BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1334
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2013
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1334 (Conway) - As Amended: April 9, 2013
SUMMARY : Requires all persons released from prison for a
current, or prior, conviction or juvenile adjudication requiring
sex-offender registration to be subject to parole supervision by
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR). Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that the provisions of post-release community
supervision (PRCS) do not apply to any person who is currently
being released from prison for an offense requiring the person
to register as a sex offender.
2)Specifies that the provisions of PRCS do not apply to any
person released from prison who has a prior conviction or a
juvenile adjudication requiring him or her to register as a
sex offender.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires all persons paroled before October 1, 2011 to remain
under the supervision of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) until jurisdiction is
terminated by operation of law or until parole is discharged.
[Penal Code Section 3000.09.]
2)Requires the following persons released from prison on or
after October 1, 2011, be subject to parole under the
supervision of CDCR:
a) A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal
Code Section 1192.7(c);
b) A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal
Code Section 667.5(c);
c) A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
AB 1334
Page 2
d) A high risk sex offender;
e) A mentally disordered offender [Penal Code Section
3000.08(a)];
f) A person required to register as a sex offender and
subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time
of the commission of the offense for which he or she is
being released; and,
g) A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the
commission of the offense for which he or she is being
released. [Penal Code Section 3000.08(a) and (c).]
3)Requires all other offenders released from prison on or after
October 1, 2011, to be placed on PRCS under the supervision of
a county agency, such as a probation department. [Penal Code
Section 3000.08(b).]
4)Limits the term for PRCS to three years. [Penal Code Section
3451(a).]
5)Provides for intermediate sanctions for violating the terms of
PRCS, including "flash incarceration" for up to 10 days.
(Penal Code Section 3454.)
6)Specifies that if PRCS is revoked, the offender may be
incarcerated in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180
days for each custodial sanction. [Penal Code Section
3455(d).]
7)Prohibits the return of an offender who violates conditions of
PRCS to prison. (Penal Code Section 3458.)
8)Specifies that a parolee held in custody for a pending parole
violation before October 1, 2011, may be returned to state
prison for the violation for period not to exceed 12 month.
[Penal Code Section 3057(a).]
9)Specifies that a parolee held in custody for a pending parole
violation on or after October 1, 2011 will be returned to
county jail, rather than state prison, for up to 180 days of
incarceration per revocation. [Penal Code Section 3056(a).]
AB 1334
Page 3
10)Requires any person who has been or hereafter is released,
discharged, or paroled from a penal institution where he or
she was confined because of the commission or attempted
commission of specified sex offenses to register as a sex
offender. (Penal Code Section 290.003.)
11)Establishes the State-Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex
Offenders (SARATSO) Review Committee and requires the
committee to research and to adopt risk assessment tools, as
well as define tiers of risk based on SARATSO. (Penal Code
Section 290.04.)
12)Requires the static SARATSO be administered as follows:
a) CDCR shall assess every eligible person who is
incarcerated in state prison. Whenever possible, the
assessment shall take place at least four months, but no
sooner than 10 months, prior to release from incarceration.
b) CDCR shall assess every eligible person who is on parole
if the person was not assessed prior to release from state
prison.
c) CDCR shall assess every person on parole transferred
from any other state or by the federal government to this
state who has been, or is hereafter convicted in any other
court, including any state, federal, or military court, of
any offense that, if committed or attempted in this state,
would be required to register.
d) The State Department of State Hospitals shall assess
every eligible person who is committed to that department.
e) Commencing January 1, 2010, CDCR and the Department of
State Hospitals shall send the scores obtained from the
SARATSO to the Department of Justice Sex Offender Tracking
Program no later than 30 days after the date of the
assessment. The risk assessment score of an offender shall
be made part of his or her file maintained by the
Department of Justice Sex Offender Tracking Program.
f) Each probation department shall, prior to sentencing,
assess every person required to register as a sex offender.
[Penal Code Section 290.06(a)]
AB 1334
Page 4
13)States that any person required to register as a sex offender
who has not otherwise been evaluated, may be evaluated upon
request of the law enforcement agency where the individual is
required to register, or upon request of the individual
required to register. [Penal Code Section 290.06(b).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "This bill will
ensure that all sex offenders released from state prison are
supervised by state parole agents that are trained to
supervise sex offenders. Under realignment's parole
provisions many dangerous sex offenders will be supervised by
county probation officers. This is because the law shifts
responsibility from parole to probation. If the felon's prior
conviction includes a serious felony, a violent felony, or has
a history of committing sex crimes but is deemed by the system
as not "high risk," they will no longer be supervised by
parole agents trained to supervise sex offenders. The
determination of whether an offender is a "high risk" sex
offender has failed in the past. Specifically, John Gardner,
the killer of Chelsea King and Amber DuBois, was designated as
"low risk."
2)Changes to Parole As a Result of Criminal Justice Realignment :
Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were
placed on parole and supervised in the community by CDCR
parole agents. If it was alleged that a parolee had violated
a condition of parole, he or she would have a revocation
proceeding before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). If
parole was revoked, the offender would be returned to state
prison for violating parole.
