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. ***************