BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
1
1
SB 1110 (Jackson) 0
As Amended April 22, 2014
Hearing date: April 29, 2014
Penal Code
MK:mc
ARRAIGNMENT:
MILITARY AND VETERAN STATUS: FORMS
HISTORY
Source: AMVETS, Department of California; Vietnam Vets of
America
Prior Legislation: None
Support: American Legion-Department of California; California
Association of County Veterans Service Officers;
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Public Defenders Association; Taxpayers for Improving
Public Safety; Veterans Caucus of the California
Democratic Party; Veterans of Foreign Wars-Department
of California
Opposition:None
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD MILITARY VETERANS BE IDENTIFIED AT ARRAIGNMENT?
(More)
SB 1110 (Jackson)
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to have courts identify a defendant
as an active duty member or veteran of the military at
arraignment.
Existing law allows a combat veteran who is eligible for
probation for a crime he or she has committed to be ordered to
the appropriate treatment program when the court finds that he
or she committed the offense as a result of sexual trauma,
traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder,
substance abuse or mental health problems stemming from service
in the United States Military. (Penal Code § 1170.9.)
Existing law provides that when a defendant is brought before
the magistrate upon an arrest, either with or without warrant,
on a charge of having committed a public offense, the magistrate
must immediately inform him of the charge against him and of his
right to the aid of counsel in every stage of the proceedings.
(Penal Code § 858.)
This bill provides that at the arraignment, if the defendant is
represented, the magistrate shall also inquire as to the
defendant's active duty or veteran status in the United States
military; the defendant may decline to provide such information
for privacy reasons without penalty. If the defendant
acknowledges military service, Judicial Council Form MIL-100
shall be filed and served on defense counsel and the prosecuting
attorney for future reference related to the provisions of Penal
Code section 1170.9. A copy of the Form MIL-100 shall be
transmitted to the county Veterans Services Officers for
confirmation of military service.
This bill provides that if the defendant appears without
counsel, the magistrate shall not make an inquiry into the
(More)
SB 1110 (Jackson)
Page 3
defendant's current or past military status. The court shall
advise the defendant that certain current or former members of
the United States military who meet certain qualifications are
eligible for specific forms of restorative relief under the
Penal Code.
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 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
(More)
SB 1110 (Jackson)
Page 4
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
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
(More)
SB 1110 (Jackson)
Page 5
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 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
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)
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
According to a 2014 report of the San Diego Veterans
Treatment Review Court Pilot Program, most veterans
that become involved in the criminal justice system are
not being identified as veterans, and most veterans
suffer more than one post-deployment conviction before
they have a case in which they are identified as a
military veteran.
SB 1110 would save taxpayer money, prevent crime and
unnecessary incarceration, and ensure that defendants'
underlying conditions are addressed by ensuring that
those who are eligible under Penal Code 1170.9 and
their attorneys are aware of their eligibility.
SB 1110 requires that whenever a defendant is
arraigned, then an inquiry is made into their military
or veteran status, and that defense and prosecuting
attorneys are notified of this status.
Disclosure of this status by the defendant would be
voluntary.
2. Identifying Veterans
This bill would require the judge at arraignment to inquire as
to whether defendant is active duty military or a veteran. If
the person acknowledges military service, then a Judicial
Council form shall be filed by the defendant and served on the
prosecuting attorney. The form shall also be sent to the county
veterans' service officer. The intent is to identify veterans
early so the court can determine if it is appropriate to refer
them to services as a condition of probation under Penal Code
section 1170.9 and to make county veterans services aware of
(More)
SB 1110 (Jackson)
Page 7
their need for services. The bill explicitly states that the
defendant may decline to provide military service information.
If a
defendant is not represented, the judge shall not inquire about
his or her military status and instead should advise the
defendant that certain current or former members of the military
who meet certain qualifications are eligible for specific forms
of restorative relief.
3. Reference to Specific Judicial Council Form
This bill refers specifically to Judicial Council Form MIL-100.
Since form numbers can change as things are revised over the
years, it is probably more appropriate to refer to the
appropriate Judicial Council form instead of a specific form.
***************