BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
2
5
SB 225 (Emmerson)
As Amended April 1, 2013
Hearing date: April 23, 2013
Penal Code
AA:mc
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REALIGNMENT OF 2011:
FELONY SENTENCES OF MORE THAN 3 YEARS
HISTORY
Source: Riverside County District Attorney
Prior Legislation: SB 1441 (Emmerson) - failed passage Senate
Public Safety, 2012
AB 109 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 15, Stats. 2011
AB 117 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 39, Stats. 2011
ABx1 17 (Blumenfield) - Ch. 12, Stats. 2011
AB 116 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 136, Stats. 2011
Support: Sacramento County Board of Supervisors; Golden State
Bail Agents Association; County of San Bernardino;
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety; California State
Sheriffs' Association (in concept); California District
Attorneys Association;
League of California Cities; Crime Victims Action
Alliance;
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Public Defenders Association; American Civil Liberties
Union
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageB
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REALIGNMENT OF 2011 BE REVISED TO
REQUIRE THAT DEFENDANTS CONVICTED OF A FELONY AND SENTENCED TO AN
AGGREGATE TERM OF MORE THAN THREE YEARS SERVE THAT SENTENCE IN
PRISON, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to revise the criminal justice
realignment of 2011 by requiring that defendants convicted of a
felony and sentenced to an aggregate term of more than three
years shall serve that sentence in prison, as specified.
Current law generally provides that, for any person sentenced on
or after October 1, 2011, certain felonies - those which by
their statutory terms specifically so provide - are punishable
by a term of imprisonment in a county jail, as specified.
(Penal Code § 1170(h).)
Current law provides that, notwithstanding this general
provision, where a defendant meets any of the following criteria
an executed sentence for a felony punishable pursuant to this
subdivision shall be served in state prison:
the defendant has a prior or current felony conviction
for a serious felony described in subdivision (c) of
Section 1192.7;
the defendant has a prior or current conviction for a
violent felony described in subdivision (c) of Section
667.5;
the defendant has a prior felony conviction in another
jurisdiction for an offense that has all of the elements of
a serious felony described in subdivision (c) of Section
1192.7 or a violent felony described in subdivision (c) of
Section 667.5;
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageC
the defendant is required to register as a sex offender,
as specified; or
the defendant is convicted of a crime and as part of the
sentence an enhancement pursuant to Section 186.11 is
imposed. (Penal Code § 1170(h)(3).)
This bill would amend this provision to provide in addition that
where a defendant has been convicted of a felony or felonies
punishable pursuant to this subdivision and is sentenced to an
aggregate term of more than three years, the sentence shall be
served in state prison, as specified.<1>
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
---------------------------
<1> See Comment 1 concerning amendments the author intends to
submit in Committee.
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageD
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.
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
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageE
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. Author's Amendments
The author intends to amend this bill in Committee to enact a
new statute requiring the Secretary of the Department of
Corrections to transfer inmates who have six months or less
remaining to be served on their sentences to a county jail where
the inmate has been assessed by a validated risk instrument as
being a low risk to harm other people or to reoffend. The
author intends that the bill be amended to provide that for each
of these prison inmates accepted into a county jail, an inmate
with more than three years of incarceration remaining to be
served on his or her sentence shall be transferred to CDCR for
the remainder of his or her term. These amendments would
provide that the costs of incarcerating any prison inmate
transferred to a county under these provisions would be covered
by the county, and that the costs of incarcerating any county
jail felon transferred under these provisions to prison would be
covered by the state.
2. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Under realignment, low-level offenders are being
shifted from prisons to local jails. As it stands,
approximately 32 counties are faced with overcrowding
or court-imposed caps on jail populations. Therefore,
the realignment population shift is causing our local
jails to be even more over crowed than before.
Furthermore, California's jails were not built or
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageF
designed to house prisoners for long periods of time.
3. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, as currently in print this bill would change
provisions in the 2011 criminal justice realignment concerning
which felonies must be served in prison. Specifically, this
bill would widen the category of which executed felony sentences
must be served in state prison - not county jail - by providing
that sentences of an aggregate of more than 3 years must be
served in state prison. Under current law, there is no
term-based threshold for which felonies must be served in prison
or jail.
