BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 651| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 651 Author: Bradford (D) Amended: 9/3/13 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/11/13 AYES: Hancock, Block, De León, Liu, Steinberg NOES: Anderson, Knight SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 8/30/13 AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg NOES: Walters, Gaines ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-32, 5/9/13 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Convictions: expungement SOURCE : American Civil Liberties Union East Bay Community Law Center Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights DIGEST : This bill authorizes defendants who have served a jail felony term pursuant to criminal justice realignment to petition the court to dismiss the conviction and underlying charges, as specified. ANALYSIS : Existing law: CONTINUED AB 651 Page 2 1. 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. 2. 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. A violent felony. A felony for which sex offender registration is required. A felony conviction with a white-collar crime excessive theft or loss enhancement. 1. Provides that where a court sentences a defendant for a jail felony, as specified, 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. 1. Provides that where a defendant has fulfilled the terms of probation, or been discharged from probation, the defendant shall, if he/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/her guilty plea. The court shall then dismiss the accusations against the defendant. Where the person has successfully completed probation, but he/she did not fulfill all terms of probation throughout the probationary term, the court may grant the relief in the interests of justice. 2. Provides that the court, in the interests of justice, may allow a person who has, to withdraw his/her plea, or the CONTINUED AB 651 Page 3 court may dismiss the conviction and the underlying charges. 3. 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 or the accusations dismissed. 4. 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. This bill: 1. Applies to petitioners seeking to dismiss a conviction for a nonserious, nonviolent, or nonsexual offense for which he/she was sentenced to county jail pursuant to criminal justice realignment for his/her full sentence or for all but a concluding portion of his/her term during which time he/she is subject to mandatory supervision. 2. 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 or after two years for specified cases, 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. CONTINUED AB 651 Page 4 5. Provides that dismissal of a conviction does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his/her custody or control any firearm or prevent his/her conviction for such ownership or possession. 6. 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. 7. 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. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Potential future court costs in the range of $544,000 to $1.1 million (General Fund (GF)*) per year for additional petitions for dismissal. To the extent full reimbursement of $150 is received for all petitions, annual costs would range from $325,000 to $650,000 (GF). This estimate assumes petitions for five to ten percent of annual sentences pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170(h) at a cost of $375 per 45-minute hearing. Annual costs to the Department of Justice of less than $50,000 (GF) to receive and process a larger number of record expungement orders. *Trial Court Trust Fund SUPPORT : (Verified 9/3/13) American Civil Liberties Union (co-source) East Bay Community Law Center (co-source) Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights (co-source) A New Way of Life Reentry Project AFSCME Alameda County Board of Supervisors All of Us or None California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Catholic Conference CONTINUED AB 651 Page 5 California Coalition for Women Prisoners California Labor Federation California Public Defenders Association Californians United for a Responsible Budget Community Works West Contra Costa County Public Defender Drug Policy Alliance Equal Rights Advocates Friends Committee on Legislation of California Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership NAACP National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter National Employment Law Project Public Counsel Rubicon Programs San Francisco Adult Probation Department, Chief Adult Probation San Francisco District Attorney's Office San Francisco Public Defender's Office OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/3/13) California District Attorneys Association California Police Chiefs Association California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association Crime Victims Action Alliance Judicial Council of California ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The American Civil Liberties Union writes: 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 CONTINUED AB 651 Page 6 housing. The stated purpose of the realignment is to reduce 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. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California District Attorneys Association writes: 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 [PC] 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 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 CONTINUED AB 651 Page 7 available by PC 1203.4. ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-32, 5/9/13 AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Chau, Chesbro, Daly, Dickinson, Fong, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Roger Hernández, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin, Nazarian, Pan, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Rendon, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Cooley, Dahle, Donnelly, Eggman, Fox, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Linder, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez, Morrell, Muratsuchi, Nestande, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk-Silva, Salas, Torres, Wagner, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Hall, Holden, Logue, Waldron, Vacancy JG:k 9/3/13 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED