BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
3
2
AB 1325 (John A. Pérez) 5
As Amended March 21, 2013
Hearing date: June 11, 2013
Penal Code
MK:mc
VANDALISM: PUNISHMENT
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 1229 (Schiff) - Chapter 852, Stats. 1998
AB 1386 (Goldsmith) - Chapter 853, Stats. 1998
AB 2295 (Sweeney) - Chapter 600, Stats. 1996
SB 1779 (Bergeson) - Chapter 909, Stats. 1994
AB 1179 (Epple) - Chapter 605, Stats. 1993
Support: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), AFL-CIO; California Public Defenders
Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75- Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON CONVICTED OF GRAFFITI PERFORM
UP TO 300 HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE WITHIN 240 DAYS INSTEAD REQUIRE
(More)
AB 1325 (John A. Pérez)
Page 2
THE COMMUNITY SERVICE HOURS BE PERFORMED WITHIN ONE YEAR?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to extend from 240 days to one year
the period of time a person convicted of vandalism or affixing
graffiti to complete his or her court-imposed community service.
Existing law provides that every person who maliciously defaces
real or personal property with graffiti or other inscribed
material is guilty of vandalism, which is punishable as an
alternate felony/misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 594.)
Existing law states that if the amount of damage is $400 or
more, vandalism is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail
not exceeding one year, or by 16 months, two, or three years in
a county jail or by a fine of not more than $10,000, if the
amount of damage is $10,000 or more, by a fine of not more than
$50,000 or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Penal Code
§ 594(b)(1).)
Existing law states that if the amount of damage is less than
$400, vandalism is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail
not exceeding one year; or by a fine of not more than $1,000; or
by both that fine and imprisonment. (Penal Code §
594(b)(2)(A).)
Existing law provides that if the amount of damage is less than
$400 and the defendant has been previously convicted of
vandalism or affixing graffiti or other inscribed material, as
specified, vandalism is punishable by imprisonment in a county
jail for not more than one year; by a fine of not more than
$5,000; or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Penal Code §
594(b)(2)(B).)
(More)
AB 1325 (John A. Pérez)
Page 3
Existing law authorizes the court, when appropriate and
feasible, in addition to any other punishment imposed, to order
the defendant to clean up, repair, or replace the damaged
property his or her self, or order the defendant, if a minor, to
keep the damaged property or other specified property in the
community free of graffiti for up to one year. (Penal Code §
594(c).)
Existing law defines "graffiti or other inscribed material" for
purposes of Penal Code Section 594 as including any unauthorized
inscription, word, figure, mark, or design that is written,
marked, etched, scratched, drawn, or painted on real or personal
property. (Penal Code § 594(e).)
Existing law provides that the court may order any person
convicted of vandalism and ordered to perform community service
or graffiti removal to undergo counseling. (Penal Code §
594(f).)
Existing law states that any person who knowingly commits any
act of vandalism to a church, synagogue, mosque, temple,
building owned and operated by a religious educational
institution, or other place primarily used as a place of worship
where religious services are regularly conducted, or a cemetery,
is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment in a county jail
for 16 months, two, or three years, or by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year. (Penal Code § 594.3(a).)
Existing law states that any person who knowingly commits any
act of vandalism to a church, synagogue, mosque, temple,
building owned and operated by a religious educational
institution, or other place primarily used as a place of worship
where religious services are regularly conducted, or a cemetery
that is shown to have been a hate crime and to have been
committed for the purpose of intimidating and deterring persons
(More)
AB 1325 (John A. Pérez)
Page 4
from freely exercising their religious beliefs, is guilty of a
crime punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months,
two, or three years. (Penal Code § 594.3(b).)
Existing law states that any person who willfully and
maliciously injects or throws upon, or otherwise defaces,
destroys or contaminates any structure with butyric acid, or
other similar noxious or caustic substance is guilty of a public
offense and is to be punished by imprisonment in a county jail
for 16 months, two, or three years, or in a county jail not
exceeding six months by a fine as follows, or by both that fine
and imprisonment. The amount of the fine is determined in the
following manner:
If the amount of the damage is more than $50,000, the
fine is up to $50,000;
If the amount of the damage is between $5,000 and
$50,000, the fine is up to $10,000;
If the amount of the damages is between $950 and $5,000,
the fine is up to $5,000; or,
If the amount of the damages is less than $950, the fine
is up to $1,000. (Penal Code
§ 594.4.)