As amended in Committee, this bill also would provide a
mechanism for CDCR to transfer low-risk inmates out of prison
and into jail during the last six months of their time in prison
in exchange for a jail felon who has more than 3 years remaining
on his or her felony sentence.
4. Felony Sentencing Under the Criminal Justice Realignment of
2011
The "2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety"
("criminal justice realignment") fundamentally altered how
convicted felons are handled under California law.<2> Under
California law operative until October 1, 2011, a felony was a
---------------------------
<2> AB 109 (Committee on Budget) (Ch. 15, Stats. 2011) is the
principal measure establishing the 2011 public safety
realignment. As noted at the beginning of this analysis,
several subsequent measures revised AB 109 and enacted
additional provisions relating to certain aspects of
realignment.
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageG
crime punishable by death or imprisonment in state prison.<3>
Effective October 1, 2011, criminal justice realignment
redefined the term "felony" to include crimes punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail, as specified, depending upon the
criminal history of the offender.<4>
As explained in a January 2012, article describing felony
sentencing after realignment:
With respect to felony sentencing, it appears the
intent of the realignment legislation is merely to
change the place where sentences for certain crimes
are to be served. The legislation has not changed the
basic rules regarding probation eligibility. Courts
retain the discretion to place people on probation,
unless otherwise specifically prohibited, under the
law that existed prior to the realignment legislation.
There is no intent to change the basic rules
regarding the structure of a felony sentence contained
in sections 1170 and 1170.1. Furthermore, there is no
change in the length of term or sentencing triad for
any crime. Realignment comes into play when the court
determines the defendant should not be granted
probation, either at the initial sentencing or as a
result of a probation violation.<5>
The confinement changes under criminal justice realignment -
---------------------------
<3> Penal Code § 17. This classification does not affect the
ability of the court to suspend execution of a felony sentence
and impose conditions of probation where allowable, supervised
and performed locally. (See Penal Code § 1203.1.) A
misdemeanor is a crime punishable by imprisonment by 6 months or
not more than one year. (Penal Code §§ 19 and 19.2.)
<4> Penal Code § 17.
<5> Felony Sentencing After Realignment, J. Richard Couzens,
Judge of the Superior Court, County of Placer (Ret.); Tricia A.
Bigelow, Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate
District, Div. 8, p. 3 (January 2012).
(http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/felony_sentencing.pd
f.)
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageH
that is, modifications to where felons serve their executed
felony sentences in custody, either in state prison or in local
facilities - apply to persons sentenced on or after October 1,
2011. These changes are not retroactive.<6>
Criminal justice realignment provides that numerous felonies are
punishable by a term of imprisonment in county jail - not prison
- unless the crime of conviction or a defendant's criminal
history makes the defendant ineligible for serving their felony
sentence in jail.<7> This change, contained in subdivision (h)
of Penal Code section 1170, applies only to criminal statutes
which have been expressly amended to provide for a felony jail
term where otherwise allowable.<8>
Certain felons are categorically prohibited from serving an
executed felony sentence in county jail. The following persons
are statutorily ineligible to serve any executed felony sentence
in county jail:
---------------------------
<6> Paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the
Penal Code states: "The sentencing changes made by the act that
added this subdivision shall be applied prospectively to any
person sentenced on or after October 1, 2011." With the
exception of the role of courts in adjudicating parole
violations, which starts on July 1, 2013, the major criminal law
provisions of realignment became operative on and after October
1, 2011.
<7> Just like the law prior to realignment about the length of
terms, if a term is not specified in the underlying offense the
crime shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment for 16
months, or two or three years and, for crimes where the
underlying criminal statute specifies the term, the felony shall
be punishable by imprisonment for the term described in the
underlying offense. (See Penal Code § 18 and Penal Code Section
1170(h). )
<8> This feature of criminal justice realignment - that its
newly-created felony jail sanction can be applied only to those
criminal statutes expressly amended to include a cross-reference
authorizing that sanction - largely accounts for the length of
AB 109 (663 pages).
