BILL ANALYSIS Ó
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 -