BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
8
8
4
AB 884 ( Bonilla)
As Amended May 15, 2013
Hearing date: June 11, 2013
Penal Code
SM:jr
COUNTY PAROLE
HISTORY
Source: California State Sheriffs' Association
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Alameda County Sheriff, Chief Probation Officers of
California, Contra Costa County Sheriff, Crime Victims
United, Lassen County Sheriff, Orange County Sheriff,
Santa Barbara County Sheriff, Santa Cruz County
Sheriff, Shasta County Sheriff, Solano County Sheriff,
Yolo County Sheriff
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, California
Public Defenders Association
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 74 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE TERM OF YEARS THAT A COUNTY PAROLE BOARD MAY PLACE A
COUNTY JAIL PRISONER ON COUNTY PAROLE BE INCREASED FROM TWO TO THREE
YEARS?
(More)
AB 884 (Bonilla)
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to increase the term of years that a
county parole board may place a county jail prisoner on county
parole from two to three years.
Current law provides for county parole programs. (Penal Code
Sections 3074-3081.)
Current law requires each county parole board to establish
written rules and regulations for inmates serving county-jail
sentences to apply for parole. (Penal Code Section 3076(b).)
Current law allows the sentencing judge to deny parole
eligibility at sentencing if the time to be served in county
jail is a condition of felony probation. (Penal Code Section
3076(b).)
Current law permits the parole applicant to appear and to speak
on his or her own behalf at the hearing at which the application
is being considered by the county parole board. (Penal Code
Section 3079(b).)
Current law authorizes only the county parole board to grant or
deny parole but allows the sentencing judge to make
recommendations regarding the application. The board should
give the recommendations careful consideration. (Penal Code
Sections 3078 and 3079.)
Current law limits the term of county parole to two years.
(Penal Code Section 3081(b).)
Current law limits the term for state parole to five years in
the case of inmates imprisoned for a life term for an offense
other than first or second degree murder, and to three years for
all other inmates. (Penal Code Section 3000(b).)
(More)
AB 884 (Bonilla)
Page 3
Current law limits the term for post release community
supervision to three years. (Penal Code Section 3451(a).)
This bill would increase the term of years that a county parole
board may place a county jail prisoner on county parole from two
to three years.
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
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
(More)
AB 884 (Bonilla)
Page 4
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
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
(More)
AB 884 (Bonilla)
Page 5
COMMENTS
1. Need for the Bill
According to the author:
AB 884 will allow county parole boards to release an
inmate on parole for a term not to exceed 3 years.
Since realignment and AB 109, local governments are in
need of more tools and flexibility to monitor and
manage parolees. Unfortunately, some counties are not
utilizing so-called "split sentences" and are merely
sentencing offenders to "straight time" with no period
of supervision and no evidence-based programming. In
counties where there is severe overcrowding, AB 884
will provide an option to relieve overcrowding while
providing the opportunity for supervision under county
parole.
(More)
2. County Parole
Any inmate confined in, or committed to, a county or city jail,
a work furlough facility, an industrial farm, or an industrial
road camp for any criminal offense is able to apply for county
parole. (Penal Code § 3076.) The purpose of the parole system
is to assist county jail inmates to reintegrate into society as
constructive individuals as soon as they are able. (Penal Code
§ 3074.) Since inmates are not confined for the full term of
their sentences, the program also alleviates the cost of keeping
the inmates in jail.
According to the California State Sheriffs' Association, the
sponsor of this bill, very few counties are currently utilizing
county parole. Of the counties that do, they require a minimum
part of the sentence to have been served before considering an
application for county parole.
Currently, county parole may be granted for up to two years with
conditions that are deemed fit by the board. (Penal Code §
3081(b).) Inmates placed on county parole are supervised by a
parole officer of the county board of parole commissioners.
(Penal Code § 3088.)
When it is believed that a parolee has violated the conditions
of his or her supervised release, the written order of the
parole board is considered sufficient warrant to authorize
officers to return the parolee to custody. (Penal Code §
3081(c).) In addition, a parolee who leaves the county can be
imprisoned as an escapee. (Penal Code § 3080.)
Each county parole board consists of the sheriff, or his or her
designee; the probation officer, or his or her designee; and a
member of the public chosen by the presiding judge of the
superior court. The public member must be an individual who
does not hold public office. (Penal Code § 3075.)
3. Realignment and Use of County Parole
(More)
AB 884 (Bonilla)
Page 7
Criminal justice realignment created two classifications of
felonies: those punishable in county jail and those punishable
in state prison. Realignment limited which felons can be sent
to state prison, thus requiring that more felons serve their
sentences in county jails. Specifically, sentences to state
prison are now mainly limited to registered sex offenders and
individuals with a current or prior serious or violent offense.
In addition to the serious, violent, registerable offenses
eligible for state prison incarceration, there are approximately
70 felonies which have be specifically excluded from eligibility
for local custody (i.e., the sentence for which must been served
in state prison).
Previously, the only people serving county-jail sentences were
misdemeanants and felons sentenced to probation required to
serve time in the county jail as a condition of probation.
As a result of the increased jail population, more counties may
be interested in using county parole to control their jail
population. This bill allows the local parole board to require
a longer term of supervision in cases where parole is granted.
4. Statement in Support
The Contra Costa Sheriff states:
AB 884 is an important measure that will provide me
with additional flexibility to help manage jail and
offender populations.
5. Statement in Opposition
The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice state:
This bill strikes CACJ as a legislative solution in
search of a problem. Courts and county officials
currently possess the necessary tools to monitor
inmates released under supervision and to alleviate
issues with jail overcrowding that may arise because
AB 884 (Bonilla)
Page 8
of the continuing implementation of realignment.
Moreover, this bill may have the unintended
consequence of undermining courts' well-considered
decisions to structure sentences in a manner that best
effectuates the "evidence based" approach to criminal
confinement and supervision established by AB 109.
Finally, the bill seeks to implement a regime of
county parole that is infrequently used in many
counties, and is not necessarily funded under
realignment. By doing so, the bill threatens to
overburden counties with unfunded supervision of
criminal populations transferred to county jails under
AB 109.
***************