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageI
The defendant has a prior or current felony conviction
for:
o a serious felony described in subdivision (c) of
Section 1192.7, or
o a violent felony described in subdivision (c) of
Section 667.5;
The defendant has a prior felony conviction in another
jurisdiction for an offense that has all the elements of a
serious or violent felony in California, as specified;
The defendant is required to register as a sex offender;
or
The defendant is convicted of a crime and as part of the
sentence receives an aggravated theft enhancement, as
specified.<9>
This bill would alter how felony sentencing is handled under
realignment by providing that felony sentences of an aggregate
term of more than 3 years must be served in state prison.
For convicted felony offenders subject to confinement in a
county jail, courts are authorized to impose the felony sentence
to commit a defendant to county jail as follows:
For a full term in custody as determined in accordance
with the applicable sentencing law.
For a term as determined in accordance with the
applicable sentencing law, but suspend execution of a
concluding portion of the term selected in the court's
discretion, during which time the defendant shall be
supervised by the county probation officer in accordance
with the terms, conditions, and procedures generally
applicable to persons placed on probation, for the
remaining unserved portion of the sentence imposed by the
court. The period of supervision shall be mandatory, and
may not be earlier terminated except by court order.
During the period when the defendant is under such
supervision, unless in actual custody related to the
sentence imposed by the court, the defendant shall be
--------------------------
<9> Penal Code § 1170(h) (3), as amended in Sections 450 and
451 of AB 109.
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageJ
entitled to only actual time credit against the term of
imprisonment imposed by the court.<10>
As noted by Judge Couzens and Justice Bigelow:
Sentences imposed under section 1170, subdivision
(h)(5)(B), have been characterized as "split" or
"blended" sentences because they have both custody and
non-custody elements. The length and circumstances of
the suspended term are within the court's discretion;
presumably the court could suspend all or only a
portion of the sentence. There are many sentencing
strategies available to the court, depending on the
defendant's circumstances, hopefully enlightened by a
current risk/needs assessment done by the probation
department. The following represent just a few of the
options available to the court:
The court could impose a term from the
triad, suspend a concluding portion of the term
and set conditions of supervision. Such an
alternative may be appropriate when the time in
custody will be relatively short such that the
case plan developed at sentencing will be
reasonably current when the defendant converts to
mandatory supervision.
The court could impose a term from the
triad, suspend a concluding portion of the term,
but reserve jurisdiction to set the conditions of
supervision shortly before the defendant is
released from custody. Such an alternative may
be appropriate when the court realizes that
supervision is necessary, but because of a
lengthy custody period may want to have a new
risk/needs assessment at the time the defendant
is ready to be released. Such a strategy will
account for the changing nature of defendant's
risk and will make the case plan more relevant to
---------------------
<10> Penal Code § 1170(h) (5).
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageK
defendant's actual circumstances at the time he
is ready for release.
The court could choose to impose a
sentence under the provisions of section 1170,
subdivision (h)(5)(B), but reserve jurisdiction
to set the actual time and conditions of release
at a later time. Such a strategy might be
appropriate where the court wants to give the
defendant encouragement to complete various
custody programs and do well in custody, then set
relevant terms when the court determines release
is appropriate.<11>
The Chief Probation Officers of California has compiled data
regarding sentencing decisions for felons sentenced under Penal
Code section 1170(h).<12> Their data indicates that between
October 2011 and September 2011, 7,006 felons sentenced under
section 1170(h) were given split sentences, and 22,021 were
given jail time only. Thus, only about 25 percent of jail
felony offenders received split sentences during the first year
of realignment.
Members may wish to discuss whether the use of split sentencing
matters in terms of the incidence of very long jail felony
sentences. Based on survey data provided by the California
State Sheriffs' Association, Los Angeles County reports that as
of February of this year, it had 389 inmates in its jails
sentenced to between 5 and 10 years, and another 20 sentenced to
more than 10 years. For the first year of realignment, only 5%
of jail felons in Los Angeles County were given split sentences.
Riverside County reports that in the same timeframe, it had 62
jail inmates sentenced to between 5 and 10 years, and 1 inmate
who was sentenced to more than 10 years in county jail. For the
first year of realignment, 67 percent of jail felons in
Riverside were given split sentences. Kern County saw 13
---------------------------
<11> Felony Sentencing After Realignment, supra fn.4, at p. 8.
