BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 267 Hearing Date: June 16, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Jones-Sawyer |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 16, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|LT |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Criminal Procedure: Disclosure: Felony Conviction
Consequences
HISTORY
Source: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Prior Legislation:AB 142 (Fuentes) - 2011, vetoed
AB 15 (Fuentes) - 2009, vetoed
AB 806 (Fuentes) - 2010, vetoed
Support: American Civil Liberties Union; California Rifle and
Pistol Association; Center on Juvenile and Criminal
Justice; Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Legal
Services for Prisoners with Children
Opposition:California Judges Association; Judicial Council of
California
Assembly Floor Vote: 57 - 21
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require the court, prior to
acceptance of a guilty plea to a felony offense, to inform the
AB 267 (Jones-Sawyer ) Page
2 of ?
defendant of the various consequences that may result from a
felony conviction.
Existing law requires, prior to acceptance of a plea of guilty
or nolo contendere to any offense punishable as a crime under
state law, the court shall administer the following advisement
on the record to the defendant: "[i]f you are not a citizen, you
are hereby advised that the conviction of the offense for which
you have been charged may have the consequences of deportation,
exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of
naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States. (Penal
Code § 1016.5 (a).)
Existing law states that upon request, the court shall allow the
defendant additional time to consider the appropriateness of the
plea in light of the advisement as described in this section.
(Penal Code § 1016.5 (b).)
Existing law provides if the court fails to advise the defendant
as required by this section and the defendant shows that
conviction of the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty or
nolo contendere may have the consequences for the defendant of
deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States or
denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United
States, the court, on defendant's motion, shall vacate the
judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea of guilty
or nolo contendere, and enter a plea of not guilty. (Penal Code
§ 1016.5 (b).)
Existing law states that absent a record that the court provided
the advisement required by this section, the defendant shall be
presumed not to have received the required advisement. (Penal
Code § 1016.5 (b).)
Existing law provides that with respect to pleas entered prior
to January 1, 1978, it is not the intent of the Legislature that
a court's failure to provide the required advisement should
require the vacation of judgment and withdrawal of the plea or
constitute grounds for finding a prior conviction invalid.
(Penal Code § 1016.5 (c).)
Existing law finds and declares that in many instances involving
an individual who is not a citizen of the United States charged
with an offense punishable as a crime under state law, a plea of
AB 267 (Jones-Sawyer ) Page
3 of ?
guilty or nolo contendere is entered without the defendant
knowing that a conviction of such offense is grounds for
deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or
denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United
States. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature in
enacting this section to promote fairness to such accused
individuals by requiring in such cases that acceptance of a
guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere be preceded by an
appropriate warning of the special consequences for such a
defendant which may result from a plea. It is also the intent of
the Legislature that the court in such cases shall grant the
defendant a reasonable amount of time to negotiate with the
prosecuting agency in the event the defendant or the defendant's
counsel was unaware of the possibility of deportation, exclusion
from admission to the United States or denial of naturalization
as a result of conviction. It is further the intent of the
Legislature that at the time of the plea no defendant shall be
required to disclose his or her legal status to the court.
(Penal Code § 1016.5 (d).)
This bill requires the court to "inform the defendant that a
conviction for a felony offense may result in various
consequences to the defendant, including, but not limited to,
the following:
Experiencing difficulty in obtaining employment
generally, and prohibited from employment in certain jobs;
The loss of voting rights while incarcerated and during
parole;
Ineligibility for enlisting in the military;
The loss of certain professional licenses, or the loss
of the ability to obtain certain professional licensees;
Ineligibility for serving on a jury;
Ineligibility to own or possess a firearm;
Ineligibility for federal health care programs if the
felony is related to fraud involving a federal program,
patient abuse, or drugs;
Loss of federal financial aid if the felony aid if the
felony was committed while the defendant was receiving
financial aid;
Ineligibility for federal cash assistance if the felony
is drug-related;
Restrictions on receiving Supplemental Security Income;
and,
AB 267 (Jones-Sawyer ) Page
4 of ?
Potential diminished parental and child custody rights."
This bill will not be retroactive, or constitute grounds for
finding a prior conviction invalid prior to January 1, 2016.
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
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,
AB 267 (Jones-Sawyer ) Page
5 of ?
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 Legislation
According to the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice:
Many CJCJ clients have accepted plea deals without
being informed of the serious consequences of felony
convictions-consequences they will live with for the
rest of their lives. These records make it difficult
for our clients and other justice-involved to
integrate successfully into the community; they
struggle to find jobs and housing simply due to their
felony convictions, regardless of their efforts and
motivation to lead productive and law-abiding lives.
AB 267 (Jones-Sawyer ) Page
6 of ?
Moreover, these convictions make people ineligible for
many professional licenses, for citizenship, or for
serving in the military or on a jury.
California has one of the highest recidivism rates in
the nation. Removing or limiting the barriers to
successful reentry is the key to both lowering
recidivism rates and helping formerly incarcerated
people like our clients reintegrate into society. By
informing defendants of the consequences of accepting
a plea and a felony conviction, defendants will make
more informed decisions about their future.
2. Effect of This Legislation
Under current law, prior to any offense, the court shall inform
defendants that if not a citizen, the defendant may face
consequences including deportation, exclusion from admission to
the United States, or denial of naturalization. This bill will
require the court to inform defendants of additional
consequences associated with a felony conviction before the
defendant accepts a plea of guilty to a felony including, but
not limited to, the points articulated in this bill. This bill
would be prospective following January 1, 2016.
3. Argument in Opposition
The California Judges Association states in part:
AB 267 requires the court to advise the defendant when
he or she first appears for felony arraignment that
accepting a plea or suffering a conviction for a
felony may result in specified consequences. Before a
court may accept a plea of guilty or no contest, the
defendant must be advised of the direct consequences
of such a plea.
The court need not advise the defendant of the
collateral consequences, defined as those that do not
inexorably flow from a conviction. For example, it is
unnecessary to state that a guilty plea may be used in
a future federal prosecution or as the basis for
confinement under the sexually violent predator
act?Further, even moving the proposed advisements to
AB 267 (Jones-Sawyer ) Page
7 of ?
the time of plea rather than arraignment if that were
contemplated, would result in additional court time
and delays.
-- END -