BILL ANALYSIS
SB 431
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 1, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
SB 431 (Benoit) - As Amended: June 4, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Requires the court, when a person is released on probation,
the court to transfer jurisdiction of the case to the superior
court in the county in which that person permanently resides,
unless the transferring court determines the transfer would be
inappropriate.
2)Requires the Judicial Council to promulgate rules of court for
procedures by which the proposed receiving county shall
receive notice of the motion for transfer and by which
responsive comments may be transmitted to the court of the
transferring county. The Judicial Council shall adopt rules
providing factors for the court's consideration when
determining the appropriateness of a transfer, including but
not limited to:
a) Permanency of residence of the offender.
b) Local programs available for the offender.
c) Restitution orders and victim issues.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Absorbable costs to the Judicial Council to develop and
promulgate rules of court.
2)Unknown minor net nonreimbursable costs/savings to local
probation departments as a result of the shift from informal
courtesy supervision of out-of-residence probationers to
automatic jurisdiction.
SB 431
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The intent of the author and proponents, including
the Chief Probation Officers Association, the Probation,
Parole and Correctional Association, and the Judicial Council,
is to provide uniformity and consistency in the treatment of
probationers.
According to the author, "There are currently an undetermined
number of adult probationers who reside in a county other than
the county responsible for their supervision. Some of these
adult probationers are concurrently under the wasteful,
duplicative probation supervision of multiple probation
departments; others are entirely unsupervised by either the
sentencing county or the county in which they reside. Based
on a snapshot of several medium size counties, up to 40% of
adult probationers reside in a county other than the
sentencing county, therefore posing a significant public
safety risk due to inadequate supervision in the county of
residence."
2)Current law and practice provides, whenever any person is
released upon probation, the case may be transferred to a
court in the county in which the person lives, provided the
court of the receiving county is first provided the
opportunity to determine whether the person does reside in
that county and intends 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 the intent to remain in
that county for the duration of probation, it may refuse the
transfer.
The county in which the defendant was convicted maintains
jurisdiction over the probationer, though the attorney for the
defendant or the county probation department may request
"courtesy supervision" by the defendant's county of permanent
residence while he or she is on probation. Under this loosely
defined "courtesy supervision" system, the county where the
defendant was convicted maintains jurisdiction over the
defendant while the probationer is allowed to return to the
county of permanent residency and is monitored by the
probation department in the county of residence.
There are no uniform rules for the accepting or granting of
SB 431
Page 3
"courtesy supervision" by the county of permanent residence.
The county of residence has sole authority to accept or deny
the transfer for any reason.
This bill eliminates the need for courtesy supervision by
requiring that the county of permanent residence accept the
transfer of jurisdiction for the period of probation.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081