BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
2
2
SB 1222 (Block) 2
As Introduced February 20, 2014
Hearing date: April 29, 2014
Penal Code
MK:mc
DISMISSAL: CRIMINAL ACTION
HISTORY
Source: Judicial Council
Prior Legislation: AB 1808 (Wayne) - Ch. 689, Stats. 2000
Support: Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Opposition:California District Attorneys Association; California
State Sheriffs' Association
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW PERMIT THE REASON FOR A DISMISSAL TO BE STATED EITHER
IN AN ORDER ENTERED UPON THE MINUTES OR ON THE RECORD?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow a judge to state the
reasons for a dismissal on the record.
Existing law provides that the judge or magistrate may, either
of his or her own motion or upon the application of the
(More)
SB 1222 (Block)
Page 2
prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an
action to be dismissed. The reasons for dismissal must be set
forth in an order entered upon the minutes. (Penal Code §
1385.)
This bill provides that the reasons for a dismissal under Penal
Code Section 1385 shall be stated on the record or set forth in
an order entered upon the minutes.
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
(More)
SB 1222 (Block)
Page 3
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
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.
(More)
SB 1222 (Block)
Page 4
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 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.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
(More)
SB 1222 (Block)
Page 5
Current law authorizes trial courts to dismiss cases in
the interest of justice and requires that the reasons
for dismissal be set forth only in the minutes of the
court proceeding. Statute does not authorize the court
to enter the reasons for dismissal on the record.
Relying only on the minutes is problematic and has
resulted in unnecessary automatic reversals when courts
do not enter the dismissals in the minutes, even though
they state the reasons on the record. Minutes are
typically a brief summary of a clerk's interpretation
of what was actually stated by the court, which raises
concerns about accuracy and lack of thorough
explanation. Prosecutors often times do not rely
exclusively on the minutes to determine the reasons for
a dismissal; instead, they typically review transcripts
and case files for notes that explain the reasons.
The requirement to state the reasons serves two main
purposes, to promote judicial accountability by
requiring courts to explain why such a power was
exercised and to facilitate appellate review of the
reasons for dismissal. However, due to the lack of
flexibility to the courts, this mandate has led to
costly and extraneous proceedings.
Recent cuts to the judiciary have forced our courts to
come up with efficiencies that will save time, money,
and resources while preserving justice. SB 1222 is a
smart and efficient proposal that accomplishes both of
these goals.
2. Record and Minutes
A court record is defined as:
Any document, paper, or exhibit filed by the parties to
an action or proceeding; any order or judgment of the
court; and any item listed in Government Code section
(More)
SB 1222 (Block)
Page 6
68151(a), excluding any reporter's transcript for which
the reporter is entitled to receive a fee for any copy.
The term does not include the personal notes or
preliminary memoranda of judges or other judicial
branch personnel. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.502.)
(Judicial Council of California, Trial Courts Record
Manual p. 6, Revised January 1, 2014.)
The minutes are defined as:
The official (permanent) record of a court proceeding,
that tells things like what witnesses appeared, what
motions were made, and what findings were reached.
(See also transcript .) (California Courts Self-Help
Glossary
http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-glossary.htm#m)
3. Reason for Dismissal on Record
Existing law requires a judge to put the reasons for a dismissal
of a criminal case in an order entered in the minutes. Failure
for a court to comply with this requirement could result in
either party seeking a reversal of the dismissal. This bill
would in the alternative allow a judge to state the reasons on
the record.
The sponsor, Judicial Council, argues that allowing the court to
enter the reasons for dismissal on the record would promote
judicial accountability by requiring the court to explain the
reasons for dismissal in more detail and to facilitate appellate
review as to the reason for the dismissal. Judicial Council
further states:
Stating reasons for dismissal either on the record is
(More)
SB 1222 (Block)
Page 7
effective because, as a practical matter, there are
often multiple reasons not easily summarized in the
minutes. Minutes are typically a brief summary of a
clerk's interpretation of what was actually stated by
the court, which raises concerns about accuracy and
lack of thorough explanation. Prosecutors seldom rely
exclusively on the minutes to determine the reasons for
a past dismissal, and instead typically review
transcripts and case files for notes and that explain
the reasons.
WILL ALLOWING THE REASON FOR DISMISSAL TO BE STATED ON THE
RECORD PROVIDE FOR COURT EFFICIENCY?
4. Opposition
The opposition is concerned about the ability to access the
record at a later date either because transcripts are not
routinely transcribed or because there is no transcription of an
oral record.
The California District Attorneys Association states:
(More)
The existing requirement that reasons for dismissal be
set forth in the minutes ensures that there is always a
written record of those reasons, which is readily
available to parties who may need to access that
information in a future hearing. Not all courts are
able to provide a court reporter in all proceedings,
leaving no transcription of the oral record, which
creates problems when parties later attempt to
determine why a particular criminal proceeding was
dismissed.
The change sought by SB 1222 would give the court the
sole discretion to decide whether to state the reasons
for dismissal on the record, or in the minute order,
regardless of whether a court reporter is available to
provide a transcript. There is nothing in the language
of the bill that would give the prosecution or the
defense an opportunity to object to the court's
decision or where the reasons for dismissal must be
stated forth.
The California State Sheriffs' Association opposes this bill
stating:
Under current law, the reasons for such a dismissal
must be set forth in the minute order. Though courts
may view allowing reasons to be stated on the record as
efficiency, allowing this option will create
operational concerns for other entities that utilize
court documents.
For example, sheriffs have been sued for wrongful
arrest and incarceration by defendants who agreed to a
plea bargain that ended up significantly reducing the
charges faced by the defendant. Without the minute
order instructing the court as to the nature of
dismissals, the sheriff being sued would have had to
try to access the court record, which is not always
transcribed as a matter of course. The efficiency
gained by this change is unclear, but the impact will
(More)
SB 1222 (Block)
Page 9
certainly be felt by other uses of court documents.
ARE TRANSCRIPTS ALWAYS READILY AVAILABLE IF THERE IS A NEED TO
DETERMINE THE REASONS FOR THE DISMISSAL?
***************