BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                             Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:    AB 231        Hearing Date:    June 9, 2015    
          
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Eggman                                               |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |May 26, 2015                                         |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|AA                                                   |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                Subject:  Stalking:  Placement at Release From Prison



          HISTORY

          Source:   Chief Probation Officers of California

          Prior Legislation:None

          Support:  California Communities United Institute; California  
                    District Attorneys Association; California Probation,  
                    Parole and Correctional Association; California    
                    State Sheriffs' Association; Crime Victims United of  
                    California 

          Opposition:None Known

          Assembly Floor Vote:                 77 - 0


          

          PURPOSE

          The purpose of this bill is to require that an inmate who is  
          released on postrelease community supervision for a stalking  
          offense not be returned to a location within 35 miles of the  
          victim's actual residence or place of employment, if specified  







          AB 231  (Eggman )                                          Page  
          2 of ?
          
          
          criteria are satisfied.  

          Existing law requires that, subject to specified exceptions, an  
          inmate who is released on parole shall be returned to the county  
          that was the last legal residence of the inmate prior to his or  
          her incarceration.  (Pen. Code,  3003, subd. (a).)  

          Existing law states that an inmate who is released on parole  
          shall not be returned to a location within 35 miles of the  
          actual residence of a victim of, or a witness to, specified  
          violent felonies or a felony in which the defendant inflicts  
          great bodily injury on any person, if the victim or witness has  
          requested additional distance in the placement of the inmate on  
          parole, and if Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) or the Department  
          of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") finds that there is a  
          need to protect the life, safety, or well-being of a victim or  
          witness.  (Pen. Code,  3003, subd. (f).)

          Existing law provides that an inmate who is released on parole  
          for a violation of lewd and lascivious acts or continuous sexual  
          abuse of a child, whom the CDCR determines poses a high risk to  
          the public, shall not be placed or reside, for the duration of  
          his or her parole, within one-half mile of any public or private  
          school.  (Pen. Code,  3003, subd. (g).)

          Existing law requires that an inmate who is released on parole  
          for an offense involving stalking shall not be returned to a  
          location within 35 miles of the victim's actual residence or  
          place of employment if the victim or witness has requested  
          additional distance in the placement of the inmate on parole,  
          and if the BPH or the CDCR finds that there is a need to protect  
          the life, safety, or wellbeing of the victim.  (Pen. Code,   
          3003, subd. (h).)

          Existing law provides an exception allowing an inmate may be  
          returned to another county if that would be in the best  
          interests of the public.  If BPH or CDCR decides on a return to  
          another county, it shall place its reasons in writing in the  
          parolee's permanent record.  In making its decision, the  
          paroling authority shall consider, among others, the following  
          factors, giving the greatest weight to the protection of the  
          victim and the safety of the community:

                a)      The need to protect the life or safety of a  








          AB 231  (Eggman )                                          Page  
          3 of ?
          
          
                  victim, the parolee, a witness, or any other  person;
                b)      Public concern that would reduce the chance that  
                  the inmate's parole would be successfully completed;
                c)      The verified existence of a work offer, or an  
                  educational or vocational training program;
                d)      The existence of family in another county with  
                  whom the inmate has maintained strong ties and whose  
                  support would increase the chance that the inmate's  
                  parole would be successfully completed; or
                e)      The lack of necessary outpatient treatment  
                  programs for parolees receiving treatment as mentally  
                  disordered offenders.  (Pen. Code,  3003, subd.  
                  (b)(1)-(5).)
           
          Existing law 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, as  
                  specified;
                b)      A person who committed a violent felony, as  
                  specified; 
                c)      A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
                d)      A high risk sex offender; 
                e)      A mentally disordered offender (MDO);
                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.  (Pen. Code,  3000.08, subds. (a) &  
                  (c).)

          Existing law 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.   
          (Pen Code  3000.08, subd. (b).)
           
          This bill provides that an inmate who is released from prison on  
          postrelease community supervision for a stalking offense shall  
          not be returned to a location within 35 miles of the victim's  
          actual residence or place of employment if the victim has  
          requested additional distance in the placement of the inmate.








          AB 231  (Eggman )                                          Page  
          4 of ?
          
          

          This bill states that if an inmate who is released on  
          postrelease community supervision in his or her county of last  
          legal residence in compliance with the victim's request for  
          additional distance in the placement, the supervising county  
          agency may transfer the inmate to another county upon approval  
          of the receiving county.

          This bill makes other conforming changes.

                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

          For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized  
          legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential  
          impact on prison overcrowding.  Mindful of the United States  
          Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the  
          state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care  
          to its inmate population and the related issue of prison  
          overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a  
          content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that  
          the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison  
          overcrowding.   

          On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to  
          reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of  
          design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:   

                 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. 

          In February of this year the administration reported that as "of  
          February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34  
          adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed  
          capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state  
          facilities.  This current population is now below the  
          court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(  
          Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February  
          10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman  
          v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

          While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison  
          population, the state now must stabilize these advances and  
          demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place  








          AB 231  (Eggman )                                          Page  
          5 of ?
          
          
          the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently  
          demanded" by the court.  (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and  
          Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December  
          31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,  
          Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14).  The Committee's  
          consideration of bills that may impact the prison population  
          therefore will be informed by the following questions:

                 Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has  
               contributed to reducing the prison population;
                 Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public  
               safety or criminal activity for which there is no other  
               reasonable, appropriate remedy;
                 Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly  
               dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there  
               is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; 
                 Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or  
               legislative drafting error; and
                 Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are  
               proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other  
               reasonably appropriate remedy.




          



          COMMENTS

          1.Stated Need for This Bill

          The author states:

               Under AB 109 (Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011),  
               those convicted of felony stalking, under Penal Code  
               646.9, may be sentenced to a term in state prison.  
               Currently, offenders who are paroled from state prison  
               can be prohibited from moving within 35 miles of the  
               victim's home or place of employment. The same is not  
               true for offenders who have been released and placed  
               under Post-Release Community Supervision.









          AB 231  (Eggman )                                          Page  
          6 of ?
          
          
               This is because existing law, Penal Code 3003, applies  
               only to offenders released to parole supervision by  
               the California Department of Corrections and  
               Rehabilitation.  As a result, Penal Code 3003 does not  
               expressly authorize county probation to make the same  
               prohibitions to protect the life, safety, or  
               well-being of the victim.

          2.Background

          As explained above, this bill revises existing parole  
          siting limitations to include persons released from prison  
          for the crime of stalking who will be supervised by  
          probation pursuant to the provisions of post release  
          community supervision enacted by the public safety  
          realignment of 2011.          
                                      -- END -