BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 139|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 139
Author: Holden (D), et al.
Amended: 6/11/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/4/13
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Block, De Le�n, Knight, Liu, Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 3/21/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Domestic violence: fees
SOURCE : California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
DIGEST : This bill characterizes the payment imposed on a
defendant who is granted probation for a domestic violence crime
as a fee, not a fine.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Requires certain probation conditions be imposed when a person
found guilty of a domestic-violence-related offense is granted
probation.
2.Specifies that one of the mandatory conditions of probation
for a domestic-violence-related offense is a minimum payment
of $500. The court may reduce or waive the fee if, after a
hearing in open court, it finds that the defendant does not
CONTINUED
AB 139
Page
2
have the ability to pay it.
3.Provides that two-thirds of the moneys collected from the
domestic violence probation fee shall be retained by the
counties and deposited in the Domestic Violence Programs
Special Fund, and the remainder is transferred to the State
Controller to be deposited in equal amounts in the Domestic
Violence Restraining Order Reimbursement Fund and the Domestic
Violence Training and Education Fund.
4.Allows the court to require as a condition of probation that a
defendant make payments of up to $5,000 to a battered women's
shelter. These payments are in lieu of a fine, but not in
lieu of the fund payment.
5.Provides that if a defendant is ordered to pay a fine as a
condition of probation, it may be enforced during the term of
probation in the same manner as is provided for the
enforcement of money judgments. If the defendant willfully
fails to pay a fine imposed as a condition of probation during
the probationary period, this may be treated as a violation of
probation.
This bill:
1.Specifies that the payment to be made by the defendant when
convicted of a domestic violence-related offense and granted
probation is to be treated as a fee and not a fine.
2.Provides that the fee is not subject to reduction for time
served.
3.Permits collection of the fee after the termination of
probation by the collection agency or its designee.
4.Authorizes up to 8% of the moneys deposited in the Domestic
Violence Programs Special Fund to be used for administrative
costs, as specified.
5.States that county boards of supervisors may request an
accounting report of the special fund on not more than
quarterly basis, and that these accounting reports shall
include all of the following:
CONTINUED
AB 139
Page
3
A. The balance of the special fund at the beginning of the
request period.
B. Deposits into the special fund in the request period,
including a breakdown of the sources.
C. Disbursements of the funds during the request period.
D. The fund balance at the end of the request period.
1.Makes a number of declarations and legislative findings.
Background
In September 2012, the California State Auditor released a
report on domestic violence payments by probationers. To ensure
consistent assessment, collection, and allocation of the
payments, the report made several recommendations including
clarification of whether the Legislature intends the domestic
violence payment to be a fine or a fee, and whether collection
entities have the authority to continue pursuing collection of
payments once an individual's term of probation expires.
Fine vs. Fee . The distinction between a fine and a fee is
important in criminal cases because it has constitutional
implications. The ex post facto clauses of the federal and
California constitutions prohibit retroactive application of a
law that increases the punishment for a criminal act. Fines are
generally considered punitive because they arise from
convictions. In contrast, "fees" are generally considered "a
fixed charge" applied to users of the system, and are not
considered punitive.
Prior Legislation
AB 2094 (Butler), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2012, increased the
domestic violence fund payment from a minimum of $400 to a
minimum of $500, and required the court to state a reason on the
record if it reduces or waives the minimum fee.
AB 2011 (Arambula), Chapter 132, Statutes of 2010, increased the
minimum fee paid by a person granted probation for a crime of
domestic violence from $200 to $400, and changed the
distribution formula of the monies collected.
CONTINUED
AB 139
Page
4
AB 352 (Goldberg), Chapter 431, Statutes of 2003, among other
things, increased the mandatory minimum fine imposed on persons
granted probation for a domestic violence crime from $200 to
$400 until 2007.
AB 93 1X (Burton), Chapter 28, Statutes of 1993, required a
person granted probation for a domestic-violence crime to make a
minimum payment of $200. Two-thirds of the money was to be
retained by counties and deposited in the domestic violence
programs special fund. The remainder to be transferred to the
State Controller for deposit in the Domestic Violence
Restraining Order Reimbursement Fund and the Domestic Violence
Training and Education Fund.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/11/13)
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (source)
Alliance Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California Communities United Institute
Casa de Esperanza
DOVES of Big Bear Valley, Inc.
Human Options, Inc.
Mountain Crisis Services; Family Services of Tulare County
National Organization for Women
North County Women's Shelter & Resource Center
Peace Over Violence
Rainbow Services, Ltd.
State Public Affairs Committee of the Junior Leagues of
California
Women's Foundation of California
YWCA of Glendale
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/11/13)
California Public Defenders Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the California Partnership
to End Domestic Violence, a recent state audit revealed that
CONTINUED
AB 139
Page
5
courts and counties have been inconsistent in their collection
and distribution of fees charged to offenders convicted of
domestic violence. As these fees ultimately go to local
domestic violence shelters, these inconsistencies have led to a
significant reduction in available funding for domestic violence
victims, and reduced accountability for individuals convicted of
a domestic violence crime.
Among the auditor's recommendations was that the Legislature
clarify the type of assessment to ensure consistency across
counties. AB 139 would clarify that the $500 payment is an
administrative fee, and not a punitive fine, therefore the
offender must pay unless the judge determines they are
financially unable. This clarification is important because it
would ensure the Legislature's intent to use portions of the
$500 fee to generate funding for local domestic violence
programs.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : According to the California Public
Defenders Association, approximately three quarters of those
charged with a misdemeanor and 90% of those charged with a
felony meet the indigency requirements of being represented by a
public defender, meaning in the vast majority of these cases,
individuals charged with these crimes likely do not have the
ability to pay any or all of these associated fines and fees.
It is counterproductive to our client's rehabilitation and
reintegration into their families and communities to take away
judicial discretion to award a reduction in fines based on time
served. Our clients, who are substantially fined and must pay
for a 52 week domestic violence counseling program at their own
expense, may find the additional burden associated with no
option of reduction in fines in exchange for time served
financially untenable. This may result in a reduction in
participation in the requisite programs, failure to pay existing
fines, and associated jail time.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 3/21/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Beth
Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Grove,
CONTINUED
AB 139
Page
6
Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor,
Medina, Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Nestande, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez,
Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting,
Torres, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John
A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonilla, Donnelly, Lowenthal, Olsen,
Wieckowski, Vacancy
JG:nl 6/11/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED