BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
4
2
3
AB 423 (Torres)
As Amended: May 13, 2013
Hearing date: June 18, 2013
Penal Code
JM:jr
PRISON INMATES:
TRACKING PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION AND FINES
HISTORY
Source: Crime Victims United of California
Prior Legislation: SB 1210 (Lieu) - Chapter 762, Stats. 2012
AB 898 (Alejo) - Chapter 358, Stats. 2011
AB 1505 (La Suer) - Chapter 555, Stats. 2006
Support: Crime Victims United (Sponsor); California District
Attorneys Association
Crime Victims Action Alliance; California Probation,
Parole and Correctional Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 70 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION USE ITS
(More)
AB 423 (Torres)
PageB
STRATEGIC OFFENDER MANAGEMENT COMPUTER SYSTEM TO TRACK INMATE
RESTITUTION FINES AND ORDERS TO INFORM THE VICTIMS COMPENSATION
PROGRAM ABOUT UNPAID RESTITUTION ORDERS AND FINES?
PURPOSE
The purposes of this bill are to 1) require the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to include the amounts
inmates owe and have paid on direct restitution and restitution
fines in the CDCR Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS);
and 2) to require CDCR to use SOMS, or a combination of SOMS and
the Trust Restitution Accounting Canteen System (TRACS), to
inform to the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board
about unpaid orders and fines owed by inmates.
Existing provisions in the California Constitution state that
all crime victims have the right to seek and secure restitution
from the perpetrators of these crimes. A court must order the
defendant to pay restitution in each case. Where a defendant
has been ordered to pay restitution, all money, or property
collected from the defendant must be first applied to satisfy
restitution orders. (Cal. Const. Art. 1 � 28, subd.
(b)(13)(A)-(C).)
Existing statutory law requires the court to order the defendant
to pay restitution to the victim and a restitution fine, in
addition to any other penalty. (Pen. Code � 1202.4, subd.
(a)(3).)
Existing law gives the court the discretion to set the amount of
the restitution fine commensurate with the seriousness of the
offense and other factors, as specified. (Pen. Code � 1202.4,
subds. (b)(1) and (d).)
Existing law mandates the restitution fine for felony offenses
shall not be less than $280 and not more than $10,000. (Pen
Code � 1202.4, subd. (b)(1).)
(More)
AB 423 (Torres)
PageC
Existing law requires full victim restitution for economic
losses determined by the court. (Pen. Code � 1202.4, subd.
(f).)
Existing law provides that when a defendant is sentenced to
state prison and owes a restitution fine or a restitution order,
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
shall deduct from 20% to 50% of the prisoner's wages and trust
account funds to satisfy these obligations. The funds shall be
transmitted to the VCGCG for direct payment to a victim, for
deposit into the Restitution Fund for payments to qualifying
victims, and to reimburse the VCGCB for payments made to
victims. (Pen. Code � 2085.5, subd. (a)-(c).)
Existing law authorizes CDCR to keep a 10% administrative fee
from restitution fines and orders collected from parolees and
from inmates' wages and trust accounts. (Pen. Code � 2085.5,
subd. (e).)
Existing law exempts money for the purchase of food for
unsupervised overnight visits from restitution deductions by
CDCR when an inmate is housed at an institution requiring food
to be purchased from the institution canteen. (Pen. Code �
2085.5, subd. (m).)
Existing law provides for the enforcement of fines, including
restitution fines, as specified, and provides that any portion
of a restitution order that remains unsatisfied after a
defendant is no longer on probation or parole is enforceable by
the victim. (Penal Code � 1214.)
Existing law specifies that a restitution order is enforceable
as a civil judgment. (Pen. Code � 1202.4, subd. (i).)
Existing law provides that fines, state or local penalties,
bail, forfeitures, restitution fines, restitution orders, or any
other amounts imposed by the superior court for criminal
offenses can be referred to the Franchise Tax Board for
collection under guidelines prescribed by the Franchise Tax
(More)
AB 423 (Torres)
PageD
Board no sooner than 90 days after the payments become
delinquent. (Rev. & and Tax. Code � 19280.)
This bill requires CDCR to include in its Strategic Offender
Management [computer] System (SOMS) information on restitution
fines or orders imposed on inmates. This information shall
include the amount necessary to fulfill a fine or order, the
amounts collected, and the status of efforts to collect any
remaining balance.
This bill requires CDCR to utilize SOMS, or a combination of
SOMS and the Trust Account Restitution Accounting Canteen System
(TRACS) to ensure that the California Victim Compensation and
Government Claims Board (VCGCB) is given accurate and up-to-date
information regarding unfulfilled restitution fines and orders.
This bill provides that the requirements for tracking
restitution fines and orders shall apply to any successor
computer systems used by CDCR.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
(More)
AB 423 (Torres)
PageE
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part that the, ". .
. population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over
24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment
went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the
2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006
. . . ." Plaintiffs, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of
capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison,
continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally
deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal
court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the
137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
the state's motions, and ordered the state of California to
"immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this
Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce overall
prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31,
2013."
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
(More)
AB 423 (Torres)
PageF
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
In 2009 the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) announced the award of a $245
million grant in an effort to automate and streamline
offender data systems. The project, known as the
Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS), when
fully implemented will consolidate existing databases
and records, replacing manual paper processes,
upgrading and standardizing adult and juvenile data
and population management practices to further enhance
staff, offender, and public safety. Partnered with
the Trust Restitution, Accounting, and Canteen System
(TRACS), the new system will share data that will make
tracking of court ordered restitution orders and
payments more efficient and effective for victim's,
offenders, and offenders' family members.
With the significant changes associated with AB 109
(realignment) that shifted many offenders to local
custody, the victim community is increasingly
concerned about the ability to collect on the
restitution orders and fines imposed on offenders by
(More)
AB 423 (Torres)
PageG
the courts. As the state develops creative solutions
to address the issue of prison overcrowding, this
proposal simply ensures that victims do not bear the
financial burden of recovering and are not once again
victimized by their offender. Ultimately, this
program will lead to high level continuity of
rehabilitation and other programming for offenders
when they transition from custody into the community.
(More)
2. Collection of Direct Restitution and Restitution Fines
from Inmates
CDCR is required to collect money for restitution obligations
from inmates housed in prisons, or those on active parole under
Penal Code Section 2085.5. The Division of Juvenile Justice
(DJJ) of CDCR is also required to collect restitution and
restitution fines from persons housed in DJJ facilities. (Welf.
& Inst. Code � 1752.81, subd. (a).) These provisions are akin
to garnishment statutes. They call for deductions of from 20%
to 50% from an inmate's wages and trust account to enforce a
restitution fine or order. (In re Betts (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th
821, 825.) CDCR may retain up to 10% of the money collected as
an administrative fee.
When an inmate arrives at CDCR, a trust account is established
for deposits and withdrawals of the inmate's earnings and other
funds, typically money deposited by family members and friends.
The trust account is also designed to track any and all
obligations that an offender may have, such as restitution fines
and direct restitution orders. <1>
For offenders who have been ordered to pay a fine and a direct
restitution order, direct restitution will be satisfied first.
Money collected from the inmate's trust deposits is transferred
to the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCGCB)
for disbursement to the victim. Disbursements are made in
increments of $50 or every six months, whichever is reached
first.<2>
In calendar year 2011, CDCR collected $22,925,675.73 from
inmates and parolees. Fifty one percent of this amount was
comprised of prison fines, whereas five percent was from parolee
fines. Sixteen percent of the total collected was for victim
---------------------------
<1>
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/victim_services/restitution_collections.ht
ml.
<2> http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/victim_services/
restitution_collections.html.
(More)
AB 423 (Torres)
PageI
restitution orders from prisoners, and nineteen percent was
post-prison victim orders. Finally, nine percent of the monies
collected went to administrative fees for CDCR.<3>
3. SOMS - Strategic Offender Management Computer System
The Strategic Offender Management System - SOMS - encompasses
multiple applications along with a single offender database,
allowing CDCR to replace its current paper-based, disparate, and
duplicate systems with a single statewide system capable of
supporting all of CDCR's offender management needs.<4>
SOMS will enable custody staff and other stakeholders to have
real-time information about an inmate's location and status.<5>
The two primary technological components of the project are the
Electronic Records Management System (ERMS)<6> and the
Electronic Offender Management Information System<7> (eOMIS).
The ERMS project includes the scanning of all offender central
fines and uploading them to a central records depository.
Accessibility to the records is provided by an enterprise-wide
search and view application. With offender central files
scanned into ERMS, all institutions and various CDCR
administrative locations statewide have real-time access to the
scanned offender files. All active female offender files have
been scanned into ERMS. CDCR began scanning male offender files
in February 2013.
The eOMIS product is a centralized, Web-based application. This
application increases the availability of accurate, complete,
---------------------------
<3>
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/victim_services/docs/AnnualCollections14.p
df.
<4> http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/SOMS/index.html.
<5> http://www.marquisware.com/index.php/california-soms/.
<6> http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/SOMS/index.html.
<7>
http://www.marquisware.com/index.php/testimonial-view/testimonial
-2/.
AB 423 (Torres)
PageJ
and real-time offender information so that CDCR can more
efficiently manage inmates. Full implementation will automate
offender processes such as reception center intake, endorsement
for transfer, movements, counts, pre-release planning, and
calculating pre-release dates.
4. Enforcement of Restitution Orders and Fines after
Incarceration
A direct restitution order or restitution fine is enforceable as
though it were a civil or money judgment. These fines and
orders are enforceable immediately and continue to be
enforceable by the VCGCB after termination of probation or
parole. (Pen. Code �� 1202.4, subd. (i). and 1214.)
In addition, restitution fines, restitution orders, or any other
amounts imposed by the superior court for criminal offenses can
be referred to the Franchise Tax Board for collection under
guidelines prescribed by the Franchise Tax Board no sooner than
90 days after the payments become delinquent. (Rev. & Tax. Code
� 19280.)
***************