BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
6
2
4
AB 624 (Mitchell)
As Amended May 7, 2013
Hearing date: May 14, 2013
Penal Code
SM:jr
CUSTODY CREDITS
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Alameda County Sheriff-Coroner; Amador County
Sheriff-Coroner;
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Californians
for Safety and Justice; California Public Defenders
Association; California State Sheriff's Association;
Lassen County Sheriff; National Association of Social
Workers - California Chapter; Orange County
Sheriff-Coroner; Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner;
Santa Cruz County Sheriff-Coroner; Yolo County
Sheriff-Coroner; California Catholic Conference;
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Opposition: None
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 48 - Noes 22
(More)
AB 624 (Mitchell)
Page 2
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD A SHERIFFS, BE AUTHORIZED TO GIVE JAIL INMATES TIME
CREDITS FOR COMPLETING REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) authorize a sheriff, in
addition to credit awarded for good behavior, to also award a
prisoner program credit reduction from his or her term of
confinement, as specified, upon completing specific programming
performance objectives for approved rehabilitative programming;
(2) require that guidelines adopted by a sheriff to implement
such programs specify the credit reductions applicable to
distinct objectives in a schedule of graduated program
performance objectives concluding with the successful completion
of an in-custody rehabilitation program; (3) specify that a
prisoner may not have his or her term reduced by more than six
weeks for credits awarded during any 12-month period of
continuous confinement; (4) provide that program credits are a
privilege, not a right; (5) provide that prisoners shall have a
reasonable opportunity to participate in program credit
qualifying assignments in a manner consistent with institutional
security, available resources, and guidelines set forth by the
sheriff; (6) provide that "approved rehabilitation programming"
shall include, but is not limited to, academic programs,
vocational programs, vocational training, substance abuse
programs, and core programs such as anger management and social
life skills; (7) provide that additional credits awarded may be
forfeited, as specified; (8) provide that inmates shall not be
eligible for program credits that result in an inmate being
overdue for release; and (9) specify that only inmates
sentenced to the county jail pursuant to realignment are
eligible for prisoner program credit reductions.
Current law provides that for each four-day period in which a
(More)
AB 624 (Mitchell)
Page 3
prisoner is confined in or committed to the county jail, two
days shall be deducted from the period of confinement if the
prisoner has satisfactorily performed labor as assigned and
complied with the rules and regulations ("good-time" and
participation credits). (Penal Code § 4019.)
Current law allows the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR), with specific exceptions, to reduce the
sentence of a person committed to CDCR by one-third for good
behavior and participation, and may reduce the sentence by as
much as one-half for participation in one-half-time credit
qualifying assignments or educational programs. (Penal Code §§
2931 and 2933.)
Current law provides that in addition to "good time" and
participation credits CDCR may also award a prisoner program
credit reduction from his or her term of confinement of not less
than one week to credit reduction of not more than six weeks for
each performance milestone. (Penal Code § 2933.05.)
Current law allows the board of supervisors of any county to
authorize the sheriff to offer a voluntary program under which
any person committed to a local correctional facility may
participate in a work release program, as specified, in which
one day of participation will be in lieu of one day of
confinement. (Penal Code § 4024.2(a).)
Current law provides that the board of supervisors may prescribe
reasonable rules and regulations under which the work release
program is operated. Requires a participant to sign a written
promise to appear and agree to be immediately taken into custody
by the sheriff to serve the balance of his or her sentence if he
or she fails to appear at the time and place assigned. (Penal
Code § 4024.2(c).)
Current law states that a sheriff shall not be required to
assign a person to a work release program if it appears from the
record that the person has refused to satisfactorily perform as
(More)
AB 624 (Mitchell)
Page 4
assigned or has not satisfactorily complied with the rules and
regulations. A person shall only be eligible for work release
if the sheriff concludes that the person is a fit subject
therefore. (Penal Code § 4024.2(d).)
Current law provides that the total amount of credits awarded
under the "three-strikes" law shall not exceed 20% of the total
term of imprisonment imposed and not accrue until the defendant
is physically placed in state prison. (Penal Code § 667(c)(5).)
Current law provides that any person convicted of a "violent"
felony, as specified, shall accrue no more than 15% work-time
credit. (Penal Code § 2933.1(a).)
This bill would provide that in addition to credit awarded for
good behavior, a sheriff may also award a prisoner program
credit reduction from his or her term of confinement. A sheriff
who elects to participate in this program shall provide
guidelines for credit reductions for inmates who successfully
complete specific programming performance objectives for
approved rehabilitative programming, including, but not limited
to, credit reductions of not less than one week to credit
reduction of not more than six weeks for each performance
milestone.
