BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 694
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 5, 2011
Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 694 (Gorell) - As Introduced: February 17, 2011
SUMMARY : Expands the class of juvenile offenders who may be
committed to the Division of Justice Facilities (DJF) to include
those who previously suffered a sustained petition for a
specified serious or violent offense as listed in the Welfare
and Institutions Code (WIC), effective January 1, 2012.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that a ward of the juvenile court who meets any
condition described below shall not be committed to the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR), DJF:
a) The ward is under 11 years of age.
b) The ward is suffering from any contagious, infectious,
or other disease that would probably endanger the lives or
health of the other inmates of any facility.
c) The ward has been or is adjudged a ward of the court
pursuant to existing law, and the most recent offense
alleged in any petition and admitted or found to be true by
the court is not described in the list of serious or
violent offenses unless the petition is based on a sex
offense, as specified. This subdivision shall be effective
on and after September 1, 2007. ÝWIC 733(a) to (c).]
2)Provides that a minor within the jurisdiction of the juvenile
delinquency court may be sentenced to DJF or tried as an
adult, as specified, if he or she has been charged with one of
the following: murder; arson, as specified; robbery; rape
with force, violence, or threat of great bodily harm; sodomy
by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily
harm; a lewd or lascivious act on a person under the age of
14; oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or
AB 694
Page 2
threat of great bodily harm; forcible sexual penetration, as
specified; kidnapping for ransom; kidnapping for purposes of
robbery; kidnapping with bodily harm; attempted murder;
assault with a firearm or destructive device; assault by any
means of force likely to produce great bodily injury;
discharge of a firearm into an inhabited or occupied building;
a specified violent crime against a person over the age of 60;
use of a firearm in a crime, as specified; a felony offense in
which the minor personally used a weapon specified in existing
law; a felony offense of intimidating or dissuading a witness;
manufacturing, compounding, or selling one-half ounce or more
of a salt or solution of a depressant listed as a controlled
substance; a violent felony or gang crime, as specified;
escape, by the use of force or violence, from a county
juvenile hall, home, ranch, camp, or forestry camp, as
specified, if great bodily injury is intentionally inflicted
upon an employee of the juvenile facility during the
commission of the escape; torture; aggravated mayhem;
carjacking, while armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon;
kidnapping for purposes of sexual assault; kidnapping during
the commission of a carjacking; discharging a firearm into a
vehicle, as specified, or; voluntary manslaughter. ÝWIC
Section 707(b)(1) to (28).]
3)States that with regard to a minor alleged to be a person
described provisions of law related to juvenile delinquency by
reason of the violation, when he or she was 14 years of age or
older, of any of the offenses listed existing law, upon motion
of the petitioner made prior to the attachment of jeopardy the
court shall cause the probation officer to investigate and
submit a report on the behavioral patterns and social history
of the minor being considered for a determination of
unfitness. Following submission and consideration of the
report, and of any other relevant evidence that the petitioner
or the minor may wish to submit, the minor shall be presumed
to be not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the
juvenile court law unless the juvenile court concludes, based
upon evidence, which evidence may be of extenuating or
mitigating circumstances, that the minor would be amenable to
the care, treatment, and training program available through
the facilities of the juvenile court based upon an evaluation
of each of the following criteria:
a) The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
minor.
AB 694
Page 3
b) Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the
expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction.
c) The minor's previous delinquent history.
d) Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to
rehabilitate the minor.
The circumstances and gravity of the offenses alleged in the
petition to have been committed by the minor. ÝWIC Section
707(c).]
4)Provides that an order changing or modifying a previous order
by removing a minor from the physical custody of a parent,
guardian, relative, or friend and directing placement in a
foster home, or commitment to a private institution or
commitment to a county institution, or an order changing or
modifying a previous order by directing commitment to the
Youth Authority shall be made only after a noticed hearing.
(WIC Section 777.)
