BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 249 Hearing Date: June 9, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Obernolte |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 13, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Criminal Courts: Appeals: Fees
HISTORY
Source: Judicial Council
Prior Legislation: AB 354 (Rogan), Chapter 18, Statutes of 1995
Support: California District Attorneys Association; California
Judges Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require a defendant to make a
motion in the trial court before filing an appellate brief
alleging only errors in the imposition or calculation of fines,
fees, and assessments.
Existing law provides that either party in a felony case may
appeal on questions of law alone. (Penal Code, § 1235.)
AB 249 (Obernolte ) Page
2 of ?
Existing law allows a defendant to appeal a final judgment of
conviction, subject to a few limitations, and from any order
made after judgment affecting the defendant's substantial
rights. (Penal Code, § 1237.)
Existing law defines a "final judgment" for purposes of appeal
as "[a] sentence, an order granting probation, or the commitment
of the defendant for insanity, the indeterminate commitment of a
defendant as a mentally disordered sex offender, or the
commitment of a defendant for controlled substance addiction."
(Penal Code, §1237 (a).)
Existing law provides that a defendant cannot appeal from a
judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the
calculation of presentence custody credits, unless the defendant
first presents the claim in the trial court at the time of
sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until after
sentencing, the defendant first makes a motion for correction of
the record in the trial court. (Penal Code § 1237.1.)
Existing law limits the issues a defendant can appeal in a
guilty plea case, unless he or she obtains a certificate of
probable cause. (Penal Code § 1237.5.)
Existing law allows the prosecution to appeal certain specified
orders, such as a motion to dismiss, and order granting a new
trial, and an unauthorized sentence. (Penal Code § 1238.)
This bill provides that an appeal may not be taken solely on the
ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines,
penalty assessments, surcharge, fees or costs unless the
defendant first presents the claim in the trial court at the
time of sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until
after sentencing, the defendant first makes a motion for
correction in the trial court, which may be informally in
writing.
This bill provides that the trial court retains jurisdiction
AB 249 (Obernolte ) Page
3 of ?
after a notice of appeal has been filed to correct any error in
the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments,
surcharges, fees or costs upon the defendant's request for
correction.
This bill clarifies that a request to correct presentence
custody credits in the trial court may be made informally in
writing.
This bill provides that the trial court retains jurisdiction
after a notice of appeal has been filed to correct any error in
the calculation of presentence custody credits upon the
defendant's request for correction.
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).
AB 249 (Obernolte ) Page
4 of ?
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
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. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
The statutory scheme that governs the calculation of
fines and other monetary penalties in California
criminal cases is vast, complex, and frequently
modified by the Legislature. As a result, appellate
courts are often called upon to correct the erroneous
calculation of fines and other monetary penalties on
appeal.
When a calculation error is the sole issue on appeal,
trial and appellate courts incur significant costs and
burdens associated with preparation of the formal
AB 249 (Obernolte ) Page
5 of ?
record on appeal and resulting in resentencing
proceedings.
2. Appeal For an Error in Fines
Existing law provides that if a defendant is appealing the
calculation of presentence credits, he or she must first make a
formal request to the trial court before bringing the issue to
the appellate court.
As was the case with the calculation of presentence custody
credits, appellate courts are often called upon to correct
sentences that contain errors in fines and penalty assessments.
(People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 939.) Appellate
courts have voiced frustration about correcting these errors
which can easily be resolved by the trial court. (Id.) This
bill requires that criminal defendants resolve issues regarding
fines, fees, and assessments in the trial court before raising
them in the Court of Appeal. The sponsor, Judicial Council
believes that"
AB 249 brings efficiencies to the court by reducing the
burdens associated with formal appeals and resentencing
proceedings stemming from a common sentencing error.
By requiring that this sentencing error be first raised
in the trial court, which has ready access to the court
records and other information necessary to review and
resolve such issues, this bill would promote judicial
economies and efficiencies by avoiding the costs and
burdens associated with a formal appeal.
3. Formal Motion vs. Informal Written Request
In People v. Clavel (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 516, 519, the Court
of Appeal dismissed an appeal because the sole issue raised was
whether the trial court had miscalculated the credits and no
formal motion had been filed. In Clavel, appellate counsel had
filed an informal request for correction of credits before
raising the issue on appeal, but the trial court failed to act
on the request. (Id. at p. 518.) Because section 1237.1
requires the defendant to "make a motion" in the trial court, an
informal request is not a motion, and an appeal raising a
credits issue without such a motion is subject to dismissal.
While the Clavel court expressly condoned the informal procedure
AB 249 (Obernolte ) Page
6 of ?
to the extent that it gets the desired result, it held that if
no action is taken by the superior court, counsel must proceed
to make a formal motion. (Id. at p. 519.) This bill specifies
that as to "motions" to correct either presentence credits or
errors in the imposition or calculation of fines and fees, the
requests may be made informally in writing.
4. Jurisdiction
As a general rule a trial court loses jurisdiction to vacate its
own judgment once a party files a notice of appeal, thus
shifting jurisdiction over the case to the Court of Appeal.
(People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1472.) The
appellate court maintains jurisdiction of the case until the
appeal is determined and the remittitur has issued. The purpose
of this rule "'is to protect the appellate court's jurisdiction
by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. The
rule prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by
altering the appealed judgment.'" (Ibid., quoting Townsel v.
Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1084, 1089.") There are,
however, a few exceptions to the rule removing subject matter
jurisdiction from the trial court. First, after the notice of
appeal is filed, the trial court retains jurisdiction to correct
clerical errors, but not judicial errors. A clerical error is
one that is made in recording the judgment, whereas a judicial
error is one made in rendering the judgment. (People v. Mitchell
(2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185; In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d
702, 705.) Additionally, the trial court may recall the
sentence for 120 days under Penal Code section 1170 subdivision
(d), if the recall is only for reasons rationally related to
sentencing. (Portillo v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th
1829, 1834-1836.) The trial court also has jurisdiction to
vacate a void --but not voidable-- judgment, such as an
unauthorized sentence. A judgment is void, rather than
voidable, only if the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. (People v. Malveaux (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1425,
1434.) This bill would require alleged errors regarding the
imposition of fine, fees, and assessments to be raised in the
trial court, rather than the appellate court, when there are no
other issues to be raised on appeal. While some issues
involving fines and fees may involve clerical changes or
unauthorized sentences, others will not. The latter would fall
outside the scope of the trial court's jurisdiction. However,
the Legislature may regulate the mode of exercising appellate
AB 249 (Obernolte ) Page
7 of ?
jurisdiction. (See e.g., Powers v. City of Richmond (1995) 10
Cal.4th 85.)
This bill clarifies that the trial court retains jurisdiction to
correct any error in the calculation of presentence credits or
the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments,
surcharges, fees or costs upon the defendant's request for
corrections.
--END--