BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A 2013-2014 Regular Session B 6 5 1 AB 651 (Bradford) As Introduced February 21, 2013 Hearing date: June 11, 2013 Penal Code JM:mc CONVICTION DISMISSALS: REALIGNED FELONS HISTORY Source: American Civil Liberties Union; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights; East Bay Community Law Center Prior Legislation: AB 2263 (Bradford) - 2012, held in Senate Appropriations Support:All of Us or None; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Coalition for Women Prisoners; California Labor Federation; California Public Defenders Association; Californians United for a Responsible Budget; Community Works West; Drug Policy Alliance; Equal Rights Advocates; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership; National Employment Law Project; NAACP - California; Contra Costa County Public Defender; Rubicon Programs; San Francisco Adult Probation Department, Chief Adult Probation; San Francisco District Attorney's Office; San Francisco Public Defender's Office; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; California Catholic Conference; Alameda County Board of Supervisors; Public Counsel; California Labor Federation; A New Way (More) AB 651 (Bradford) Page 2 of Life Reentry Project; National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter Opposition:California District Attorneys Association; California Police Chiefs Association; California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association; Judicial Council of California; Crime Victims Action Alliance Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 42 - Noes 32 KEY ISSUE SHOULD DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE SERVED A JAIL FELONY TERM BE AUTHORIZED TO PETITION THE COURT TO DISMISS THE CONVICTION AND UNDERLYING CHARGES? PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to authorize a person who served a jail felony term (Pen. Code § 1170, subd. (h)) to apply for dismissal of his or her conviction and the underlying charge. Existing law provides that any defendant who has not been convicted in the current or a prior case of one of a specified class of felonies shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the county jail for a term of 16 months, two years or three years, or the term provided in the crime of conviction. (Pen. Code § 1170, subd. (h).) Existing law provides that defendants currently or previously convicted of the following felonies are excluded from a jail sentence and must serve any felony sentence in prison: A serious felony (Pen. Code § 1192.7, subd. (c).) (More) AB 651 (Bradford) Page 3 A violent felony (Pen. Code § 667.5, subd. (c).) A felony for which sex offender registration is required. (Pen. Code § 290.) A felony conviction with a white-collar crime excessive theft or loss enhancement (Pen. Code §186.11) (Pen. Code § 1170, subd. (h).) Existing law provides that where a court sentences a defendant for a jail felony pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170, subdivision (h), the court may impose the sentence as follows: The full lower, middle or upper term for the offense. The term for the offense, but with the last portion of the term spent under supervision by the probation department in the community. (Pen. Code § 1170, subd. (h)(5)(A)-(B).) Existing law provides that where a defendant has fulfilled the terms of probation, or been discharged from probation, the defendant shall, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with any offense, be granted the following relief: The court shall dismiss the conviction or allow the defendant to withdraw his or her guilty plea. The court shall then dismiss the accusations against the defendant. Where the person has successfully completed probation, but he or she did not fulfill all terms of probation throughout the probationary term, the court may grant the relief in the interests of justice. (Pen. Code § 1203.4, subd. (a).) Existing law provides that the court, in the interests of justice, may allow a person who has, to withdraw his or her plea, or the court may dismiss the conviction and the underlying charges. (Pen. Code § 1203.4, subd. (a).) Existing law provides that in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant, the prior conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted (More) AB 651 (Bradford) Page 4 or the accusations dismissed. (Pen. Code § 1203.4, subd. (a).) Existing law states that an order of dismissal does not relieve the petitioner of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any questions contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, or for licensure for any state or local agency. (Pen. Code § 1203.4, subd. (a).) This bill applies to petitioners seeking to dismiss a conviction for a nonserious, nonviolent, or nonsexual offense for which he or she was sentenced to county jail pursuant to criminal justice realignment for his or her full sentence or for all but a concluding portion of his or her term during which time he or she is subject to mandatory supervision. This bill provides that the court, in its discretion and in the interests of justice, may grant dismissal of a conviction relief only after the lapse of one year following the petitioner's completion of the sentence, provided that the petitioner is not under post-release community supervision pursuant to realignment or is not serving a sentence for, on probation for, or charged with the commission of any offense. This bill provides that in any subsequent prosecution of the petitioner for any offense, a conviction dismissed pursuant to the relief provided for by this bill shall have the same effect as if it had not been dismissed. This bill provides that a conviction dismissed by the relief provided for by this bill does not relieve the petitioner of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for any state or local license, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission. This bill provides that dismissal of a conviction does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction for such ownership or possession. (More) AB 651 (Bradford) Page 5 This bill provides that dismissal of a conviction does not permit a person prohibited from holding public office as a result of the dismissed conviction to hold public office. This bill prevents the court from granting dismissal or a conviction and the underlying charge unless the prosecuting attorney has been given 15 days' notice of the petition. 