5)Prohibits a ward committed to DJF from being held in physical
confinement for a period of time in excess of the maximum
period of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an adult
convicted of the offense or offenses that brought or continued
the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. A
ward committed to the DJF also may not be held in physical
confinement for a period of time in excess of the maximum term
of physical confinement set by the court based upon the facts
and circumstances of the matter or matters that brought or
continued the ward under the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court, which may not exceed the maximum period of adult
confinement as determined pursuant to this section. This
section does not limit the power of the Board of Parole
Hearings to retain the ward on parole status for the period
permitted existing law. ÝWIC Section 731(c).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "AB 694
addresses an unintended consequence arising from the wording
in WIC Section 733. This section was intended to reduce the
number of wards of the juvenile court from being committed to
AB 694
Page 4
the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) by laying out the
criteria that would disqualify a juvenile from being committed
to the DJJ. One of the conditions is that the juvenile's
'most recent offense' cannot be a violent and/or serious
offense under WIC section 707(b) or a sex offense under Penal
Code section 290.008. This language encourages a juvenile
offender or an attorney of the offender to advise him/her to
willfully commit a non-707(b) or non-sex offense in order to
dodge DJJ placement and as a result, potentially allowing
dangerous offenders to escape appropriate and necessary
consequences.
"AB 694 will provide the tools necessary to address dangerous
juvenile offenders by allowing the courts to consider the
overall history or pattern of crime of an offender, rather
than just his/her most recent offense. WIC section 733 was
amended by SB 81 (Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007) to shrink the
universe of juvenile offenders that could be committed to DJJ.
Specifically, the statute provides that a ward cannot be
committed to DJJ unless the most recent sustained offense
alleged in a petition is a WIC section 707(b) offense or is a
sex offense described in Penal Code section 290.008. By only
allowing a juvenile offender's most recent offense to
determine potential dispositions, the statute necessarily
neglects his or her criminal history.
"While successful in limiting the number of wards who are
eligible for commitment to DJJ, SB 81 has resulted in what
likely are unintended consequences. We certainly do not
presume that it was the intent of the proponents of SB 81 to
create a system that arguably encourages juvenile offenders to
purposefully commit non-707(b) and non-sex offenses in order
to ensure that their most recent sustained offense
disqualifies them from a DJJ placement, but that is one
outcome.
"Additionally, SB 81 has significantly complicated juvenile
proceedings. Prosecutor offices that seek or have already
obtained commitments to DJJ must constantly monitor those
wards to ensure that they do not have a pending petition in
another jurisdiction that could preclude the DJJ commitment.
In certain cases, prosecutors are forced to negotiate a legal
maze to obtain the appropriate disposition, and even then,
there's no guarantee that the appropriate disposition will not
be precluded by statute and/or case law. The case below is a
AB 694
Page 5
good example of what SB 81 has wrought.
"In V.C. v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1455, the
prosecution filed a notice alleging the minor had committed a
probation violation and recommended that the minor be
committed to DJJ. However, the most recent petition filed
against the minor, who included both alleged DJJ-eligible and
non-eligible offenses, resulted in a plea bargain in which the
minor admitted the non-eligible offense and the eligible
offenses were dismissed. Because the most recent sustained
offense was neither a 707(b) offense nor a sex offense, SB 81
precluded the DJJ commitment. To clear this hurdle, the
prosecution moved under WIC 782 to dismiss the most recent
petition. The juvenile court granted the prosecution's
motion, stating that 'since DJJ commitment could not occur
without the dismissal, it appears that both the interests of
justice and the welfare of the minor support a dismissal of
the petition.'
"However, the appellate court reversed the juvenile court's
decision because the dismissal was not in the interest of
society or justice, as expressed by the Legislature in section
733(c). The court noted that section 733(c)'s language 'looks
to the minor's most recent offense,' not to his or her overall
history or pattern of crime. They found that it would be
'inconsistent with this language for a court to dismiss the
most recent petition against a minor because it does not
allege a DJJ eligible offense in order to reach an earlier
petition that does allege an eligible offense.'
