BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
0
1
AB 2011 (Arambula) 1
As Amended April 15, 2010
Hearing date: June 15, 2010
Penal Code (URGENCY)
AA:mc
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
MANDATORY MINIMUM FINE
HISTORY
Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Prior Legislation: AB 2695 (Goldberg) - Ch. 476, Stats. 2006
AB 352 (Goldberg) - Ch. 431, Stats. 2003
Support: Crime Victims United of California; State Public
Affairs Committee, Junior Leagues of
California; California District Attorneys Association; National
Association of Social Workers - California Chapter; Crime
Victims Action Alliance; California Partnership to End Domestic
Violence
Opposition:California Public Defenders Association
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 74 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
(More)
AB 2011 (Arambula)
PageB
SHOULD THE MANDATORY MINIMUM FINE IMPOSED ON PERSONS GRANTED
PROBATION FOR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSE BE INCREASED FROM $200
TO $400, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to increase the mandatory minimum
fine imposed on persons granted probation for a domestic
violence offense from $200 to $400.
Current law imposes mandatory terms of probation on persons
convicted of domestic violence, as specified. (Penal Code
1203.097.)
Current law provides that one of these mandatory terms of
probation is a minimum payment by the defendant of $200, to be
disbursed as specified. Current law further provides that if,
after a hearing in court on the record, the court finds that the
defendant does not have the ability to pay, the court may reduce
or waive this fee. (Penal Code 1203.097(a)(5).)
This bill would increase this minimum payment from $200 to $400.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
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
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
(More)
AB 2011 (Arambula)
PageC
-- 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
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
(More)
AB 2011 (Arambula)
PageD
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. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Since 2003, domestic violence offenders on probation
have been required to pay a fee, minimum of $400,
unless the court found that he or she was unable to
pay. However, last year no legislation was enacted to
extend the sunset, so the fee reduced to $200.
----------------------
<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 2011 (Arambula)
PageE
While the state and local governments struggle to
rebound from the economic recession and meet their
existing obligations, it is premature to reduce an
appropriate source of domestic violence funding. The
probation fee must be reinstated to its previous
amount of $400.
While the state and local governments struggle to
rebound from the economic recession and meet their
existing obligations, it is premature to reduce an
appropriate source of domestic violence funding. The
fee collected from perpetrators allows victims, who
escape abusive relationships, the opportunity to
access programs and services that help guide them to a
new start.
Domestic violence programs provide victims a support
system that assures them it is acceptable to abandon
an abusive relationship for the sake of themselves and
their children. It is important to decrease domestic
violence, especially in the presence of children who
can grow up to continue with the cycle.
(More)
2. What This Bill Would Do; Background
This bill would reinstate the $400 mandatory minimum fine
applicable to persons granted probation for a domestic violence
offense for the last several years. The $400 fine was reduced
to $200 effective January 1, 2010. The fine was increased to
$400 in 2003 by AB 352 (Goldberg), and the sunset on the $400
was extended to Jan. 1, 2010, in 2007 by AB 2695 (Goldberg).
This bill restores the $400 fine, with no sunset. Current law,
which would apply to the increased fine in this bill, authorizes
the court to reduce or waive this fee if the court finds that
the defendant lacks the ability to pay.
One-third of the fine proceeds fund domestic violence centers;
the remainder is deposited in equal amounts in the Domestic
Violence Restraining Order Reimbursement Fund, within the
Department of Justice, and the Domestic Violence Training and
Education Fund, within the Department of Public Health.
The analysis of this bill prepared by the Assembly
Appropriations Committee noted the following fiscal effect of
this bill:
Ongoing additional fine revenues in the range of $1.7
million.
Initial estimates from the State Controller's Office
regarding the fine collections for January 2010 at the
reduced level of $200 indicate fine remittances are
coming in at less than half of the level collected
under the $400 fine, which would result in a total
collection of about $1.3 million annually at the $200
level, compared with about $3 million 2009.
Even at the $400 level, total collections are down
significantly in recent years, presumably due to the
economy and offenders' inability to pay.
Criminal fines are subject to mandatory penalty assessments
(More)
AB 2011 (Arambula)
PageG
which generally are about 280% of the base fine, although the
exact amount varies from county to county. A defendant subject
to the $400 mandated by this bill would actually be required to
pay a fine of approximately $1120 with those penalties applied,
compared to the $560 under current law.
SHOULD THE $400 MANDATORY MINIMUM FINE IMPOSED FOR DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PROBATIONERS BE RESTORED?
3. Opposition
The California Public Defenders Association, which opposes this
bill, argues in part:
Currently, defendants in domestic violence cases are
already subject to the mandatory 52-week batterers
intervention program, which they must pay for or face
violation of the court's orders. Defendants must also
report to court and to their probation officer for
regular progress reports and must pay for the cost of
supervised probation, which can total well over
$1,000. These obligations have the practical effect
of limiting employment income and hours. Such
batterers intervention programs offer limited fee
reduced slots. . . .
Increasing fines to be paid by defendants in domestic
violence cases will have the unintended but
predictable consequence of less overall fines being
paid, current program funding being depleted, and less
completion of batterers intervention programs. AB
2011 presupposes a wealthy clientele with bottomless
funding reserves instead of acknowledging the reality,
that many defendants in domestic violence cases are
struggling financially to meet the already numerous
obligations imposed in every domestic violence case.
.***************
AB 2011 (Arambula)
PageH