BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                            



           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        AB 492|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
                                           
                                    THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 492
          Author:   Quirk (D)
          Amended:  As introduced
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE  :  7-0, 5/14/13
          AYES:  Hancock, Anderson, Block, De León, Knight, Liu, Steinberg

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  76-0, 4/18/13 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Probation:  nonviolent drug offenses

           SOURCE  :     Chief Probation Officers of California


           DIGEST  :    This bill provides that where a defendant is placed  
          on probation under the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act  
          of 2000 (SACPA) the court in the county of conviction shall  
          transfer the case to the county of the probationer's residence,  
          unless the court in the county of conviction determines that the  
          transfer will be inappropriate, as specified.

           ANALYSIS  :    

          Existing law:

          1. Provides that whenever a person is released upon probation or  
             mandatory supervision, the court in the county of conviction  
             shall, upon noticed motion, transfer the case to the court in  
             the county of the defendant's residence, unless the  
             transferring court finds on the record that the transfer is  
                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     AB 492
                                                                     Page  
          2

             inappropriate.  The court in the receiving county may comment  
             on the record regarding the proposed transfer.

          2. Provides that upon receipt of the motion for transfer, the  
             court in the receiving county, the county determined by the  
             transferring court to be the defendant's county of residence,  
             may comment on the record concerning the proposed transfer.

          3. States that the receiving county shall accept the entire  
             jurisdiction over the case.   The receiving court may  
             thereafter request transfer of the case "whenever it seems  
             proper," as specified.

          4. 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 receiving county, unless the there is a determination on  
             the record that the transfer would be inappropriate. 

          5. Requires that the transfer contain an order committing the  
             probationer or supervised person to the care and custody of  
             the probation officer of the receiving county, with an order  
             for reimbursement to the transferring court of reasonable  
             costs.  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 that the  
             defendant resides in the receiving county
          .
          6. 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, as specified.
           
          This bill provides that where a defendant is placed on probation  
          under SACPA the court in the county of conviction shall transfer  
          the case to the county of the probationer's residence, unless  
          the court in the county of conviction determines and states on  
          the record that the transfer would be inappropriate.

           Comments

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 492
                                                                     Page  
          3

           
          According to the author's office, the Legislature passed SB 431  
          (Benoit, Chapter 588, Statutes of 2009) to modify the transfer  
          procedure for probationers to create uniformity and a process  
          whereby both the transferring and receiving court were involved  
          in the transfer decision and process.  At the time, the  
          Legislature did not modify the transfer procedure for the SACPA  
          (Proposition 36 of the November, 2000 General Election)  
          probation cases 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.  

          In SACPA 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,  
          court must apply two distinct probation transfer procedures.

          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 SACPA transfers differently, it  
          is practical to align the Proposition 36 procedures to reduce  
          confusion and unnecessary burdens on staff.

          This bill will bring SACPA 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.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No   Local:  
           No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  5/15/13)

          Chief Probation Officers of California (source)
          Alameda County Probation Department
          California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
          Judicial Council of California


           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    The Judicial Council of California  
          states, "Under the transfer procedures for individuals granted  
          probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1201.1 (The Substance  
          Abuse and Crime Prevention Act,  Prop. 36 of the November 2000  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                     AB 492
                                                                     Page  
          4

          general election - SACPA), 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 SACPA 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."


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  76-0, 4/18/13
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,  
            Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown,  
            Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway,  
            Cooley, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,  
            Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell,  
            Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Jones,  
            Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor,  
            Medina, Melendez, Morrell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,  
            Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez,  
            Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting,  
            Torres, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams,  
            Yamada, John A. Pérez
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Holden, Lowenthal, Mitchell, Vacancy


          JG:d  5/15/13   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                   ****  END  ****











                                                                CONTINUED