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. ***************