Realignment shifted the supervision of some released prison
inmates from CDCR parole agents to local probation
departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for
inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 is
limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or
violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are
classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to
undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who,
while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. [Penal Code
Sections 3000.08(a) and (c), and 3451(b).] All other inmates
AB 1334
Page 5
released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS
under local supervision. [Penal Code Sections 3000.08(b) and
3451(a).]
Realignment also changed where an offender is incarcerated for
violating parole or PRCS. Most individuals can no longer be
returned to state prison for violating a term of supervision;
offenders serve the revocation term in county jail. [Penal
Code Sections 3056(a) and 3458.] There is a 180-day limit to
incarceration. [Penal Code Sections 3056(a) and 3455(c).]
The only offenders who are eligible for return to prison for
violating parole are life-term inmates paroled pursuant to
Penal Code Section 3000.1 (e.g., murderers, specific life term
sex offenses).
Additionally, realignment changed the process for revocation
hearings, but this change is being implemented in phases.
Until July 1, 2013, individuals supervised on parole by state
agents continue to have revocation hearings before the BPH.
After July 1, 2013, the trial courts will assume
responsibility for holding all revocation hearings for those
individuals who remain under CDCR's jurisdiction. In
contrast, since the inception of realignment, individuals
placed on PRCS stopped appearing before the BPH for revocation
hearings. Their revocation hearings are handled by the trial
court. PRCS currently provides for lesser or "intermediate"
sanctions before PRCS is revoked for a violation. This
includes "flash incarceration" for up to 10 days. (Penal Code
Section 3454.) Intermediate sanctions, including flash
incarceration, will also be available for state parolees after
July 1, 2013. [Penal Code Section 3000.08(d), effective July
1, 2013.]
CDCR informed this Committee that as of April 2, 2013, there
were approximately 6,849 sex offenders on parole in the
community. Of those, 2,732 are high-risk sex offenders, and
the rest are non-high risk. The majority of non-high risk sex
offenders under current parole supervision are "left over"
from pre-realignment parole. CDCR also has informed this
Committee that between October 1, 2011, and March 31, 2013,
there were 1,677 offenders required to register as a sex
offender released to PRCS.
3)Classification of Offenders : State law established the
SARATSO Committee to consider the selection of the risk
AB 1334
Page 6
assessment tools. Research has shown that the most accurate
way of predicting whether a sex offender will reoffend is by
utilizing a validated risk assessment instrument. The
Static-99R is the most widely used such instrument and the one
used in California. Many research studies have proven its
predictive accuracy. Recent research has shown that the
predictive accuracy of re-offense can be increased slightly
when dynamic (changeable) factors are combined with static
(unchangeable) factors such as substance abuse, personality
disorder, deviant sexual interests, emotional identification
with children, and self-regulation problems. A sex offender
in a mandated treatment program will also be assessed on other
risk factors by a certified treatment provider using dynamic
and violence risk assessment instruments designated by the
SARATSO Committee. The combined risk level will be used to
determine appropriate levels of supervision and treatment.
(See .)
The SARATSO Committee has informed this Committee that a
Static-99 risk assessment score is completed by the probation
department before sentencing and this score is given to the
judge. The score then goes to CDCR in the defendant's prison
packet. Prior to release from prison, CDCR staff rescores the
offender. [See also Sex Offender Risk Assessment Frequently
Asked Questions,
; and Penal Code Section 290.06(a).]
The author's statement says that the state parole system's
classification of high-risk sex offenders has failed in the
past because it did not classify John Gardner, the killer of
Chelsea King and Amber Dubois, as a high-risk sex offender.
First, it should be noted that this bill does not change the
risk assessment tools used by CDCR. Moreover, the risk
assessments have in fact changed as a result of Chelsea's Law.
Finally, according to a recent report prepared by the Council
of State Governments Justice Center, commissioned by the
police departments of the Cities of Los Angeles, Sacramento,
Redlands, and San Francisco, the assessment of a parolee's
risk of re-offense is an effective indicator of the likelihood
that he or she would be rearrested. The report states, "Since
2006, CDCR has made a concerted effort to employ
AB 1334
Page 7
evidence-based supervision practices, including the use of a
validated risk assessment tool to assign individuals on parole
to appropriate treatment and supervision. Based on the study
data, individuals under parole supervision identified as high
risk represented the majority of parolee arrests, which is
consistent with their risk-level determination and suggests
that CDCR's validated risk assessment instrument was able to
successfully identify individuals most likely to reoffend."
(The Impact of Probation and Parole Population on Arrests in
Four California Cities, Council of State Governments Justice
Center 2013, at p. 25 . )
4)Effectiveness of Parole Supervision : The premise of this bill
is that sex offenders should be supervised by CDCR because
parole agents are trained to supervise this population.
