarter reported being on drugs at the time of the offense for which they were incarcerated. (Id. at p. 5.) Veterans are also more likely than non-veterans to report past intravenous drug use. (Ibid; See also Badkhen, Shelters Take Many Vets of Iraq, Afghan Wars, Boston Globe (Aug. 7, 2007).) It appears that veterans are disproportionately represented in the prison population. Veterans make up 10% of state prisoners. (Noonan & Mumola, supra, at p. 1.) By 2004, veterans of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan already comprised 4% of the veterans in state and federal prisons. (Ibid.) (More) AB 1925 (Salas) PageO Studies have concluded approximately two-thirds of mentally ill prisoners receive no treatment. (James & Glaze, U.S. Dep't of Just., Bureau of Just. Stats., Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates (Sept. 2006) pp. 1, 9.) Providing meaningful mental health treatment has been shown to significantly reduce recidivism rates, with studies showing decreases of over 20%. (Wash. State Inst. For Pub. Policy, Evidence-Based Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates (2006).) 5. Argument in Support The California Public Defenders Association argues in support: A recent Rand Corp. study found that almost 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans report PTSD or depression. AB 1925 would allow creation of a dedicated calendar or collaborative court-supervised veterans mental health program with direct contact between the court and the defendant. These programs will lead to placement of as many mentally ill offenders who are veterans in community treatment, as is feasible and consistent with public safety. A February 2009 Department of Veterans Affairs Fact Sheet ? states that the controlling offense for 70% of all veterans in the jail population was a non-violent crime. Three in five of these veterans have [drug] problems, almost one in three have serious mental illness, one in five was homeless, and 60% had a serious medical problem. ? [M]any veterans are potentially eligible for referral to, and are good candidates for, drug or mental health court intervention as an alternative to incarceration. [Veterans are] trained not to show weakness or admit that they are overwhelmed by the gravity of the life threatening and all consuming situations in which they are placed. Military suicides are soaring - last AB 1925 (Salas) PageP year, the Army reported a record 133, and the suicide rate among soldiers in Iraq is 11% higher than in Vietnam. AB 1925 offers a beacon of light for those whose training and experience in the military has often left them feeling at times utterly hopeless and with no will to live. ***************