BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó







                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                            Senator Loni Hancock, Chair              A
                             2013-2014 Regular Session               B

                                                                     5
                                                                     7
                                                                     9
          AB 579 (Melendez)                                           
          As Amended January 15, 2014 
          Hearing date:  March 25, 2014
          Penal Code (Urgency)
          AA:mc

                                 MANDATORY SUPERVISION  

                                       HISTORY

          Source:  California State Sheriffs' Association; Chief Probation  
          Officers of California

          Prior Legislation: SB 76 (Budget Committee) - Ch. 32, Stats. of  
          2013 
                       AB 109 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 15, Stats. 2011

          Support: California District Attorneys Association; Los Angeles  
                   Police Protective League; Los Angeles County Probation  
                   Officers' Union, AFSCME, Local 685; Association for Los  
                   Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Riverside Sheriffs'  
                   Association; California Public Defenders Association;  
                   San Diego County District Attorney 

          Opposition:None known

          Assembly Floor Vote:  Ayes  75 - Noes  0




                                         KEY ISSUE
           




                                                                     (More)






                                                          AB 579 (Melendez)
                                                                     Page 2



          SHOULD STATUTORY LAW BE CLARIFIED TO EXPRESSLY STATE THAT  
          MANDATORY SUPERVISION COMMENCES UPON RELEASE FROM CUSTODY?   






                                       PURPOSE

          The purpose of this bill is to provide expressly that, when a  
          court commits a person convicted of a jail felony to both county  
          jail and a period of time under the supervision of the probation  
          department (a "split sentence"), the period of mandatory  
          supervision shall commence upon release from custody.  

           Current law  generally provides that, for any person sentenced on  
          or after October 1, 2011, certain felonies - those which by  
          their statutory terms specifically so provide, and for which an  
          offender is otherwise eligible - are punishable by a term of  
          imprisonment in a county jail and not state prison, as  
          specified.  (Penal Code § 1170(h).)  

           Current law  further provides that, for convicted felony  
          offenders subject to confinement in a county jail, courts may  
          impose the felony sentence to commit a defendant to county jail  
          as follows:

                 For a full term in custody as determined in accordance  
               with the applicable sentencing law.
                 For a term as determined in accordance with the  
               applicable sentencing law, but suspend execution of a  
               concluding portion of the term selected in the court's  
               discretion, during which time the defendant shall be  
               supervised by the county probation officer in accordance  
               with the terms, conditions, and procedures generally  
               applicable to persons placed on probation, for the  
               remaining unserved portion of the sentence imposed by the  
               court.  The period of supervision shall be mandatory, and  




                                                                     (More)






                                                          AB 579 (Melendez)
                                                                     Page 3



               may not be earlier terminated except by court order.   
               During the period when the defendant is under such  
               supervision, unless in actual custody related to the  
               sentence imposed by the court, the defendant shall be  
               entitled to only actual time credit against the term of  
               imprisonment imposed by the court.  (Penal Code §  
               1170(h)(5).)
            
           This bill  clarifies that mandatory supervision in this context  
          "shall begin upon release from custody."   

                    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 that 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 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.  
            








                                                                     (More)











          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 requiring the state to reduce its prison  
          population to 137.5 percent of design capacity.  The State  
          submitted 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 opposed the  
          state's motion, arguing 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 % inmate population cap by December 31,  
          2013.  

          The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, 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."  On September 16, 2013, the State asked the  
          Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016.  In  
          response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,  
          2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to  
          enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants  
          can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including  
          means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or  
          accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to  
          the prison crowding problem."

          The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the  
          meet-and-confer process.  As a result, the Court ordered  
          briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,  
          2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the  
          in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity  
          to February 28, 2016.  The order requires the state to meet the  
          following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:




                                                                     (More)






                                                          AB 579 (Melendez)
                                                                     Page 5




                 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
                 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
                 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. 

          If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position  
          created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of  
          inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.   


          In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the  
          state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33  
          prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.   
          8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.

          The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison  
          capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement  
          remain unresolved.  While real gains in reducing the prison  
          population have been made, even greater reductions may be  
          required to meet the orders of the federal court.  Therefore,  
          the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may  
          impact the prison population - will be informed by the following  
          questions:

                 Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the  
               prison population;
                 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











                                                          AB 579 (Melendez)
                                                                     Page 6




          1.  Stated Need for This Bill

           The author states:

               SB 76 (Chapter 32, Statutes of 2013) was a budget  
               trailer bill that enacted several changes in the  
               criminal justice issue area including language that  
               clarified within PC 1170(h)(5)(B)(ii) (split sentence  
               authority) that mandatory supervision begins upon  
               release from custody.  Unfortunately, this change was  
               inadvertently chaptered out by SB 463 (Pavley, Chapter  
               508, Statutes of 2013).

          2.  What This Bill Would Do

           As explained above, current law provides courts with the  
          discretion to include a period of mandatory supervision as part  
          of a felony jail sentence imposed pursuant to Penal Code section  
          1170(h)(5).  This is a new "split sentence" mechanism created by  
          realignment (AB 109, Stats. 2011).  Mandatory supervision is the  
          period of time in a split sentence when a person is under the  
          supervision of a county probation department as part of their  
          sentence.  This bill clarifies that mandatory supervision "shall  
          begin upon release from custody."  In 2013, SB 76 (Chapter 32,  
          Statutes of 2013), a budget trailer bill, included this  
          clarification but this language was inadvertently chaptered out  
          by SB 463 (Pavley), Chapter 508, Statutes of 2013.  This bill  
          would restore the change made by SB 76 last year.  


                                   ***************