BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2212
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2212 (Fuentes) - As Amended: April 22, 2010
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill codifies certain constitutional requirements for
determining juvenile competency. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires a juvenile court to suspend criminal proceedings if
doubt is present as to the minor's present ability to
cooperate with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of
rational understanding.
2)Requires the court, upon declaration of a doubt as to the
minor's competency, to order the competence to be determined
at a hearing.
3)Requires the court to appoint an expert in the field of
juvenile competency to evaluate whether the minor suffers from
a mental disorder, developmental disability, or developmental
immaturity.
4)Species that if the minor is found incompetent by a
preponderance of evidence, all proceedings shall remain
suspended for a sufficient period of time to determine whether
there is a substantial probability the minor will attain the
necessary capacity in the foreseeable future. The period of
time during which proceedings are suspended shall not exceed
six months, during which time the court may consider a motion
to dismiss, a motion by the defense regarding a change in the
placement of the minor, a detention hearing, or a demurrer.
AB 2212
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor annual state and local costs for hearings and increased
mental health services, depending on how many wards are
affected by this bill. This bill essentially codifies current
practice, so costs should be minimal.
By creating this procedure, however, judges could arguably
widen the net and make broader than anticipated use of the
proposed procedure, which could result in additional hearings.
2)Minor absorbable costs to the Judicial Council to develop
rules to implement the proposed processes.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is codify competency processes
for juveniles, similar to those afforded adults. According to
the author, "Despite the Penal Code procedures for determining
competency in adult proceedings, a determination of juvenile
competency lives only in case law and the Rules of Court. The
absence of statutory authority for deciding juvenile
competency creates lack of certainty and disparate application
of existing case law.
"Juvenile adjudicative competency is governed by a combination
of California statute as it relates to adults, juvenile rules
of court, and controlling case law related to both minors and
adults. Legislative action is necessary to articulate the law
in a manner that provides the juvenile court with the
appropriate guidance, mandate and uniformity to ensure due
process of law.
"While case law suggest that courts may rely on adult
competency provisions in the absence of a juvenile statute on
competency to stand trial, adult competency statutes do not
address the nuanced application of 'developmental immaturity'
outlined in case law relevant to determination of competency
AB 2212
Page 3
in juveniles. Developmental immaturity simply means the minor
is too young to understand the proceedings or effectively
assist counsel.
"Moreover, evaluation of children requires a professional
expertise on child development, use of assessment instruments
unique to evaluations of children in order to identify a
mental disorder or developmental disability. For obvious
reasons, the adult statutes fail to address such standard of
practice for juveniles. Codification of a juvenile statute for
competency to stand trial is necessary to address a void in
the statue that unambiguously provides guidance on the rule of
law for competency in delinquency proceedings."
2)Support. The Youth Law Center, the CA Public Defenders
Association, and the Sacramento County Public Defender
reference confusion in this area of law and agree upon the
need to codifying juvenile competency processes.
According to the Sacramento County Public Defender, "With the
passage of AB 2212, the state could save countless resources
in avoiding further unnecessary litigation in this area.
Countless contested competency cases are being litigated in
juvenile court everyday, draining valuable resources. Cases
are being litigated up and down the appellate court ladder
attempting to get guidance in this vague area of the law. AB
2212 would give juvenile delinquency courts, minors'
attorneys, prosecutors, and other juvenile justice partners
clear standards, direction and guidance in this area of law,
as is the case regarding competency to stand trial in the
criminal court."
3)Prior legislation , AB 2019 (Steinberg), 2004, was similar to
AB 2212, but considerably more expansive and prescriptive
regarding the outcome should a juvenile be found incompetent.
AB 2212, expired on the Senate floor after passing off of the
Suspense File in both houses.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081