"Making the change contemplated by this bill will simplify
juvenile proceedings and allow for appropriate outcomes.
Existing statute precludes a dispositional option that is very
useful in a number of cases involving serious offenders,
thereby putting public safety at risk. By making this
commonsense change that respects the spirit of SB 81, we can
simultaneously achieve the goal of keeping the DJJ population
down and protect public safety by giving prosecutors and
courts the tools they need to address dangerous juvenile
offenders."
2)SB 81 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007 :
As of September 1, 2007, counties are prohibited from
referring any juvenile offender to DJJ unless the charge at
present is a "serious" or "violent" offense listed in WIC
AB 694
Page 6
Section 707(b) or specific sex offenses. SB 81 also provided
incentive and financial assistance to counties to retain
juvenile offenders on the local level. The total grant amount
available to the counties to care for the non-violent,
non-serious offenders no longer be committed to the state is
$117,000 per ward per year. Counties also received $15,000
per parolee per year for the wards no longer eligible for
commitment to the state. Total available funds to counties,
including the savings from not paying the "sliding scale" fees
to the state, are over $140,000 per offender per year. The
goal was to fully compensate counties for costs of care and
custody of the offenders. The funds were distributed to the
counties through a formula that weights equally the county's
juvenile population and juvenile felony adjudication rate. SB
81 also authorized $100 million in lease revenue bonds for the
construction of new local facilities for youthful offenders.
The purpose of SB 81 was decrease the cost and consequences of
incarcerating youths at the state level. Expanding the class
of offenders who may be incarcerated in DJJ to include any
minor with a prior WIC Section 707(b) offense appears contrary
to framework established in SB 81 to compensate the counties
for housing juvenile offenders locally.
3)Review of Existing Case Law : As explained above, SB 81
limited the class of juvenile offenders who may be sentenced
to the DJF to respondents that are facing a current WIC
Section 707(b) offense. However, in some cases, courts have
responded by filing violations of probation on earlier WIC
Section 707(b) offenses and dismissing the most recent offense
in order to re-commit the minor to DJJ. In V.C. vs. Superior
Court (2009) 173 Cal.App. 4th 1455, the district attorney
moved to dismiss the minor's most recent adjudicated charge of
committing a lewd act in public and proceed with a violation
of probation based on an earlier conviction for lewd and
lascivious acts on a person under the age of 14. The lower
court granted the motion to dismiss the lewd act in public
charge in the interest of justice pursuant to WIC Section 782
and re-committed the minor to DJJ on the violation of
probation on the earlier offense. An appeal for writ of
mandate followed. On appeal, the Third District Court of
Appeals held that the trial court erred in dismissing the lewd
act in public charge in favor of the violation of probation
pursuant to WIC Section 782. The court stated:
"We conclude the juvenile court's dismissal was not in the
AB 694
Page 7
interests of justice in light of the constitutional rights of
V.C. to his plea bargain in this case. This conclusion is
confirmed by consideration of the interests of society, which
in this case have been expressed by the Legislature in section
733(c).
"Section 733(c) prohibits commitment to the DJF in cases where
'Ýt]he ward has been or is adjudged a ward of the court
pursuant to Section 602, and the most recent offense alleged
in any petition and admitted or found to be true by the court
is not described in subdivision (b) of Section 707, unless the
offense is a sex offense set forth in subdivision (c) of
Section 290.008 of the Penal Code.'
"As in any case involving statutory interpretation, our
fundamental task is to determine the Legislature's intent so
as to effectuate the law's purpose." ÝPeople v. Murphy (2001)
25 Cal.4th 136, 142; People v. Cole (2006) 38 Cal.4th 964,
974.] Statutory interpretation begins with an analysis of the
statutory language (internal citation omitted.) "If the
statute's text evinces an unmistakable plain meaning, we need
go no further." (Internal citation omitted). "If the
statute's language is ambiguous, we examine additional sources
of information to determine the Legislature's intent in
drafting the statute. ÝPeople v. Cole, supra, 38 Cal.4th at
p. 975.)" ÝOlson v. Automobile Club of Southern California
(2008) 42 Cal.4th 1142, 1147.] Here, neither the language nor
the legislative history of section 733(c) demonstrates the
intent of the Legislature to allow commitment of minors to DJF
who are not currently serious or violent offenders.
