BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 610
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 610 (Achadjian)
As Amended September 3, 2013
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |70-0 |(May 16, 2013) |SENATE: |39-0 |(September 9, |
| | | | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY : Requires the county of commitment to pay the non-treatment
costs associated with any hearing for an order seeking involuntary
treatment of psychotropic medication for a mentally disordered
offender (MDO) whose commitment in a state hospital has been
extended beyond the expiration of parole.
The Senate amendments :
1)Narrow the provisions of the bill to establish responsibility with
the county of commitment for the payment of non-treatment costs
associated with any hearing for an order seeking involuntary
treatment of psychotropic medication for an MDO whose commitment
at a state hospital has been extended following the expiration of
parole.
2)Require the appropriate financial officer or other designated
official of the county in which the proceeding is held to make out
a statement of all of the costs incurred by the county for the
investigation, preparation, and conduct of the proceedings, and
the costs of appeal, if any. Require the statement to be
certified by a judge of the superior court of the county. Require
the statement to then be sent to the county of commitment, which
shall reimburse the county providing the services.
3)Clarify that the "county of commitment" is the county that
committed the person to prison.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Mentally Disordered Offender Act.
2)Provides for the involuntary commitment of mentally ill persons to
a state hospital pursuant to various provisions of the Welfare and
AB 610
Page 2
Institutions Code for civil commitments and the Penal Code, such
as the patient is deemed incompetent to stand trial (IST) or, not
guilty by reason of insanity (NGI); or the patient is an MDO.
3)States that a prisoner who is otherwise eligible for parole may be
committed for MDO treatment if the following criteria is met:
a) He or she has a serious mental disorder that is not in
remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment;
b) The severe mental disorder was one of the causes of or was
an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime for which
the prisoner was sentenced to prison;
c) The prisoner has been in treatment for the severe mental
disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to the
prisoner's parole or release;
d) Prior to the prisoner's release or parole, a practicing
psychologist or psychiatrist from the state Department of
Mental Health (DMH) have evaluated the prisoner and a chief
psychiatrist of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) has certified that the prisoner has a
severe mental disorder, that the disorder is not in remission,
or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, that the
severe mental disorder was one of the causes or was an
aggregating factor in the prisoner's criminal behavior, that
the prisoner has been in treatment for the severe mental
disorder for 90 days or more prior to release, and that because
of his or her severe mental disorder the prisoner represents a
substantial danger of physical harm to others; and,
e) The prisoner was sentenced to a determinate sentence for
specified crimes.
4)Requires, if an MDO's parole period is about to expire and the
individual's severe mental disorder is not in remission or cannot
be kept in remission without treatment, the medical director of a
state hospital treating the parolee or CDCR to submit to the
district attorney of the county of commitment a written
evaluation.
5)Allows the district attorney, from the county of commitment, upon
receipt of the written evaluation to file a petition with the
superior court for continued involuntary treatment for one year.
AB 610
Page 3
6)Requires the petition to be accompanied by specified affidavits
and requires the petition to state that the person has a severe
mental disorder and represents a substantial danger of physical
harm to others.
7)Entitles a city, county or superior court to reimbursement for the
reasonable and necessary costs connected with state prisoners and
any of the following:
a) Any crime committed in a state prison, whether by a
prisoner, employee, or other person;
b) Any crime committed by a prisoner in furtherance of an
escape, as specified;
c) Any hearing on any return of a writ of habeas corpus
prosecuted by or on behalf of a prisoner;
d) Any trial or hearing on the question of the sanity of a
prisoner:
e) Any costs not otherwise reimbursable related to extradition
of a prisoner;
f) Any costs incurred by a coroner in connection with the death
of a prisoner;
g) Any costs incurred in transporting a prisoner within the
host county or as requested by the prison facility or incurred
for extra security while the prisoner is outside a state
prison; or,
h) Any crime committed by a state inmate at a state hospital
for the care, treatment, and education of the mentally
disordered, as specified; and,
i) Any non-treatment costs, as specified.
8)States that a financial officer or other designated official of a
county shall make a statement of non-treatment and treatment costs
related to a hearing for specified prison or state hospital
related offenses, to be certified by the judge of the superior
court of that county, and sent to the Controller for approval.
Upon approval, the county shall be reimbursed for all
AB 610
Page 4
non-treatment related costs from a fund appropriated by the
Legislature.
9)Defines psychotropic medication or psychotropic drugs to mean
medications administered for the purpose of affecting the central
nervous system to treat psychiatric disorders or illnesses.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Required the state to pay the non-treatment costs associated with
any hearing for an order seeking involuntary treatment with
psychotropic medication, or other medication that requires an
order, of a person confined in a state hospital.