Existing law states any person who defaces with graffiti or
other inscribed material the interior or exterior of the
facilities or vehicles of a governmental entity, as defined by
the Government Code, or the interior or exterior of the
facilities or vehicles of a public transportation system, as
defined by the Public Utilities Code, or the interior or
exterior of the facilities of, or vehicles operated by entities
subsidized by the Department of Transportation, or the interior
or exterior of any leased or rented facilities, or vehicles for
which any of the above entities incur costs of less than $250
for cleanup, repair, or replacement is guilty of an infraction,
punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 and by a minimum of 48
hours of community service for a total time not to exceed 200
hours over a period not to exceed 180 days, during a time other
(More)
AB 1325 (John A. Pérez)
Page 5
than his or her hours of school attendance or employment. This
subdivision does not preclude application of provisions related
to vandalism. (Penal Code § 640.5(d)(1).)
Existing law provides that any person who is violates the
graffiti or vandalism statutes on or within 100 feet of a
highway or its appurtenances is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six
months; or by a fine not exceeding $1,000; or by both that
imprisonment and fine. A second conviction is punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year; by a fine
not exceeding $1,000; or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(Penal Code § 640.7.)
Existing law provides that a city, county, or city and county
may enact an ordinance to provide for the use of city or county
funds to remove graffiti or other inscribed material from
publicly or privately owned real or personal property located
within the city, county, or city and county and to replace or
repair public or privately owned property within that city,
county, or city and county that has been defaced with graffiti
or other inscribed material that cannot be removed cost
effectively. (Government Code § 53069.3(a).)
Existing law provides that every person who is convicted of
vandalism may be ordered by the court as a condition of
probation to perform community service not to exceed 300 hours
over a period not to exceed 240 days during a time other than
his or her hours of school attendance or employment. (Penal
Code § 594.6.)
This bill provides instead that the community service must be
performed within one year.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
(More)
AB 1325 (John A. Pérez)
Page 6
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
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.
(More)
AB 1325 (John A. Pérez)
Page 7
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."
(More)
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.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Community service programs have the opportunity to be a
win-win for both parties - the community benefits by
ensuring that offenders take responsibility for their
actions and from the various community services (trash
pick-up, graffiti removal, etc.) provided and the
offenders benefit by being able to pay off their debt
while maintain a job or going to school.
Unfortunately, many offenders are simply not able to
complete their full commitment within the 240 day time
limit in current law. Life in 2013 has a lot of
demands: work, school, family and faith-based
(More)
AB 1325 (John A. Pérez)
Page 9
activities. These important undertakings form the
basis of a balanced life and need to continue even
after the imposition of community service in order to
provide stability to offenders and their families.
Extending the time limit to complete community service
from 240 days to 365 days as provided by AB 1325 in no
way minimizes the community service obligation-it just
makes it more practical that the obligation can
actually be met.
2. Longer Time for Community Service
When a person is convicted of vandalism or graffiti under
various statutes, the law requires the person to complete up to
300 hours of community service in 240 days. This bill will
extend the period of time in which a person must complete the
community service to one year. The intent of making the time
frame more flexible is to encourage people to complete their
community service but also recognizing that people have work,
school and other activities that should also be encouraged that
can make completing the community service in the time frame
difficult.
3. Support
In support, the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice state:
Existing law makes every person that defaces with
graffiti or other materials, real or personal property
of another, guilty of vandalism. The crime of
vandalism is punishable by fine imprisonment, or both.
The court is authorized to impose community services
hours, as a condition of probation not to exceed 300
hours to be completed in no more than 240 days. This
bill attempts to provide more flexibility and a longer
AB 1325 (John A. Pérez)
Page 10
time frame for those guilty of vandalism to complete
the community service hours.
The proposed changes AB 1325 introduces will help those
guilty of vandalism complete their court-mandated
community service hours. The 280 days currently
allowed is an arbitrary amount of time with no
reasoning for its length. Extending this window to one
year would allow those persons to balance school,
employment, and other responsibilities with their duty
to complete their community service hours. Moreover,
on some occasions, the court may order the defendant to
maintain a specified property graffiti-free for one
year. For these reasons, we support AB 1325.
***************