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that probation
departments have been supervising some sex offenders since
before the passage of realignment. Moreover, the presumption
that parole agents are more effective at supervising
individuals on supervised release is questionable. A recent
report by the Legislative Analyst's Office noted that in 2010
the parolee failure rate in California was higher than the
probationer failure rate. The probation "failure rate" was at
about 40%, whereas the parolee failure rate was close to 70%.
(See California's Criminal Justice System - A Primer, January
2013 .)
5)Practical Considerations : Published per capita cost per
parolee supervised by CDCR is over $10,500.
(.) Since there are 1,677 individuals subject to sex
offender registration requirements currently on PRCS, a
conservative figure as to the cost of supervision by CDCR is
$16,000,000.
Proposition 30 of the November 2012 election guaranteed funding
for public safety services realigned from state to local
governments. This funding is now constitutionally protected.
(Cal. Const., Article XIII, Section 36.) Does the
AB 1334
Page 8
constitutional provision allow the state to reclaim funding
from the counties if the duties of supervision are reverted
back to CDCR, or will the state be paying twice to supervise
these individuals?
6)Argument in Support : The California Correctional Peace
Officers Association says, "This measure recognizes that state
parole is best prepared to supervise these most serious cases,
whether or not the instant offense meets the existing criteria
for state supervision. AB 1334 would allow local officials to
concentrate their resources on those cases they are best
suited to handle by way of experience.
"In our view, this measure would improve public safety by having
the state concentrate its community resources on serious risks
and local officials on those with a less serious criminal
history."
7)Argument in Opposition : The American Civil Liberties Union of
California argues, "AB 1334 proposes to return all inmates
required to register as a sex offender to state parole,
regardless of when said registration requirement was imposed.
For instance, under current law, a person who was previously
convicted of masturbating in public and required to register
as a sex offender, but is now in state prison for
transportation of a controlled substance, would be placed on
post-release community supervision. Moreover, even if all
offenders required to register as a sex offender were
supervised by state parole, any sentence for violating parole
would be served in the county jail.
"Counties are in the best position to monitor these offenders in
the community. CDCR and specifically Adult Parole Operations
have absorbed significant cuts to funding due to the State's
fiscal crisis. County probation departments, on the other
hand, have received funds to monitor returning inmates under
Proposition 30 and AB 109. Post-Realignment, county probation
departments likely have more resources and better risk
assessment tools than state parole agents. It makes little
sense to return these offenders back to state parole when
counties were only recently tasked with the responsibility of
supervision. Given the State's abysmal record in reducing
rates of re-offense, counties may be better suited to ensuring
these offenders remain crime-free."
AB 1334
Page 9
8)Related Legislation :
a) AB 2 (Morrell) requires a person who violates the
conditions of parole or of PRCS by failing to fulfill
sex-offender registration requirements to serve time for
the violation in prison rather than in the county jail. AB
2 failed passage in this Committee and reconsideration was
granted.
b) AB 601 (Eggman) authorizes a court upon revocation of
parole to commit the person to state prison for one year.
AB 601 was referred for an interim study.
c) AB 605 (Linder) provides that a defendant who is
released on parole or PRCS, who has suffered a prior or
current felony requiring registration as a sex offender,
and who violates parole or PRCS shall serve any period of
incarceration ordered for that violation in the state
prison. AB 605 failed passage in this Committee and
reconsideration was granted.
d) AB 1065 (Holden) requires any person released from state
prison who has served a prior prison term for which he or
she was required, as a condition of parole, to undergo
treatment by the Department of State Hospitals as a
mentally disordered offender be subject to parole
supervision by CDCR. AB 1065 is being heard by this
Committee today.
e) SB 57 (Lieu) enacts new felony crimes for felons being
supervised on parole or PRCS who willfully defeat their
global positioning system/electronic monitoring. SB 57 is
pending hearing by the Senate Public Safety Committee.
f) SB 226 (Emmerson) requires that a defendant convicted of
a felony and found to have a "severe mental disorder" as
specified, serve their sentence in state prison rather than
county jail and also be supervised on state parole upon
release. SB 226 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety
Committee and was granted reconsideration.
g) SB 287 (Walters) makes the provisions for PRCS
inapplicable to any person released from prison who has a
prior conviction for a serious or violent felony, a crime
for which the person received a third strike, or a crime
AB 1334
Page 10
that resulted in the person being classified as a High Risk
Sex Offender. SB 287 failed passage in the Senate Public
Safety Committee and was granted reconsideration.
h) SB 710 (Nielsen) makes the provisions of PRCS applicable
only to persons released from prison prior to January 1,
2014, and requires all offenders released from prison on or
after that to be subject to parole supervision by CDCR for
a minimum period of three years. SB 710 failed passage in
the Senate Public Safety Committee and was granted
reconsideration.
9)Prior Legislation : AB 109 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 15,
Statutes of 2011, created the Post Release Community
Supervision Act, which provides, among other things, that
inmates released from prison who are not required to be on
parole are subject to up to three years of local supervision.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California District Attorneys Association
Golden State Bail Agents Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744