BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A 2013-2014 Regular Session B 2 1 2 AB 2124 (Lowenthal) 4 As Amended May 23, 2014 Hearing date: June 24, 2014 Penal Code MK:sl MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES: DEFERRAL OF SENTENCING HISTORY Source: Author Prior Legislation: AB 994 (Lowenthal) Vetoed, 2013 SB 513 (Hancock) Chapter 798, Stats. 2013 Support: American Probation and Parole Association; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Californians for Safety and Justice; Conference of California Bar Associations; Judicial Council of California; Pacific Educational Services, Inc.; Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety; California Public Defenders Association (if amended) Opposition:Los Angeles District Attorney's Office; California District Attorneys Association; California Partnership to End Domestic Violence; Citizens for Law and Order; Crime Victims Action Alliance Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 48 - Noes 25 KEY ISSUES SHOULD A JUDGE BE PERMITTED TO ORDER MISDEMEANOR DIVERSION OVER THE (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageB OBJECTION OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY IN A COUNTY WHERE THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED MISDEMEANOR DIVERSION PROGRAM? SHOULD A JUDGE BE PERMITTED TO ORDER MISDEMEANOR DIVERSION OVER THE OBJECTION OF A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR UP TO 12 MONTHS IN A COUNTY WHERE THERE IS NOT AN ESTABLISHED MISDEMEANOR DIVERSION PROGRAM? PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to allow a court to order a defendant to misdemeanor diversion over the objection of the prosecuting attorney. Existing law includes various diversion programs under which a person arrested for and charged with a crime is diverted from the prosecution system and placed in a program of rehabilitation or restorative justice. Upon successful completion of the program, the charges and underling arrest are deemed to not have occurred, with specified exceptions. Generally, diversion programs are created and run at the discretion of the district attorney. Pre-plea, true drug diversion programs are implemented upon the agreement of the district attorney, the court and the public defender. Some examples of diversion follow: Pre-plea diversion for drug possession. (Penal Code 1000.5.) Misdemeanor diversion, excluding driving under the influence, crimes requiring registration as a sex offender, crimes involving violence, as specified. (Pen. Code §§ 1001, 1001.50-1001.55.) Bad check diversion. (Penal Code §1001.60.) Existing law defines misdemeanor diversion thus: "[P]retrial diversion refers to the procedure of postponing prosecution of an offense filed as a misdemeanor either temporarily or permanently at any point in the judicial process from the point at which the accused is charged until adjudication." (Penal Code § 1001.1.) Existing law excludes specified driving under the influence (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageC offenses from pretrial diversion eligibility. (Penal Code § 1001.2 (a).) Existing law provides that the district attorney of each county shall review annually any diversion program adopted by the county. The district attorney must approve the program and each participant. (Penal Code § 1001.2 (b).) Existing law specifies that at no time shall a defendant be required to make an admission of guilt as a prerequisite for placement in a pretrial diversion program. (Penal Code § 1001.3.) Existing law provides that a diversion participant is entitled to a hearing before his or her pretrial diversion can be terminated for cause. (Penal Code § 1001.4.) Existing law states if the participant has performed satisfactorily during the period of diversion, the criminal charges shall be dismissed. (Penal Code § 1001.7.) Existing law provides that any record filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) shall indicate that the defendant was diverted. Upon successful completion of a diversion program, the underlying arrest shall be deemed to have never occurred. The successful participant may indicate that he or she was not arrested or diverted for the offense, except as specified. The record of an arrest underlying a successful diversion program shall not be used so as to deny any employment, benefit, license, or certificate. (Penal Code § 1001.9 (a)). Existing law requires that the diversion participant shall be advised that, regardless of his or her successful completion of diversion, the underlying arrest may be disclosed by DOJ as concerns any peace officer application request and that the successful participant must disclose the arrest in response to any direct question in any application for a position as a peace officer. (Penal Code § 1001.9 (b).) Existing law provides that a specified diversion program shall be implemented operative only if the board of supervisors adopts the statutory provisions as an ordinance. (Penal Code § (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageD 1001.50, (a).) Existing law specifies that diversion may be granted only if it appears to the court that all of the following apply: The defendant's record does not indicate that probation or parole has ever been revoked without thereafter being completed; The defendant's record does not indicate that he has been diverted pursuant to this chapter within five years prior to the filing of the accusatory pleading which charges the divertible