BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 492
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2013
Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 492 (Quirk) - As Introduced: February 20, 2013
SUMMARY : Conforms the procedures for the transfer of probation
to the county of residence for persons convicted of non-violent
drug possession under Proposition 36 with the existing
procedures for the transfer of probation or mandatory
supervision, of any person, to the jurisdiction of the Superior
Court in the county of residence.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that whenever a person is released upon probation or
mandatory supervision the court, upon noticed motion, shall
transfer the case to the superior court in any other the
person resides permanently, meaning the stated intention to
remain for the duration of probation or mandatory supervision,
unless the transferring court determines that the transfer is
inappropriate and states its reasons on the record. Upon
notice of the motion for transfer, the court of the proposed
receiving county may provide comments for the record regarding
the proposed transfer following procedures set forth in rules
of court developed by the Judicial Council. The court and the
probation department shall give the matter of investigating
those transfers precedence over all actions and 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. [Penal Code
Section 1203.9(a).]
2)States that the receiving county shall accept the entire
jurisdiction over the case. [Penal Code Section 1203.9(b).]
3)Provides that when a person is granted probation for
non-violent drug possession, the sentencing court shall
transfer jurisdiction of the entire case, upon a finding by
the receiving court of the person's permanent residency in the
AB 492
Page 2
receiving county, unless the there is a determination on the
record that the transfer would be inappropriate. [Penal Code
Section 1203.9(c).]
4)Requires that the order of transfer contain an order
committing the probationer or supervised person to the care
and custody of the probation officer of the receiving county
and, if applicable, an order for reimbursement of reasonable
costs for processing the transfer to be paid to the sending
county as specified. A copy of the orders and any 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 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. [Penal Code Section 1203.9(d).]
5)Provides that the Judicial Council shall promulgate rules of
court for procedures by which the proposed receiving county
shall receive notice and 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 the following:
a) Permanency of residence of the offender;
b) Local programs available for the offender; and,
c) Restitution orders and victim issues. [Penal Code
Section 1203.9(e).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "In 2009, the
Legislature passed SB 431 (Benoit) to modify the transfer
procedure for probationers as governed by Penal Code Section
1203.9 to create uniformity and a process whereby both the
transferring and receiving court were involved in the transfer
decision and process. When these changes were made, the
transfer procedure for Prop 36 probation cases under
AB 492
Page 3
subdivision (c) of section 1203.9
"At the time, the legislature did not modify the transfer
procedure for Prop 36 probation cases under subdivision (c) of
section 1203.9 due to the focus of the bill on removing
'courtesy supervision.' In other words, it was decided to not
also make changes to Prop 36 transfers in an effort to
mitigate any confusion or unintended impacts of a new process.
"Thus, in Prop 36 cases, unlike all other cases, the receiving
court-as opposed to the transferring court-is still
responsible for determining the probationer's county of
residence. As a result, there are two distinct transfer
procedures.
"Now that the courts and probation have been operating under the
new 1203.9 transfer process for a number of years, and because
there is no ostensible reason to treat Prop 36 transfers
differently, it is practical to align the Prop 36 procedure to
reduce confusion and unnecessary burdens on staff.
"AB 492 will bring Prop 36 probation transfers in line with the
existing process for other probation transfers; thereby
creating a single uniform process by which all probation
departments and courts operate within."
2)Argument in Support : The Judicial Council of California
states, "Under the transfer procedures for individuals granted
probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1201.1, which was
added t the Penal Code by the Substance Abuse and Crime
Prevention Act of 2000, approved by the voters as Proposition
36 at the November 2000 general election (Proposition 36), the
receiving court is responsible for determining a probationer's
county of residence. In all other cases, the transferring
court is responsible for making that determination. AB 492
eliminates the separate transfer requirement for Proposition
36 probation cases, which serve no ostensible purpose. AB 492
revises the statutory transfer process to improve public
safety by making probation supervision more effective, and
enhancing the efficiency of case transfers by improving the
process of identifying the most appropriate jurisdiction for
probation supervision, and improving the actual process of
transferring jurisdiction."
AB 492
Page 4
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
Judicial Council of California
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744