"The language of section 733(c) allows commitment to DJF only
when 'the most recent offense alleged in any petition and
admitted or found to be true by the court' is an eligible
offense. The statute does not focus on the overall or entire
delinquent history of the minor or on whether the minor may be
generally considered a serious, violent offender. The
language looks to the minor's 'most recent offense.' The
Legislature has specifically determined it is the minor's most
recent offense that determines the minor's eligibility for DJF
commitment. Dismissal of the most recent petition in order to
reach back to an earlier petition containing a DJF qualifying
offense would be contrary to the unmistakable plain language
of section 733(c). It would frustrate the legislative policy
expressed by the language of section 733(c). Such a dismissal
AB 694
Page 8
cannot be in the interests of justice." (V.C. at 1467.)
Last month, the Court of Appeals for the First District ruled
similarly in In re Greg F. (hereinafter Greg F.) (2011) 192
Cal.App. 4th 1252. After reviewing existing law on statutory
construction, the court held, "While juvenile courts have
broad discretion under section 782 to dismiss petitions when
required by the interests of justice and the minor's welfare
(Derek L. v. Superior Court (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 228, 232),
absent a showing of legislative intent this discretion is not
broad enough to trump the clear limits that section 733(c)
places on the court's dispositional authority (internal
citation omitted).
"We conclude the juvenile court lacked authority under section
782 to dismiss the 2009 petition for the purpose of reaching
back to the 2008 petition containing a DJJ-eligible offense in
order to support appellant's DJJ commitment." (Greg F. at
1260.)
Finally, In re J.L. (2008) 168 Cal.App. 4th 43 ruled that the
minor's commitment to DJJ was not a violation of WIC Section
733(c). The court stated, "In summary, in admitting the
allegations in the March 14, 2006 petition, the minor admitted
to committing an offense that constituted an assault under
both the 'deadly weapon' clause and the 'force likely' clause
of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). This offense
constitutes an 'Ýa]ssault by . . . means of force likely to
produce great bodily injury,' as described in section 707,
subdivision (b)(14). Because the offense is described in
section 707, subdivision (b), and it is 'the most recent
offense alleged in any petition and admitted or found to be
true by the court,' we conclude that the juvenile court was
not precluded by section 733, subdivision (c), from committing
the minor to Juvenile Justice." (In re J.L. at 64.)
Although the appellate courts are currently split on the
validity of dismissing a non-WIC Section 707(b) offense in
favor of filing a violation of probation on a previous WIC
Section 707(b) offense, it appears that efforts to subvert SB
81 are contrary to the legislative intent of drastically
reducing the number of juveniles committed to DJJ. Existing
efforts to re-commit minors based on violations of probation
appear, at the very least, to be a risk and an increasingly
unsuccessful option. This bill seeks to authorize DJJ
AB 694
Page 9
commitment where a juvenile offender has committed a previous
WIC Section 707(b) offense rather than the stated language of
SB 81 in which commitment may only be for the most recent
alleged offense.
4)Governor's Realignment Proposal and the Budget Act of 2011 :
Since the implementation of SB 81 (Committee on Budget),
Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007, the number of juvenile
offenders sent to a state youth correctional facility has
dropped significantly. At its peak, DJJ housed over 10,000
juvenile offenders. Today, there are less than 1,300
juveniles housed in one of four remaining DJF facilities. In
response to the declining youth population, DJF and CDCR have
closed a number of facilities including six youth facilities
and three conservation camps. CDCR has also undergone
"rightsizing", reducing the number of staff positions by 448
and reducing costs by $3.8 million.
In January 2011, the Governor released his proposed 2011-12
budget, which included a significant realignment of
correctional activities, including shifting all juvenile
offenders to the county level and closing all youth
correctional activities. According to the Governor's Budget
Summary, "Over the past decade, the number of wards in state
juvenile facilities have decreased from approximately 10,000
to fewer than 1,300. In 2007, the state transferred the
responsibility for lower-level offenders to the counties. The
state is now left with a very small and expensive system of
providing services to the most violent juvenile wards at a
cost exceeding $200,000 per ward per year." Ý2011-12
Governor's Budget Summary (January 10, 2011) p. 132.]
The Governor has suggested amendments authorizing the placement
of very serious juvenile offenders Ýi.e., those charged with
WIC Section 707(b) crimes] in a pared down DJJ; as of this
date, that language has not been included in the Budget Act.
(]
SB 67 (Committee on Budget) states, "On or after July 1,
2011, the Division of Juvenile Justice shall no longer accept
any juvenile offender commitments from the juvenile courts."
ÝSB 67 (Committee on Budget, page 424.] Does it make sense to
expand the class of offenders sentenced to the existing DJJ
when such facilities may be closed or at the very least
limited in the new fiscal year?
AB 694
Page 10
5)Goals of Juvenile Justice : The California juvenile justice
system was based on the original Illinois "child saver" model
of 1899 in which the state acted as parens patriae for the
juvenile offender. ÝGoldstein-Breyer (2011) Calling Strikes
Before He Stepped to the Plate: Why Juvenile Adjudications
Should Not Be Used to Enhance Subsequent Adult Sentences, 15
Berkeley J. Crim. L. 65, 66.] However, over the past 30
years, there has been a significant trend toward treating
juveniles as adult offenders and extending the constitutional
rights afforded adults to minors. ÝSee In re Gault (1967) 387
U.S. 1; In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358.] However, in the
past several years, there appears to be a new trend toward the
notion of community placement and rehabilitation. Current
trends and practices in delinquency are more focused on
community efforts to develop and implement effective
coordinated prevention and intervention programs in the
rehabilitation of delinquent youth. (November 2008 Annual
Report, Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice.) As
stated in its November 2008 mission statement Ýobtained on the
Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention's (OJJDP) Web site]:
"The OJJDP provides national leadership, coordination, and
resources to prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and
victimization. OJJDP supports states and communities in their
efforts to develop and implement effective and coordinated
prevention and intervention programs and to improve the
juvenile justice system so that it protects public safety,
holds offenders accountable, and provides treatment and
rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of juveniles and
their families."
Research and practice in juvenile justice include focus on the
recognition that individual needs of the youth and their
families play a critical role in rehabilitating of delinquent
behavior. Juvenile justice and the policy and laws governing
delinquency proceedings have evolved nationally and statewide
to promote evidence-based practices that target prevention and
intervention toward the rehabilitation of delinquent behavior.
On March 7, 2011, in a recent speech to the National Association
of Counties Legislative Conference, United States Attorney
General Eric Holder declared the urgent need to support a
AB 694
Page 11
paradigm shift in juvenile justice emphasizing focus on the
minor's individual needs through community based prevention
and intervention:
" . . . Put simply, it's time to broaden our approach to
juvenile justice - and to ensure that sound research and
respected analysis are a part of our decision-making process.
We know that we must transition from a
prosecution-and-punishment model to a
prevention-and-intervention paradigm. We also must adopt a
comprehensive plan of action - one that engages
law-enforcement partners, medical professionals, social
services providers, lawyers, parents, teachers, coaches,
mentors, and community leaders. Not only will updating our
approach - and building on current efforts to be smart, not
just tough, on crime - help generate the positive outcomes we
seek for our young people, these reforms also will save money
. . . . "
While researchers have not identified the exact cause of
delinquency, numerous risk factors are commonly identified as
risk factors for delinquency. ÝGeorge Bundy Smith and Gloria
M. Dabiri, The Judicial Role in the Treatment of Juveniles,
Journal of Law and Policy (1995) 347, 368.] Studies indicate
child abuse and neglect, ineffective parenting and discipline,
family disruption and dysfunction, exposure to violence,
disabilities, school failure, inadequate housing and residence
in high-crime communities place children at risk for
delinquent behavior and incarceration.
The policy behind SB 81 was most certainly born of fiscal
necessity; but that policy also underlined the importance of
community placement of juvenile offenders whenever possible.
This sentiment was clearly stated by the Little Hoover
Commission in 2008:
"Though prompted by cost concerns, the realignment of
responsibilities to the counties was the right policy move,
one previously recommended by this Commission and others.
Many counties have demonstrated that they can provide programs
and treatment to youth offenders who need to turn their lives
around in settings that allow them to reintegrate more
successfully into their communities." ÝLittle Hoover
Commission Report, Juvenile Justice Reform: Realigning
Responsibilities (July 2008).] Serious policy questions must
AB 694
Page 12
arise where attempts are made to increase the number of
juvenile sentenced to DJF.
6)Arguments in Support : According to the California State
Sheriffs Association , "The Division of Juvenile Justice houses
juvenile offenders who have committed the most serious and
violent crimes and are a high risk population. AB 694 ensures
that these offenders who are the highest risk and the highest
need get the programs and punishment that best addresses their
actions. Furthermore, if this population did stay locally, it
would severely damage the ongoing rehabilitation efforts that
are occurring with the rest of the juvenile population."
7)Arguments in Opposition :
a) According to the California Public Defenders Association
(CPDA), "AB 694 would broaden the categories of youth who
could be sent to the DJF youth prisons. Current law
provides that a court may commit to DJF any youth whose
current case involves a serious offense (those listed in
Welf. & Instit. Code section 707(b)) or sexual offense
requiring registration. Welf. & Instit. Code section 733.)
In addition, if a youth is on probation for said type of
offense, and violates his or her probation, the court may
commit the youth to DJF for the violation. However, if the
youth is currently before the court for a minor non
qualifying offense, and the petition is sustained, the
court may not commit the youth to DJF. In re Greg F (First
District, Division 5) February 23, 2011; In re J.L. 168
Cal.App. 4th 43; V.C. vs. Superior Court (173 Cal.App. 4th
1455).
"Section 733 as currently written strikes a proper balance in
protecting public safety and ensuring that youth who are
charged with petty or minor offenses are not needlessly
sent to DJF. It is widely recognized that DJF is a 'last
resort' facility, and should be reserved only for those for
whom no other penalty will accomplish the purpose of
rehabilitation and public safety. If the prior offense is
serious enough to merit DJF commitment, the prosecutor need
only allege and prove a probation violation and the youth
will qualify for a commitment.
"Limiting the eligibility for commitment to those who have a
current offense that is serious, or for which the youth is
AB 694
Page 13
still on probation, is sound policy both legally and
fiscally. This legislation would allow the court to reach
back to petitions in the past for which the youth has
already completed probation, and accordingly, already paid
his price to society. For those youth who have been
adjudicated for a serious offense, but who have shown the
court that they had made amends, been rehabilitated and
therefore earned their way off probation, the fact that
they currently have committed a minor offense, should not
be a reason to send them to DJF.
"Moreover, the requirement that the youth be currently before
the court for a serious offense is in part recognition that
many of the offenses that technically qualify a youth for
DJJ commitment are factually not serious. For example,
assault with a deadly weapon is a serious offense which
would qualify one for commitment to the DJF. However,
youth have been charged with this offense for throwing an
avocado at another youth. Robbery is another serious
offense, but many youth have sustained petitions for taking
another kid's bike or iPod. Generally, on a factual
scenario that is not serious, a youth may admit the offense
with the promise that he will get a minor punishment.