offense; and, The defendant has never been convicted of a felony, and has not been convicted of a misdemeanor within five years prior to the filing of the accusatory pleading which charges the divertible offense. (Penal Code § 1001.51 (a).) Existing law states that diversion shall not be granted where which any of the following apply: The penalty for the crime includes mandatory incarceration; The defendant is required to register as a sex offender; The offense is an alternate felony-misdemeanor that the magistrate has deemed to be a misdemeanor; The crime involves the use of force or violence against a person, with exceptions; Probation is prohibited; The offense involves operation of a motor vehicle and is punished as a misdemeanor pursuant to the Vehicle Code. (Pen. Code § 1001.51 (b) and (c).); and, The offense involves driving under the influence. This bill provides that a judge in the superior court of a county that has established a misdemeanor diversion program may at his or her discretion and over the objection of a prosecuting attorney, offer misdemeanor diversion to a defendant according to the misdemeanor diversion program. This bill provides that a judge in the superior court in the county that has not established a misdemeanor diversion program, (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageE may at his or her discretion, defer sentencing a defendant who has submitted a plea of guilty or nolo contender for a period not to exceed 12 months and the judge may order the defendant to comply with terms, conditions, or programs the judge deems appropriate based on the defendant's specific situation. This bill provides that a defendant may make a motion for imposition of diversion in counties with or without an established misdemeanor diversion program. This bill provides that if the defendant during the period of deferral in a county without a misdemeanor diversion program, complies with all terms, conditions, and programs required by the court, then, the judge shall, at the end of the period, strike the defendant's plea and dismiss the action against the defendant. This bill provides that upon completion of the terms, conditions or programs ordered by the court, the arrest upon which sentencing was deferred shall be deemed to have never occurred and the defendant may indicate in response to any question concerning his or her prior record that he or she was not arrested or granted deferred entry of judgment for that at offense except in specified circumstances. This bill provides that if during the period of deferral, in a county without a misdemeanor diversion program, the defendant reoffends or fails to comply with the terms, conditions or programs required by the court, then the court, the probation officer or the prosecuting attorney shall make a motion for entry of judgment, and the court shall sentence the defendant as if the deferral had not occurred. 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. (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageF 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 that 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. 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 requiring the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State submitted 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 opposed the state's motion, arguing 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 % inmate population cap by December 31, 2013. The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, 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." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27, 2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageG enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to the prison crowding problem." The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10, 2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the following interim and final population reduction benchmarks: 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014; 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and, 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark. In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison population have been made, even greater reductions may be required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore, the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may impact the prison population - will be informed by the following questions: Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the prison population; Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageH 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 the Bill According to the author: More than a dozen counties in California have voluntarily adopted diversion programs for misdemeanors. These programs spare appropriately selected, often first time offenders the stigma of a criminal record by prompt exposure to community education, counseling and rehabilitation programs and help relieve congested courts of some relatively minor prosecutions. Last year Assemblymember Lowenthal authored AB 994, which passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Governor Brown. In its final form, the bill required all counties to establish misdemeanor diversion programs. AB 2124 has the same goal as its predecessor - to expand opportunities for diversion or deferral of misdemeanors. However this year's legislation places no mandate on counties. A prosecutor has the sole discretion to charge a defendant with a crime, and existing misdemeanor diversion programs are largely authorized and administered at the discretion of a prosecuting attorney. In counties where misdemeanor diversion programs have been established by a prosecutor, AB 2124 provides judges with the ability to place defendants (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageI into those programs. However, the court arguably has equal discretion to issue a sentence once a plea has been entered or a verdict rendered. In line with this precedent, in counties where no diversion programs exist AB 2124 provides courts with explicit authority to defer sentencing of a defendant who has pled guilty or "no contest" to a misdemeanor. Upon deferral, a defendant must comply with any terms, conditions or programs required by the court. Defendants who successfully fulfill all court mandated obligations would have their plea and the action against them stricken from the record. Defendants who fail to comply would be sentenced as if deferral had not occurred. AB 2124 has the potential to spare appropriately selected offenders the stigma of a criminal record. Diversion programs and alternative sentencing as provided for in AB 2124 can save state and local governments substantial sums of money and help free up jurors from having to serve on comparatively inconsequential trials. 2. History of California Diversion Programs There are two chapters in the Penal Code governing misdemeanor diversion programs. The California Supreme Court in Davis v. Municipal Court (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 64, discussed the legislative history of the two chapters. In 1972, the Legislature adopted California's first statutorily mandated pretrial diversion program to provide drug education and rehabilitation. An eligible defendant must have been charged with a specifically enumerated drug offense and met additional requirements. Police departments and district attorneys across the state, often funded by federal grants, began implementing local diversion programs. However, an opinion of the Attorney General indicated that local programs were preempted by the 1972 state law. These programs became difficult to fund and district attorneys became reluctant to implement them. (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageJ In 1977, the Legislature expressly declared that it did not intend to preempt local pretrial diversion programs. The Legislature established procedural protections for participants in local diversion programs, but left the design and implementation of diversion to local entities. The legislation did not address approval by the prosecutor. The1977 legislation required annual reports about the implementation, administration and operation of each program. The statute sunset in 1982. The court in Davis explained the next development in diversion law: The Legislature in 1982 adopted two separate but related pretrial diversion statutes. Chapter 2.7<1> continued ? the general 'local option' structure of the 1977 legislation, retaining the introductory provision clearly stating the Legislature's intent not to preempt the pretrial diversion field. (§ 1001.) The 1982 revision ? made several significant changes from the former scheme. First, the 1982 act limited the reach of the chapter to diversion programs which involved the postponement of prosecution "of an offense filed as a misdemeanor" (§ 1001.1). ?Second, the 1982 revision limited the chapter's application to local diversion programs that have been approved by the local district attorney. Chapter 2.9<2> was enacted several months after the 1982 revision of chapter 2.7. Like chapter 2.7, chapter 2.9 is a 'local option' scheme and applies only to misdemeanor diversion programs. Unlike chapter 2.7, however, chapter 2.9 sets out a 'model' misdemeanor diversion program with legislatively prescribed eligibility criteria which a county board of supervisors may adopt by ordinance. Like chapter 2.7, however, chapter 2.9 also conditions the implementation of such a diversion program on the district attorney's approval." (Davis v. Municipal Court, supra, 46 Cal. 3d at pp. 73-75.) ---------------------- <1> Penal Code §§1001-1001.9. <2> Penal Code §§ 1001.50-1001.55 (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageK 3. Prosecutorial Power to Charge Crimes and Judicial Power to Sentence Diversion and deferred entry of judgment programs exist at the somewhat amorphous boundary between prosecutorial and judicial power. The issue of what distinguishes the sole power of a prosecutor to charge crimes from the sole power of a court to sentence has arisen many times in California. Generally speaking, the judicial branch cannot interfere with the prosecutor's discretion to charge a person with a crime and the prosecutor cannot interfere with the court's power to impose or craft a disposition after charges have been filed. In 2005, the court in People v. Thomas (2005) 35 Cal.4th 635, described the modern development of the issue: In People v. Tenorio (1970) 3 Cal.3d 89, 91-95, we held that a statute requiring a trial court to secure a prosecutor's consent to dismiss an allegation of a prior conviction violates the ? separation of powers clause by improperly invading the constitutional province of the judiciary? "When the decision to prosecute has been made, the process which leads to acquittal or to sentencing is fundamentally judicial in nature. ?The judicial power is compromised when a judge ? wishes to exercise the power to dismiss but finds that?he must bargain with the prosecutor." (Id. at p. 94.) ?In Esteybar v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 119, 122 [we] held that a statute requiring a magistrate to secure a prosecutor's consent to determine that [a wobbler]? is a misdemeanor?violates the separation of powers doctrine. "Since the exercise of a judicial power may not be conditioned upon the approval of either the executive or legislative branches of government, requiring the district attorney's consent in determining the charge on which a defendant shall be held to answer violates the doctrine of separation of powers." (Esteybar v. Municipal Court, supra, at p. 127.) (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageL ?[I]n People v. Navarro (1972) 7 Cal.3d 248, [258-259] we held that requiring a trial court to obtain a prosecutor's consent to order a posttrial commitment to a narcotic?rehabilitation facility violates the separation of powers doctrine. ?The Legislature, of course, by general laws can control eligibility for probation, parole and the term of imprisonment, but it cannot abort the judicial process by subjecting a judge to the control of the district attorney. ?[I]n People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 59, 61, we held that a statute requiring a court to get a prosecutor's consent to order pretrial diversion to a narcotic ?rehabilitation program violates the separation of powers doctrine: "[W]hen the jurisdiction of a court has been properly invoked by the filing of a criminal charge, the disposition of that charge becomes a judicial responsibility. ? With the development of more sophisticated responses to the wide range of antisocial behavior traditionally subsumed under the heading of 'crime,' alternative means of disposition have been confided to the judiciary." (Id. at p. 66.) Thereafter, in Davis v. Municipal Court (1988) 46 Cal.3d 64 this court held that a local rule precluding the trial court from diverting persons charged with felonies to a drug treatment program, while permitting diversion for those charged with misdemeanors, did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. ?[T]he exercise of prosecutorial discretion before the filing of charges does not improperly subordinate the judicial branch to the executive branch in violation of the state Constitution. [Citation omitted.] Recently? Manduley v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 537?..upheld the constitutionality of an initiative [giving] the prosecutor discretion to file charges against some juveniles directly in criminal court [.] ?A statute conferring upon prosecutors the discretion to make certain decisions before the filing of (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageM charges? is not invalid simply because the prosecutor's exercise of such charging discretion necessarily affects the [court's] dispositional options." (Id. at p. 553, internal quotation marks omitted.) 4. Court Ordered Diversion This bill would allow a court to order a defendant to diversion whether or not the county has an established misdemeanor diversion program. If there is a misdemeanor diversion program in that county then the person must follow that program. If there is no misdemeanor diversion program in the county the court can defer sentencing for up to 12 months and order the defendant to comply with terms, conditions or programs the court deems necessary. 5. Support American Probation and Parole Association support this bill noting: A Criminal record could prevent a defendant from gaining employment or professional licensing and thereby increasing the risk of additional criminal activity. Diversion programs are also useful as part of treatment plans for substance abuse or mental illness. By addressing the issues that led to the charge, clients can reduce their chance of involvement in future offenses. In addition, community service has the effect of building self-esteem and a sense of serving the community which further decreases the risk of recidivating. Diversion programs reduce the trial docket caseload for courts, allowing resources to be allocated to more serious cases. Diversion programs also benefit the court system by allowing first-tie offenders to gain a positive perception of the judicial process through the system giving them the opportunity to avoid prosecution and change their behavior. A negative situation becomes a life-changing opportunity. (More) AB 2124 (Lowenthal) PageN (More) 6. Opposition The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office opposes this bill stating: Granting courts the unilateral power to divert defendants who do not qualify for a diversion under the prosecution's criteria would be a significant change in the law. It would greatly expand the court's dismissal powers which have traditionally been carefully circumscribed. Under current law, diversion programs are authorized not mandated. Our office currently operates several different types of diversion programs such as the Women's Reentry Court, veteran's court, multiple drug diversion programs and the Abolish Chronic Truancy program. Our office is already in the process of developing new misdemeanor diversion programs. We believe that it is in the best interests of the residents of Los Angeles County that these programs be allowed to develop locally under the auspices of the District Attorney before involving the Superior Court in the equation. *************** (More)