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 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 (More) AB 651 (Bradford) Page 6 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 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 (More) AB 651 (Bradford) Page 7 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 This Bill According to the author: AB 651 seeks to extend the possibility for expungement to those sentenced to low level crimes under Realignment. Contrary to the contention of the opposition, defendants sentenced to county jail pursuant to Cal. Penal Code section 1170(h) are not simply serving a state prison term in county jail. AB 109 clearly states, inter alia, that those sentenced under Realignment are so sentenced to county jail because the Legislature deemed them low risk and are better suited to supervision on the county level. (See, Cal. Penal Code § 17.5, subd. (a); Cal. Penal Code § 3450, subd. (b).) Moreover, one of the express reasons for enacting Realignment is to reduce California's staggering recidivism rate. Hence, allowing an opportunity to seek expungement is critical to gaining meaningful employment, steady housing, and numerous public benefits. Additionally, whenever a person requests an expungement, both probation and the district attorney are notified, and provided ample opportunity to be heard on the merits of the request. AB 651 merely allows those sentenced to county jail pursuant to California Penal Code section 1170(h) the chance to request an expungement as specified in existing law, where he or she has been discharged from any supervision and has remained crime-free for at least a year, and is able to demonstrate rehabilitation. Ironically, a person sentenced to state prison also has a right to request a certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to Cal. (More) AB 651 (Bradford) Page 8 4852.01, et seq., yet those sentenced under Realignment, have no remedy where he or she is able to show rehabilitation. AB 651 is a modest proposal that will ensure greater opportunity for reentry, and thereby reduce recidivism. 2. How This Bill Would be Implemented - Standard of Conduct This bill creates a process similar to the procedure and standards under existing law for defendants who were placed on probation and did not either 1) fulfill the conditions of probation for the entire term, or 2) obtain early discharge from probation. Where the defendant fulfills the conditions of probation without violation or obtains early discharge, he or she has a right to dismissal of the underlying conviction. (People v. Bradus (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 636.) In other circumstances the court has discretion to dismiss the prior conviction after the defendant completes probation. For example, if the defendant violated the terms of probation, but eventually completed probation, the court has discretion to dismiss the underlying conviction and charge. (People v. McLernon (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 569, 572-578.) In such cases, the court can consider the defendant's behavior after completion of probation and any other relevant factors. (Ibid.) (More) Under this bill, a person released from custody for an executed jail felony sentence may apply for relief one year after release. This bill does not set out guidelines for the court in determining whether or not to dismiss a sentenced jail felon's conviction. However, consistent with the process for discretionary relief under existing Penal Code Section 1203.4, courts would very likely look for evidence that the defendant has been rehabilitated before dismissing a jail felony. As the court could not weigh the defendant's behavior on probation or other supervision, the court would likely rely on the defendant's conduct since release from jail. In the McLernon case the defendant demonstrated six years of exemplary behavior when he brought the original request for relief under Section 1203.4. At the time the Court of Appeal ruled that he could apply for relief, he demonstrated 12 years of exemplary behavior. (Id, at p. 577.) 3. Argument in Support The American Civil Liberties Union argues in support: AB 651 - modeled on California's felony expungement process - creates a parallel process for people sentenced to pursuant to the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 and who have successfully, paid restitution, demonstrated rehabilitation and remained crime-free for at least one year. A felony conviction creates significant barriers to reentry. Even one conviction for drug possession may prevent a person from finding a job or securing stable housing. Today, background checks by landlords and employers have become nearly universal. A recent survey found that over ninety percent of employers conduct background checks. Even a decades-old conviction can be a barrier to employment and housing. The stated purpose of the realignment is to reduce (More) AB 651 (Bradford) Page 10 spending on incarceration, encourage implementation of evidence-based practices in community correction and reduce recidivism. Evidence demonstrates that employment and stable housing are critical to successful reentry and reducing recidivism. Yet, there is no opportunity for people sentenced under realignment to request an expungement after remaining crime-free for at least a year. AB 651 does not erase a conviction. The conviction remains on all government records and must be disclosed for professional licenses, government jobs and paid and volunteer work with children and other sensitive populations. 4. Argument in Opposition The California District Attorneys Association argues in opposition: The California District Attorneys association regretfully opposes AB 651. This bill would allow a court to grant expungement relief to felons sentenced to county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Penal Code Section 1170 (realignment felons). Currently, pursuant to PC 1203.4, a defendant who was placed on probation for a conviction may have that conviction expunged. A conviction for which a defendant was sentenced to prison (which necessarily means that probation was denied) cannot be expunged. (People v. Borja (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 378; People v. Mendez (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1773.) Felons sentenced to county jail under realignment (PC 1170 (h)) are similarly situated to felons sentenced to prison, with the main difference being where they are incarcerated. Conversely, felons sentenced under realignment are not similarly situated to probationers. A felon sentenced pursuant to PC AB 651 (Bradford) Page 11 1170(h) has been found not suitable for probation, likely because he or she has a significant criminal history. PC 1170(h) felons are thus not similarly situated to felons on probation because they have been sentenced to incarceration. As such, the simple change to where a sentenced felon is housed effectuated by realignment is not appropriate grounds to afford such offenders the relief made available by PC 1203.4. 5. Prior Legislation AB 2263 (Bradford), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would have authorized a court to grant expungement relief for a conviction of a petitioner sentenced to county jail pursuant to criminal justice realignment. AB 2263 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file. AB 2068 (Hill), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session, would have authorized the court, in its discretion and in the interest of justice, to afford a defendant expungement from a former misdemeanor conviction in cases where probation was not granted. AB 2068 was vetoed. AB 2582 (Adams), Chapter 99, Statutes of 2010, permitted defendants convicted of infractions, except certain motor vehicle related infractions, to seek dismissal of charges and release from all penalties and disabilities resulting from them. ***************