2)Required, beginning on January 1, 2014, the county of commitment
to pay the non-treatment costs associated with any hearing for an
order seeking involuntary treatment with psychotropic medication,
or other medication that requires an order, for a mentally
disordered offender whose commitment in a state hospital has been
extended beyond the expiration of parole.
3)Defined "county of commitment" to mean the county seeking the
continued treatment of a mentally disordered offender (MDO)
pursuant to existing law.
4)Made technical and clarifying changes.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, no
net state costs for the reimbursement of the nontreatment costs of
MDO involuntary medication hearings. As the state is currently
mandated to reimburse these nontreatment costs to the county in
which the costs are incurred, this bill is estimated to result in a
shift of existing state costs to instead reimburse the county
seeking continued treatment of the MDO.
COMMENTS : According to CDCR, the MDO program established in 1986,
"provides a mechanism to detain and treat severely mentally ill
prisoners who reach the end of a determinate prison term and are
dangerous to others as a result of a severe mental disorder. MDO is
a two-phase commitment. The first phase is a certification by the
[CDCR] Chief Psychiatrist and a parole condition imposed by the
Board of Parole Hearing. The second phase continues MDO treatment
after the parolee is discharged from CDCR which is a civil
commitment for involuntary treatment."
AB 610
Page 5
Existing law entitles a city, county, or superior court to
reimbursement for reasonable and necessary costs connected with
state prisons or prisoners which include non-treatment costs, as
specified. This includes reimbursement from the state for all the
non-treatment costs of the hearings, if requested by the defendant,
when an MDO is paroled into a state hospital instead of serving
parole time in the community. When an MDO's parole period is about
to expire, existing law permits the district attorney, from the
county of the original conviction of the defendant (county of
commitment), to file a petition seeking a one-year extension of the
MDO commitment to the state hospital, for which the state also
provides for reimbursement to counties for the non-treatment costs
of these hearings for continued treatment.
This bill builds upon current law which defines reimbursement for
counties with state hospitals by requiring reimbursement to be made
for the non-treatment costs of a hearing for an order seeking
involuntary treatment of psychotropic medication for a person
confined in a state hospital. Senate amendments narrowed the bill
and removed the requirement that the state pay for the non-treatment
costs of a hearing for an order seeking involuntary treatment of
psychotropic medication for a person confined in a state hospital.
This bill requires the county of commitment to pay for non-treatment
costs associated with a hearing for an order seeking involuntary
treatment of psychotropic medication for an MDO whose commitment at
the state hospital was extended following the expiration of parole.
This bill is sponsored by the San Luis Obispo County Board of
Supervisors.
The Supreme Court of California decision in Kanuri Surgury Qaui
found that a person involuntary confined for treatment of mental
illness as an MDO can be involuntarily treated with antipsychotic
medication in a non-emergency situation where the MDO is determined
by a court to be either a) incompetent to refuse medication (unable
to make rational medical decisions); or, b) a danger to others
within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5300 (In
re Qawi, supra, 32 Cal.4th 1, 27-28).
According to the author and sponsor, as a result of this Supreme
Court ruling approximately 100 petitions were filed last year by the
DMH, seeking orders for involuntary treatment with psychotropic
medication for patients housed at Atascadero State Hospital (ASH),
in San Luis Obispo County. Since current law does not designate
which entity is responsible for the payment of non-treatment costs
associated with these hearings, the county engaged in a dispute with
AB 610
Page 6
the state over whose responsibility it was to provide for the cost
of public defender services to represent these 100 mentally
disordered offenders at these hearings. It was ultimately decided
by the courts that the responsibility for the non-treatment costs
for these 100 cases would be with the state and the county of
commitment.
The sponsor argues, "Because statute is unclear, however, it is
possible for the State or a county of commitment to challenge the
County's right to obtain reimbursement from the State or another
county for the costs of public defender services for mentally
disordered offenders housed at ASH. The County's concerns is that
being a 'hosting' county of a state mental hospital should not
result in the county shouldering the financial burden of paying for
certain costs resulting from the commitment of persons to ASH who
are not residents of San Luis Obispo County, nor persons who
committed crimes within our jurisdiction. For example, in addition
of the $25,000 incurred last spring, the County expects to expend
approximately $40,000 in the current fiscal year on contract public
defense attorneys for involuntary medication hearings."
Support arguments: Supporters argue that the lack of clarity in
current law creates an unfair financial burden on counties with
state hospitals that treat MDOs, and that this bill will ensure
these counties are reimbursed for costs incurred as a consequence of
having these hospitals located within their jurisdiction.
Opposition arguments: None.
Analysis Prepared by : Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN:
0002313