<12>
http://www.cpoc.org/assets/Realignment/splitsentencedashboard.swf
.
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageL
percent of jail felons given split jail felony sentences in the
first year of realignment, and housed 54 inmates with sentences
for 5-10 years, and one sentenced to more than 10 years. With
24 percent split sentenced jail felony offenders, San Diego
reports 145 inmates with 5-10 year sentences, and 2 inmates
sentenced to more than 10 years. For the same period, Alameda
County reports that it has no inmates sentenced to more than 10
years, and 10 inmates with sentences ranging from 5 to 10 years.
Eight percent of Alameda's jail felons were given split
sentences in the first year of realignment. Contra Costa
County, which shows 86% of its jail felons receiving split
sentences, indicated in the CSSA survey that it has no inmates
with terms exceeding three years.<13>
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES (OR COULD) SPLIT SENTENCING USAGE AFFECT THE
INCIDENCE OF VERY LONG JAIL FELONY SENTENCES?
5. Reports of Very Long Jail Felony Sentences
Since the enactment of realignment in October of 2011, there
have been anecdotal and press reports of very long felony
---------------------------
<13> The survey notes that Contra Costa's longest inmate term
has been 3.2 years so far.
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageN
sentences required to be served in county jail.<14> In addition
to issues surrounding jail overcrowding, these reports accompany
emerging issues concerning the conditions of jails, and their
capacity to house and manage long term offenders. In a recent
editorial supporting the term-based limitation on jail felonies
proposed by this bill, the Press-Enterprise noted in part:
California needs a better solution to the state's
prison ills than merely shifting that mess onto county
government. But the lawsuits now hitting counties
over jail conditions offer an unpleasant echo of the
state's corrections travails. And the legal cases
offer yet more evidence that legislators need to
revamp the state's criminal justice realignment.
Riverside County this week became the latest target of
a class-action lawsuit over county jails. The
lawsuit, filed by attorneys on behalf of three
inmates, claims the county jails provide inadequate
mental and physical health care. The lawyers in the
case are the same ones who sued the state corrections
system, ultimately leading to a 2009 federal court
order to shrink the state prison population. Other
counties, including Fresno and Alameda, face similar
cases, with more lawsuits in other counties on the
way.
. . .
Counties face lawsuits primarily because county jails
were never intended for long-term incarceration, or
the health care, education and other services that
such confinement requires. Inmates with long
sentences also take up space counties need for other
offenders. Many counties already faced court-ordered
population caps even before the state pushed thousands
of felons into county jails. The jail space crunch
also hinders parole supervision, because incarceration
----------------------
<14> For example: "Javier Miranda was arrested last November
while driving a truck full of methamphetamine up Interstate 5.
After a short trial, he received an 18-year sentence - but he
won't go to prison. Instead, Miranda will serve his time in
county jail. The length of Miranda's sentence is an unusual
but not a unique result of prison "realignment." Counties
throughout California are now tasked with housing and
rehabilitating prisoners classified as non-serious, non-violent
and non-sexual, no matter the length of their sentence in their
jail. Before realignment, prisoners like Miranda would likely
have faced prison time. . . . There is a difference between
spending 18, seven or even two years in county jail as opposed
to prison. Jails often lack the necessary resources for longer
stays, such as medical care and other social services programs
that help rehabilitate prisoners. . . . Miranda is the first
person in Merced County to be handed such a long jail sentence.
Merced County Chief Deputy District Attorney Harold Nutt was
the prosecutor in Miranda's case and said the 18 years - four
years for the principal charge, 10 for weight of drugs he was
transporting (10 kilos), three years for a prior prison term for
a similar drug-related offense and one year for a prior prison
term - fit the crime. Realignment, he said, took away a
hammer that law enforcement once had to hold people accountable.
Prison, he said, used to be a real threat to individuals
looking to offend and re-offend. Without the option of prison,
county jails will increasingly have to bear the burden of long
sentences.
"This is highly unusual," he said of Miranda's 18 years in jail.
But, he added, "It wouldn't be inconceivable to sentence
someone to seven or eight years. Realignment changed the way
everybody looks at things." Merced is not the only county
that has seen jail sentences of longer than a year. The longest
in Contra Costa County so far is five years. In San Bernardino
the longest sentence was 10 years, and in Riverside, 14 years.
Santa Barbara County jail holds one inmate sentenced to 23
years. Long jail sentences have mostly been in Southern
California, said Pazin, who is also president of the California
Sheriff's Association. That area of the state also has the
largest population, he noted. How many years of their
sentence that these inmates will actually serve behind bars
depends on the respective county's resources and realignment
plan. Miranda is going to be in custody in Merced's jail for at
least two years, according to Antoinette Murillo, public
information officer for Merced County Corrections Department.
He'll spend another couple of years on electronic monitoring
before going under the supervision of probation, she said.
Miranda has a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement hold, she
noted, which also might affect what happens to him once he is
released from jail. Barely a year into realignment,
multi-year sentencing is an unintended consequence of reform,
Pazin said. He added that he and his colleagues hope to discuss
the possibility of a legislative remedy to the problem with Gov.
Jerry Brown in the future. In the meantime, he said, "We are
hoping that this won't become a trend." Realignment Results in
Lengthy Jail Sentences, M. Perez, California Health Report
(http://www.healthycal. org/archives/8196.)
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageO
is a hollow threat when jails have no room for parole
violators. . . .<15>
As discussed above, the California State Sheriffs' Association
conducted a survey regarding numbers of long-term offenders in
county jail. CSSA summarizes this data as follows:
Below is a short summary of the information collected
as of 2/25/13:
Number of county jail inmates sentenced 5-10
years = 1109
Number of county jail inmates sentenced to over
10 years = 44
Most common crimes for those sentenced to 5-10
years = vehicle theft, drug trafficking, receiving
stolen property, identity theft, commercial
burglary.
Largest number of crimes for over 10 years =
drug trafficking. However, over 10 years is not
exclusively drug trafficking. For example, Solano
County sentenced someone for multiple thefts w/
theft priors for 10.5 years and Riverside County
sentenced someone for 12 years, 8 months for
multiple counts of felony child abuse (PC 273d).
Longest sentence = 43 years (Los Angeles)
Breakdown in Los Angeles - 92% sentenced to
3-years or less. 2% sentenced to more than 5 years.
Survey data is from 52 counties.
In the last five years the state has provided significant
support to counties seeking to improve their jail conditions and
capacity. The Legislative Analyst's Office ("LAO") provided an
update on this funding in its February 2013 analysis of the
Governor's criminal justice proposals, including the following:
---------------------------
<15> Press-Enterprise Editorial: State needs to revamp prison
realignment (March 23, 2012), http://www.pe.com/ opinion
/editorials-headlines/20130323-editorial-state-needs-to-revamp-pr
ison-realignment.ece
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageP
Since 2007, the Legislature has approved two measures
authorizing a total of $1.7 billion in lease-revenue
bonds to fund the construction and modification of
county jails. Assembly Bill 900 provided $1.2 billion
to help counties address jail overcrowding. Chapter
42, Statutes of 2012 (SB 1022, Committee on Budget and
Fiscal Review), authorized an additional $500 million
to help counties construct and modify jails to
accommodate longer-term inmates who would be shifted
to county responsibility under the 2011 realignment of
lower-level offenders.<16>
SB 1022, last year's measure which included $500 million in
lease-revenue bonds for county jails, including the following
legislative intent language:
In support of this state financing, the Legislature
finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The county adult criminal justice system needs
more housing, program, and treatment space to manage
the adult offender population under its jurisdiction.
(b) Appropriate county adult criminal justice housing,
program, and treatment space will enhance public
safety throughout the state by providing increased
access to appropriate programs or treatment.
(c) By expanding county adult criminal justice
capacity, this financing will serve a critical state
purpose by promoting public safety.