Under this proposed bill, however, a youth who committed
one of these 'technically qualifying offenses' at age 12
could live crime free for five years, be off probation, and
then be arrested for taking a soda pop, and get sent to
DJF. Given the 80% recidivism and the quarter of a million
dollar cost annually for youth to be sent to DJF, trying to
send youth to DJF for a current minor offense just does not
make sense. Is this really the direction we need or want
to take in our sentencing policies? CPDA strongly opposes
AB 694 and its attempt to broaden the circle of youth to be
sent to DJF. It is the opposite direction which this
Legislature should be taking."
b) According to the Youth Law Center , "We oppose AB 694 for
several reasons. The first is basic fairness. The bill
would amend Welfare and Institutions Code section 733 to
provide for commitment to the DJF if the youth is made a
ward of the court for any offense, if 'her or she is or was
previously the subject of any petition?subsequently
admitted or found to be true by the court that the ward
committed an offense that is described in subdivision (b)
of Section 707, or an offense that is a sex offense?Ýas
AB 694
Page 14
specified].' Commission of 707, subdivision (b) offense or
specified sex offenses is required for commitment to the
DJG. This legislation would permit commitment now for any
offense, even though the court did not determine that
commitment was necessary at the time of the original
offense. A young person could be committed to state
facilities now, for a minor offense (possession of
cigarettes or alcohol, minor theft, disturbing the peace)
for a completely unrelated offense committed 4 or 5 years
earlier. This is manifestly unfair. Our justice system
works best when sanctions are timely and proportionate. AB
694 serves neither goal.
"Second, two appellate court decisions have held it improper
to manipulate juvenile court records to commit a minor to
the DJF. (V.C. v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App. 4th
1455, and In re Greg F. (2011) 192 Cal.App. 4th 1252.)
Having lost in the courts, the proponents are trying to win
with the help of the Legislature. While there may be
situations in which legislative action is needed to
overcome improper court decisions, this is not one of them.
For example, the prosecutor in Greg F. claimed that if he
could not strike an earlier admission to get back to an
earlier 707, subdivision (b) offense so as to justify
commitment to state facilities, it would mean that youth
are forever immunized from commitment. That is not true.
If the minor commits a new serious offense, he or she may
still be committed. A.B. 694 would unwisely allow
commitment at the time they were originally adjudicated.
The opinions in V.C. and Greg F. were proper, and the
Legislature should not support this effort to broaden
commitment to state facilities.
"Finally, our opposition is based on sound state fiscal
policy. Over the past several years, the Legislature has
approved downsizing of DJF, with the avowed goals of
handling lower level offenders at the county level,
providing support for improved local services to lower
level offenders, and reducing state costs. (S.B. 81,
Budget Trailer Bill 2007.) As the bill is being proposed,
the Governor has proposed either shutting down the DJF, or
more recently, allowing it to remain open on a very limited
basis. The direct result of AB 694 would be to increase
the number of youth committed to DJJ at a time when drastic
efforts are being made to improve juvenile justice policy
AB 694
Page 15
and reduce state costs by shrinking or eliminating the
state system. As much, A.B. 694 is ill-timed and counter
to the direction of California's public policy. With DJF
costs estimated at more than $200,000 per youth per year,
we can ill-afford to commit youth whose current offense is
a misdemeanor or non-violent felony."
8)Related Legislation :
a) AB 8 (Huber) prohibits the CDCR from closing any youth
correctional facility within six months of the effective
date of this legislation. AB 8 failed passage in this
Committee.
b) AB 177 (Mendoza) expands the authority of the juvenile
court to order the parent or guardian of a minor to attend
anti-gang violence parenting classes. AB 177 is pending in
the Committee on Appropriations.
9)Prior Legislation : SB 81 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 175,
Statutes of 2007, restricted, the authority of the juvenile
court to order the commitment of a ward to the division to
those wards who have committed specified offenses as of
September 1, 2007.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California District Attorney Association (Sponsor)
California Peace Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition
Alternate Public Defender, Los Angeles County
Books Not Bars
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Center for Juvenile Law and Policy
Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
AB 694
Page 16
Prison Law Office
Youth Law Center
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744