BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 601
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2012
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 601 (Eggman) - As Amended: April 1, 2013
SUMMARY : Authorizes the court to return a parolee to state
prison for a period not to exceed one year when parole is
revoked. Specifically, this bill :
1)Gives the court authority to return a parolee to state prison
for up to one year upon revocation of parole.
2)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to produce a
report evaluating criminal justice realignment, specifically
focusing on offenders under state supervision, and to deliver
the report to the Assembly, the Senate, and the Governor by
January 1, 2015.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires all persons paroled before October 1, 2011 to remain
under the supervision of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) until jurisdiction is
terminated by operation of law or until parole is discharged.
[Penal Code Section 3000.09.]
2)Requires the following persons released from prison on or
after October 1, 2011, be subject to parole under the
supervision of CDCR:
a) A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal
Code Section 1192.7(c);
b) A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal
Code Section 667.5(c);
c) A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
d) A high risk sex offender;
AB 601
Page 2
e) A mentally disordered offender [Penal Code Section
3000.08(a)];
f) A person required to register as a sex offender and
subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time
of the commission of the offense for which he or she is
being released; and,
g) A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the
commission of the offense for which he or she is being
released. [Penal Code Section 3000.08(a) and (c).]
3)Requires all other offenders released from prison on or after
October 1, 2011, to be placed on post-release community
supervision (PRCS) under the supervision of a county agency,
such as a probation department. [Penal Code Section
3000.08(b).]
4)Authorizes the court, upon revocation of parole, to do any of
the following:
a) Reinstate parole with modification of conditions, if
appropriate, including a period of incarceration;
b) Revoke parole and order the parolee to serve time in the
county jail; or,
c) Refer the parolee to a reentry program or other
evidence-based program. [Penal Code Section 3000.08(f).]
5)Limits confinement in the county jail for up to 180 days of
incarceration per revocation. [Penal Code Section
3000.08(g).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "The purpose of
criminal justice realignment was to reduce the state's prison
population through ambitious reforms that would close a
'revolving door' through which lower-risk offenders constantly
cycled in and out of state prison. It did that by shifting
responsibility for the supervision of these lower-risk inmates
to the counties, by reducing many lower-level felonies to jail
AB 601
Page 3
offenses, and by decriminalizing technical violations of
probation and parole. It also, however, shifted a significant
responsibility for the most dangerous parolees, including
high-risk sex offenders, to the counties as well. Those
offenders are still on parole, still under parole supervision,
but no matter how many times they demonstrate they will not
comply with the terms of their release, they are now in a
'revolving door' at the overcrowded and underfunded county
jails, until they eventually commit a serious enough crime to
be returned to prison."
2)Changes to Parole As a Result of Criminal Justice Realignment :
Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were
placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole
agents of CDCR. If it was alleged that a parolee had violated
a condition of parole, he or she would have a revocation
proceeding before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). If
parole was revoked, the offender would be returned to state
prison for violating parole.
Realignment shifted the supervision of some released prison
inmates from CDCR parole agents to local probation
departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for
inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 is
limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or
violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are
classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to
undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who,
while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. [Penal Code
Sections 3000.08(a) and (c), and 3451(b).] All other inmates
released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS
under local supervision. [Penal Code Sections 3000.08(b) and
3451(a).]
Realignment also changed where an offender is incarcerated for
violating parole or PRCS. Most individuals can no longer be
returned to state prison for violating a term of supervision;
offenders serve the revocation term in county jail. [Penal
Code Sections 3056(a) and 3458.] There is a 180-day limit to
incarceration. [Penal Code Sections 3056(a) and 3455(c).]
The only offenders who are eligible for return to prison for
violating parole are life-term inmates paroled pursuant to
Penal Code Section 3000.1 (e.g., murderers, specific life term
sex offenses).
AB 601
Page 4
Additionally, realignment changed the process for revocation
hearings, but this change is being implemented in phases.
Until July 1, 2013, individuals supervised on parole by state
agents continue to have revocation hearings before the Board
of Parole Hearings (BPH). After July 1, 2013, the trial
courts will assume responsibility for holding all revocation
hearings for those individuals who remain under the
jurisdiction of CDCR. In contrast, since the inception of
realignment, individuals placed on PRCS stopped appearing
before the BPH for revocation hearings. Their revocation
hearings are handled by the trial court. PRCS currently
provides for lesser or "intermediate" sanctions before PRCS is
revoked for a violation. This includes "flash incarceration"
for up to 10 days. (Penal Code Section 3454.) Intermediate
sanctions, including flash incarceration, will also be
available for state parolees after July 1, 2013. [Penal Code
Section 3000.08(d), effective July 1, 2013.]
3)On-Going Concerns for Prison Overcrowding : In January 2010,
a three-judge panel issued a ruling ordering the State of
California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design
capacity because overcrowding was the primary reason that CDCR
was unable to provide inmates with constitutionally adequate
healthcare. [Coleman/Plata vs. Schwarzenegger (2010) No. Civ
S-90-0520 LKK JFM P/NO. C01-1351 THE.] The United State
Supreme Court upheld the decision, declaring that "without a
reduction in overcrowding, there will be no efficacious remedy
for the unconstitutional care of the sick and mentally ill"
inmates in California's prisons. [Brown v. Plata (2011) 131
S.Ct. 1910, 1939; 179 L.Ed.2d 969, 999.] Without changes to
how the prison population was managed, the court decisions
"could have led to arbitrary early release of tens of
thousands of prison inmates." (See Chief Probation Officers
of California Issue Brief, Realignment Perspective, July
2012.)
