BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 431|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 431
Author: Benoit (R) and Leno (D)
Amended: 4/22/09
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/28/09
AYES: Leno, Benoit, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,
Wright
SUBJECT : Adult probation: transfers
SOURCE : Chief Probation Officers of California
DIGEST : This bill requires that (1) when a person is
released on probation, the sentencing court shall transfer
the entire jurisdiction of the case to the county in which
that person permanently resides, unless the court
determines on the record that the transfer would not be
appropriate, (2) the county of the probationer's residence
accept the entire jurisdiction over the case, unless that
county determines the probationer does not intend to reside
within the county throughout the period of probation, (3)
these same provisions be applied to cases where the person
is placed on probation for the purpose of drug treatment,
pursuant to Proposition 36, and (4) the Judicial Council
adopt rules providing factors for the court's consideration
when determining the appropriateness of transfer.
ANALYSIS :
CONTINUED
SB 431
Page
2
Existing law provides for transfer of probation as follows:
1. Whenever any person is released upon probation, the case
may be transferred to any court of the same rank in any
other county in which the person resides permanently,
meaning the stated intention to remain for the duration
of probation, provided that the court of the receiving
county shall first be given an opportunity to determine
whether the person does reside in and has stated the
intention to remain in that county for the duration of
probation. If the court finds that the person does not
reside in or has not stated an intention to remain in
that county for the duration of probation, it may refuse
to accept the transfer. The court and the probation
department shall give the matter of investigating those
transfers precedence over all actions or proceedings
therein, except actions or proceedings to which special
precedence is given by law, to the end that all those
transfers shall be completed expeditiously.
2. Except where the person is granted probation for drug
treatment pursuant to Proposition 36, if the court of
the receiving county finds that the person does
permanently reside in or has permanently moved to the
county, it may, in its discretion, either accept the
entire jurisdiction over the case, or assume supervision
of the probationer on a courtesy basis.
3. Whenever a person is granted probation under Section
1210.1 (Proposition 36), the sentencing court may, in
its discretion, transfer jurisdiction of the entire
case, upon a finding by the receiving court of the
person's permanent residency in the receiving county.
4. The order of transfer shall contain an order committing
the probationer to the care and custody of the probation
officer of the receiving county and an order for
reimbursement of reasonable costs for processing the
transfer to be paid to the sending county in accordance
with Section 1203.1b. A copy of the orders and
probation reports shall be transmitted to the court and
probation officer of the receiving county within two
weeks of the finding by that county that the person does
permanently reside in or has permanently moved to that
CONTINUED
SB 431
Page
3
county, and thereafter the receiving court shall have
entire jurisdiction over the case, with the like power
to again request transfer of the case whenever it seems
proper. (Section 1203.9 of the Penal Code)
This bill provides that, when a person is released on
probation, the sentencing court shall transfer the entire
jurisdiction of the case to the county in which that person
permanently resides, unless the court determines on the
record that the transfer would not be appropriate. The
receiving county must accept the entire jurisdiction over
the case, unless it determines that the probationer does
not intend to reside permanently in that county.
This bill also applies these provisions to transfers of
persons granted probation under Proposition 36 for drug
treatment.
This bill requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules
providing factors for the court's consideration when
determining the appropriateness of transfer, including, but
not limited to, (1) permanency of residency of the
offender, (2) local programs available for the offender,
and (3) restitution orders and victim issues.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/30/09)
Chief Probation Officers of California (source)
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
"Current law results in a significant risk to public
safety with thousands of adult probationers being
supervised ineffectively by Probation Departments outside
of their County of residence.
"Under current law, California County Probation
Departments are responsible for the supervision of adult
offenders placed on probation by the Superior Court.
CONTINUED
SB 431
Page
4
Most of those placed on probation reside in the County
where the crime, prosecution, and grant of probation
occurred. This means that the Probation Department
supervises the Probationer residing in the Probation
Department's geographical jurisdiction (County), which
facilitates probation monitoring and supportive services
that promote public safety.
"However, thousands of adult probationers reside in a
different County than the probation department
responsible for their supervision. Some of these adult
probationers are concurrently under the wasteful,
duplicative probation supervision of multiple probation
departments. Probation departments do not have the
capacity to provide for effective supervision of adult
probationers living in other counties.
"SB 431 would establish the Probation Department of the
adult probationer's County of residence as the Probation
Department responsible for probation supervision."
According to the bill's sponsor, the Chief Probation
Officers of California, the current system has resulted in
very few transfers but many probationers living in a
different county than the probation department with
jurisdiction over them. The sponsors state that this has
resulted in wasteful duplication of effort and a potential
threat to public safety.
RJG:mw 4/30/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED