BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                  AB 492
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 9, 2013
          Chief Counsel:      Gregory Pagan

                                 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  

          "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


          California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
          Chief Probation Officers of California
          Judicial Council of California 


          Analysis Prepared by  :    Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916)