This bill requires that guidelines adopted by a sheriff must
specify the credit reductions applicable to distinct objectives
in a schedule of graduated program performance objectives
concluding with the successful completion of an in-custody
rehabilitation program. Upon adopting the guidelines, the
sheriff shall thereafter calculate and award credit reductions
as authorized. A prisoner may not have his or her term reduced
by more than six weeks for credits awarded during any 12-month
period of continuous confinement.
This bill states that program credits are a privilege, not a
right. Prisoners shall have a reasonable opportunity to
participate in program credit qualifying assignments in a manner
consistent with institutional security, available resources, and
(More)
AB 624 (Mitchell)
Page 5
guidelines set forth by the sheriff.
This bill provides that "approved rehabilitation programming"
shall include, but is not limited to, academic programs,
vocational programs, vocational training, substance abuse
programs, and core programs such as anger management and social
life skills.
This bill provides that additional credits awarded may be
forfeited, as specified. Inmates shall not be eligible for
program credits that result in an inmate being overdue for
release.
This bill specifies that only inmates sentenced to the county
jail pursuant to realignment are eligible for prisoner program
credit reductions.
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 which 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
(More)
AB 624 (Mitchell)
Page 6
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
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 issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part 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, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part 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 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
the state's motions, and ordered 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."
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
(More)
AB 624 (Mitchell)
Page 7
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
1. Need for the bill
According to the author:
Under current law, an inmate sentenced to the State
Prison may earn additional time credits by
successfully completing various programs such as
educational, vocational and substance abuse programs.
However, these incentives are not available to those
convicted of a felony and sentenced to the county
jail. This bill would allow a sheriff to award such
credits upon completion of such programs.
(More)
2. Custody Credits for a Realigned Population
As a result of California's criminal justice realignment, county
jails now house convicted felons who serve longer than one year
in county jail.
After October 1, 2011, any adult convicted of these
amended felony crimes (Penal Code Section 1170(h))
cannot be sentenced to prison unless they have a prior
serious or violent felony conviction. They can,
however, be sentenced for the same length of time they
would have been sentenced to prior to realignment, but
that sentence regardless of its length, must be served
in county jail and not state prison.
(Joan Petersilia and Jessica Greenlick Snyder, Looking Past The
Hype: 10 QuestionsEveryone Should Ask About California's Prison
Realignment, California Journal of Politics and Policy, page
270(footnote omitted)
http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/40631
0/doc/slspublic/petersilia-snyder-5(2)%20cjpp-pp266-306-2013.pdf)
According to Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca, "Los Angeles County
Jail currently has three inmates sentenced to 30 years and one
inmate sentenced to 43 years in county jail. It is critical that
all inmates, especially those with longer sentences, have the
opportunity to participate in educational, vocational, or
self-improvement programs."
Since realignment, through the use of enhancements,
some offenders have received staggeringly long
sentences to county jail. A recent study by the
California State Sheriff's Association found that
since realignment 1,153 inmates have been sentenced to
serve over 5 years in county jail, with 44 of these
inmates sentenced to terms longer than 10 years. One
inmate in Los Angeles County is serving a 43-year term
in the county jail for drug trafficking. Some other
counties have seen similarly long sentences, with one
(More)
AB 624 (Mitchell)
Page 9
inmate sentenced to 23 years in Santa Barbara County,
and two Sacramento County inmates sentenced to 18
years. The Sheriff's Association report found that the
majority of offenders sentenced to 5 or more years
(58%) were from just three counties (Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, and San Diego).
Such long sentences, however, are rare. The sheriff's
report notes that just 2.7% of offenders sentenced
under realignment [1170(h)] were sentenced to 5 to 10
years and 0.1% were sentenced to more than 10 years.
To date, about 42,000 felons have been sentenced to
jail as a result of PC 1170(h), and an estimated 2.75%
were sentenced to 5 or more years. Los Angeles reports
that 98% of its 1170(h) inmates had less than 2.5
years left to serve after receiving their sentence.
Regardless of their number, jails are not equipped to
handle long-term prisoners.
(Joan Petersilia and Jessica Greenlick Snyder, Looking Past The
Hype: 10 QuestionsEveryone Should Ask About California's Prison
Realignment, California Journal of Politics and Policy, supra at
Page 289 (footnotes omitted).)
Current law authorizes CDCR to award a state prisoner, in
addition to "good time" and work participation credits,
additional credit reduction from his or her term of confinement
consisting of not less than one week to not more than six weeks
for each performance milestone achieved in approved
rehabilitation programs. (Penal Code § 2933.05.)
This bill is designed to grant the same authority to sheriffs
with respect to inmates who will be serving felony sentences in
county jail under criminal justice realignment. It would allow
county jails to provide the same amount of credit for county
jail inmates successfully participating in rehabilitation
programming. Such rehabilitation programs will include, but will
not be limited to, education programs vocational programs,
vocational training, substance-abuse programs, anger management,
AB 624 (Mitchell)
Page 10
and social life skills.
***************