BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  AB 1925|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 1925
          Author:   Salas (D)
          Amended:  8/2/10 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE  :  4-0, 6/22/10
          AYES:  Denham, Correa, Negrete McLeod, Cedillo
          NO VOTE RECORDED: Wyland, Vacancy, Vacancy

           SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE :  7-0, 6/29/10
          AYES:  Leno, Cogdill, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,  
            Wright

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  76-0, 6/2/10 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Veterans courts

           SOURCE  :     Vietnam Veterans of America, California State  
          Council


           DIGEST  :    This bill authorizes superior courts to develop  
          and implement veterans courts for eligible veterans of the  
          United States (U.S.) military with the objective of, among  
          other things, creation of a dedicated calendar or a locally  
          developed collaborative court-supervised veterans mental  
          health program or system that leads to the placement of as  
          many mentally ill offenders who are veterans of the U.S.  
          military, including those with post-traumatic stress  
          disorder, traumatic brain injury, military sexual trauma,  
          substance abuse, or any mental health problem stemming from  
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1925
                                                                Page  
          2

          military service, in community treatment as is feasible and  
          consistent with public safety.

           ANALYSIS  :    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  
          United States (U.S.) who served in combat and shall assess  
          whether the defendant suffers from PTSD, substance abuse,  
          or psychological problems as a result of that service.  

          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.  

          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:

          1. The defendant has no conviction for any offense  
             involving controlled substances prior to the alleged  
             commission of the charged offense.

          2. The offense charged did not involve a crime of violence  
             or threatened violence.

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1925
                                                                Page  
          3


          3. 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.

          4. The defendant's record does not indicate that probation  
             or parole has ever been revoked without thereafter being  
             completed.

          5. 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 alleged commission of the charged  
             offense. 

          6. 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.

          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.  

          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  

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1925
                                                                Page  
          4

          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 Safety  
          Code will be eligible for the program and a process for  
          selecting participants.  The program shall have the  
          following characteristics:

          1. A dedicated calendar.

          2. Leadership by a superior court judicial officer who is  
             assigned by the presiding judge.

          3. Clearly defined eligibility criteria to enter the  
             program and clearly defined criteria for completion of  
             the program.

          4. Legal incentives for defendants to successfully complete  
             the program, including dismissal or reduction of  
             criminal charges upon successful completion of the  
             program. 

          5. 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.

          6. 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:

          7. Vocational training, readiness, and placement.

          8. Educational training, including assistance with  

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1925
                                                                Page  
          5

             acquiring a GED or high school diploma and assistance  
             with admission to college.

          9. Substance abuse treatment.

          10.Assistance with obtaining identification cards and  
             driver's licenses.

          11.Parenting skills training and assistance in becoming  
             compliant with child support obligations.

          12.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.  
              

          This bill:

          1. Authorizes superior courts to develop and implement  
             veterans courts for eligible veterans of the United  
             States (U.S.) military with the objective of, among  
             other things, creation of a dedicated calendar or a  
             locally developed collaborative court-supervised  
             veterans mental health program or system that leads to  
             the placement of as many mentally ill offenders who are  
             veterans of the U.S. military, including those with  
             post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury,  
             military sexual trauma, substance abuse, or any mental  
             health problem stemming from military service, in  
             community treatment as is feasible and consistent with  
             public safety.  

          2. Provides that county participation is voluntary.

          3. Declares the intents of the Legislature that, where  
             there are statutory requirements for certain education  
             or counseling programs to be included in the terms of  
             probation, the components of those counseling terms is  
             required to be incorporated into the treatment programs  
             that are designed to treat the underlying psychological  
             disorders rather than requiring them in lieu of the  

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1925
                                                                Page  
          6

             psychological treatments.

           Background
           
           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 percent to 45 percent 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  

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1925
                                                                Page  
          7

          already comprised 4% of the veterans in state and federal  
          prisons.  (Ibid.)

          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 percent.  (Wash. State  
          Inst. For Pub. Policy, Evidence-Based Policy Options to  
          Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs,  
          and Crime Rates (2006).)  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No    
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/4/10)

          Vietnam Veterans of America, California State Council  
          (source)
          American Legion, Department of California
          AMVETS Post 40 of Sonoma County
          AMVETS, Department of California
          California Association of County Veterans Service Officers
          California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
          California Psychiatric Association
          California Psychological Association
          California Public Defenders Association
          California State Commanders Veterans Council
          National Alliance on Mental Illness California
          Public Counsel Law Center of Los Angeles
          Swords to Plowshares
          Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of California
          Veterans Village of San Diego

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/4/10)

          Crime Victims United of California

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    The author's office states,  
          "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  

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1925
                                                                Page  
          8

          1925 modifies the California Penal Code 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."

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    The Department of Finance  
          opposes this bill and writes the following, "Finance is  
          opposed to this measure because by creating a reimbursable  
          state-mandated local program, it would result in General  
          Fund costs that are not included in the Administration's  
          current fiscal plan.  Additionally, it would create a  
          General Fund cost pressure for the courts and create the  
          expectation that these courts would be created.  During  
          this time of limited resources and already decreased  
          capabilities to meet mandated workload,, Finance does not  
          believe imposing this workload and expectation of a new  
          program at this time is appropriate."  
           
           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 
          AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill  
            Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford,  
            Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,  
            Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,  
            DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,  
            Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,  
            Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,  
            Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Bonnie  
            Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,  
            Niello, Nielsen, Norby, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino,  
            Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,  
            Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines,  
            Yamada, John A. Perez
          NO VOTE RECORDED: Tom Berryhill, Lieu, Audra Strickland,  
            Vacancy


          CTW:TSM:do  8/4/10   Senate Floor Analyses 


                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1925
                                                                Page  
          9

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****










































                                                           CONTINUED