(More)
----------------------
<16> Legislative Analyst's Office, The 2013-14 Budget:
Governor's Criminal Justice Proposals 9Feb. 15, 2013;
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2013/crim_justice/criminal-justice
-proposals/criminal-justice-proposals-021513.aspx
(d) This purpose represents valuable consideration in
exchange for this state action.<17>
This legislation also included statutory guidance for funding
consideration which reflects an understanding of the need for
local custodial space which can provide treatment,
rehabilitation and mental health services:
Funding consideration shall be given to counties that
are seeking to replace existing compacted, outdated,
or unsafe housing capacity or are seeking to renovate
existing or build new facilities that provide adequate
space for the provision of treatment and
rehabilitation services, including mental health
treatment.<18>
In addition to these state bonds, as part of realignment the
state shifted certain revenues to local governments. As
explained by the LAO:
. . . (T)he 2011-12 budget package included statutory
changes to realign several criminal justice and other
programs from state responsibility to local
governments, primarily counties. Along with the
shift-or realignment-of programs, state law realigned
revenues to locals. Specifically, current law shifts
a share of the state sales tax, as well as Vehicle
License Fee revenue, to local governments. The
passage of Proposition 30 by voters in November 2012,
among other changes, guaranteed these revenues to
local governments in the future. The Governor's
budget includes an estimate of revenues projected to
go to local governments over the next few years.
These estimates are generally in line with prior
estimates. . . . (T)otal funding for the criminal
justice programs realigned is expected to increase
from $1.4 billion in 2011-12 to $2.2 billion in
----------------------
----------------------
<17> SB 1022, Ch. 42, Stats. 2012.
<18> Id., Government Code § 15820.926.
(More)
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageR
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageS
2013-14.<19>
This bill does not make any changes to the funding realigned
pursuant to realignment and guaranteed to local governments by
Proposition 30. Members may wish to discuss the fiscal
implications of "re-realigning" some of the felon population now
subject to incarceration at the local level back to the state
without a readjustment to the revenue shifts that were part of
realignment.
SHOULD JAIL FELONIES BE LIMITED TO SENTENCING TERMS THAT ARE
LESS THAN THREE YEARS IN THE AGGREGATE?
SHOULD SOME OF THE FELONS REALIGNED UNDER AB 109 BE
"RE-REALIGNED" BACK TO THE STATE?
SHOULD REALIGNED FELONS BE "RE-REALIGNED" TO THE STATE WITHOUT
AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE FUNDING REALIGNED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS?
HOW WOULD THE AUTHOR'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AFFECT THESE ISSUES?
6. Prison Population Considerations
This bill would result in more felons serving their custodial
time in prison. Committee staff is unaware of data estimating
the impact of this particular bill on the prison population and
the state's ability to make progress on meeting the reductions
ordered by the court in Plata. The overall estimated impact of
realignment on the state's prison population is noted in a
Legislative Analyst's Office's February 2013 analysis of the
Governor's budget proposals:
The average daily prison population is projected to be
about 129,000 inmates
in 2013-14, a decline of roughly 3,600 inmates (3
percent) from the estimated current-year level. This
decline is largely due to the 2011 realignment of
lower-level felons from state to local responsibility.
Although decreasing, the projected
----------------------
<19> See footnote 16, supra.
SB 225 (Emmerson)
PageT
inmate population for 2013-14 is still about 3,200
inmates higher than was projected by CDCR in spring
2012. According to the department, this is due in
part to higher-than-expected admissions to state
prison.<20>
TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD THIS BILL IMPACT THE PRISON POPULATION?
TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD THIS BILL IMPACT THE FEDERAL COURT ORDER
PERTAINING TO THE PRISON POPULATION?
TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD THIS BILL ERODE REALIGNMENT?
TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD THE AUTHOR'S AMENDMENTS PROVIDING FOR
LOW-RISK PRISON INMATES TO BE TRANSFERRED TO LOCAL CUSTODY FOR
THE LAST 6 MONTHS OF THEIR PRISON TERM IN EXCHANGE FOR A JAIL
FELON WITH 3 OR MORE YEARS LEFT ON A JAIL FELONY TERM MITIGATE
THE POTENTIAL PRISON POPULATION ISSUES PRESENTED BY THIS BILL?
***************
---------------------------
<20> Id.