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