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