According to a recent budget report prepared by the Legislative
Analyst's Office (LAO) on the Governor's criminal justice
proposals, "[t]he average daily parole population is projected
to be about 43,000 parolees in the budget year, a decline of
about 15,000 parolees (25 percent) from the estimated
current-year level. This decline is also largely a result of
the 2011 realignment, which shifted from the state to the
counties the responsibility for supervising certain offenders
following their release from prison. The average daily
AB 601
Page 5
population projected for 2013-14 is about 4,500 parolees lower
than was initially projected by the department in spring 2012.
According to CDCR, this is due to more parolees being
discharged from supervision than expected in the first six
months of 2012. In addition, CDCR projections show that the
decline in the parole population is expected to slow down and
even increase in coming years." (See The 2013-14 Budget:
Governor's Criminal Justice Proposals, February 15, 2013, p.
26
.)
Realignment has significantly reduced the prison population;
however, it is projected to be insufficient to comply with the
court-ordered population limit. In January 2013, the State
moved to vacate or to modify the population reduction order,
arguing that the reductions made to date are sufficient. On
January 29, 2013, the federal court extended the deadline to
December 2013. However, on April 11, 2013, the federal court
denied the State's motion to vacate or modify the population
reduction order. On that same day, the court also ordered the
State to submit a list of all identified prison population
reduction measures within 21 days. Thus, prison capacity
remains a serious concern.
Parole census data from CDCR indicated there were 70,760
parolees as of June 2012. (See
.) CDCR has informed the
Committee that in 2010, the year prior to realignment, there
were 60,317 returns to prison custody as a result of a parole
violation. Returning thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
parole violators to state custody will not advance the goals
of reducing the prison population to required levels and
subsequently maintaining the population at appropriate levels.
4)LAO Report : This bill requires the LAO to produce a report
evaluating criminal justice realignment by January 1, 2015,
and specifically addressing offenders under state supervision,
including rates of recidivism, figures on violations of state
parole, the type and severity of re-offense leading to a
return to state prison, and the adequacy of county facilities.
Given that realignment will have been in effect for several
AB 601
Page 6
years at that time, the report would be a useful tool to
measure successes and failures. Should the report also
specifically address individuals on PRCS?
5)Argument in Support : The California Police Chiefs Association
writes, "AB 601 is borne of the recognition that the nature of
parole violations and the nature of those who have violated
their conditions of parole may be different. By giving the
court authority to take appropriate action in the context of
specific parole violations, those differences can be taken
into account."
6)Argument in Opposition : The California Public Defenders
Association states, "This bill seeks to make changes to
California's efforts for criminal justice realignment, and is
not consistent with the State's efforts to comply with federal
orders, including a decision by the United States Supreme
Court, to reduce the inmate population in California prisons.
The State is already experiencing problems complying with
these federal orders. This bill would only exacerbate those
problems, and would increase California's prison population."
7)Related Legislation :
a) AB 2 (Morrell) requires a person who violates the
conditions of parole or of PRCS by failing to fulfill
sex-offender registration requirements to serve time for
the violation in prison rather than in the county jail. AB
2 failed passage in this Committee and reconsideration was
granted.
b) AB 605 (Linder) provides that a defendant who is
released on parole or PRCS, who has suffered a prior or
current felony requiring registration as a sex offender,
and who violates parole or PRCS shall serve any period of
incarceration ordered for that violation in the state
prison. AB 605 failed passage in this Committee and
reconsideration was granted.
c) AB 1065 (Holden) requires any person released from state
prison who has served a prior prison term for which he or
she was required, as a condition of parole, to undergo
treatment by the Department of State Hospitals and be
subject to parole supervision by CDCR. AB 1065 is being
heard by this Committee today.
AB 601
Page 7
d) AB 1334 (Conway) requires all offenders released from
prison who have a current or prior conviction for an
offense requiring sex-offender registration, or a juvenile
adjudication requiring sex-offender registration, be
subject to parole supervision by CDCR. AB 1334 is pending
hearing by this Committee.
e) SB 57 (Lieu) states legislative intent to enact
legislation that addresses the removal and disablement of
global positioning system monitoring devices by parolees
and probationers. SB 57 is pending hearing by the Senate
Public Safety Committee.
f) SB 287 (Walters) makes the provisions for PRCS
inapplicable to any person released from prison who has a
prior conviction for a serious or violent felony, or a
prior or current crime requiring sex-offender registration.
SB 287 is pending hearing by the Senate Public Safety
Committee.
g) SB 710 (Nielsen) makes the provisions of PRCS applicable
only to persons released from prison prior to January 1,
2014, and requires all offenders released from prison on or
after that to be subject to parole supervision by CDCR for
a minimum period of three years. SB 710 is pending hearing
by the Senate Public Safety Committee.
8)Prior Legislation : AB 109 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 15,
Statutes of 2011, created the PRSC Act, which provides, among
other things, that inmates released from prison who are not
required to be on parole are subject to up to three years of
local supervision.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Police Chiefs Association
Crime Victims United of California
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Public Defenders Association
AB 601
Page 8
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744