BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 673
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015
Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
AB
673 (Santiago) - As Introduced February 25, 2015
SUMMARY: Establishes procedures for the payment and collection
of fines, fees, and restitution if a person is released on
probation or mandatory supervision, and the jurisdiction of the
case is transferred to the superior court of another county.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the receiving court, when probation or mandatory
supervision is transferred to the superior court in another
county, to accept the entire jurisdiction over the case
effective the date that the transferring court orders the
transfer.
2)Provides that, notwithstanding, the fact that jurisdiction
over the case transfers to the receiving court effective the
date that the transferring court orders the transfer, if the
transferring court has ordered the defendant to pay fines,
fees, or restitution, the transfer order shall require that
those and any other collections ordered by the transferring
court be paid by the defendant to the collection agency for
the transferring court for proper distribution and accounting.
3)States that the receiving court and receiving county probation
AB 673
Page 2
department may amend financial orders and add additional local
fees as authorized, and shall notify the responsible
collection agency of those changes.
4)Provides that any local fees imposed by the receiving court
shall be collected by the collection agency for the receiving
court, and shall not be sent to the collection agency for the
transferring court.
5)Allows a receiving court to collect court-ordered payments
from a defendant, provided however, that the collection agency
for the receiving court transmit the funds to the collection
agency for the transferring court for deposit and accounting.
A collection agency for the receiving court shall not charge
administrative fees for collections completed for the
transferring without an agreement with the other agency.
6)Allows a collection agency for a receiving court to
voluntarily collect funds for the transferring court, and
shall not report funds owed or collected on behalf of the
transferring court as part of those collections required to be
reported by the court to the Administrative Office of the
courts.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that whenever a person is released upon probation or
mandatory supervision the court, upon noticed motion, shall
transfer the case to the superior court in any other the
person resides permanently, meaning the stated intention to
remain for the duration of probation or mandatory supervision,
unless the transferring court determines that the transfer is
inappropriate and states its reasons on the record. Upon
notice of the motion for transfer, the court of the proposed
receiving county may provide comments for the record regarding
the proposed transfer following procedures set forth in rules
of court developed by the Judicial Council. The court and the
probation department shall give the matter of investigating
AB 673
Page 3
those transfers precedence over all actions and proceedings
therein, except actions or proceedings to which special
precedence is given by law, to the end that all those
transfers shall be completed expeditiously. (Pen. Code, §
1203.9, subd. (a).)
2)Requires the court of the receiving county to accept the
entire jurisdiction over the case. (Pen. Code, § 1203.9,
subd. (b).)
3)Mandates that the order of transfer contain an order
committing the probationer to the care and custody of the
probation officer of the receiving county and an order for
reimbursement of reasonable costs for processing the transfer
to be paid to the sending county as specified. A copy of the
orders and probation reports shall be transmitted to the court
and probation officer of the receiving county within two weeks
of the finding by that county that the person does permanently
reside in or has permanently moved to that county, and
thereafter the receiving court shall have entire jurisdiction
over the case, with the like power to again request transfer
of the case whenever it seems proper. (Pen. Code, § 1203.9,
subd. (c).)
4)Requires that the order of transfer contain an order
committing the probationer or supervised person to the care
and custody of the probation officer of the receiving county
and, if applicable, an order for reimbursement of reasonable
costs for processing the transfer to be paid to the sending
county as specified. A copy of the orders and any probation
reports shall be transmitted to the court and probation
officer of the receiving county within two weeks of the
finding by that county that the person does permanently reside
in or has permanently moved to that county, and thereafter the
receiving court shall have entire jurisdiction over the case,
with the like power to again request transfer of the case
whenever it seems proper. (Pen. Code, § 1203.9(d).)
5)Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules providing factors
for the court's consideration when determining the
appropriateness of a transfer, including but not limited to
the following:
AB 673
Page 4
a) Permanency of residence of the offender;
b) Local programs available for the offender; and,
c) Restitution orders and victim issues. (Pen. Code, §
1203.9, subd. (d).)
6)States that the transferring court must consider at least the
following factors when determining whether transfer is
appropriate:
a) The permanency of the supervised person's residence;
b) The availability of appropriate programs for the
supervised person;
c) Restitution orders, including inability to determine
restitution amount and the victim's ability to collect; and
d) Other victim issues, including residence and places
frequented by the victim and enforcement of protective
orders. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.530(f).)
7)States that, to the extent possible, the transferring court
must establish any amount of restitution owed by the
supervised person before it orders the transfer. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 4.530(g)(2).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
Author's Statement: According to the author, "Penal Code 1203.9
was enacted to establish a process whereby persons on probation
could have their supervision and case transferred from the
sentencing county to their county of residence. Currently, this
section calls for the transfer of the "entire case" to the new
jurisdiction. However, PC 1203.9 is silent on court ordered
debt as it relates to the transfer and the process for
collection and distribution once transferred. Therefore, there
are varying degrees of how the collection and distribution of
AB 673
Page 5
these funds are handled.
"AB 673 streamlines existing probation and court processes
relative to the transfer of fines and fees that a probationer is
responsible for by creating a single, uniform process statewide.
The bill would keep the responsibility for collection of fines
and fees with the sentencing county and the sentencing county
would then disburse the payments received accordingly. This
construct is particularly useful in cases where a probationer
transfers residences multiple times since they would always make
payments to their sentencing county which handled the case. This
also serves a great benefit to victims seeking restitution as it
would create a singular contact for the victim that would always
know where the case is currently being supervised in the event
the victim needs to get in touch with the supervising agency."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Chief Probation Officers of California
California District Attorneys Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
Opposition
California Public Defenders Association
Analysis Prepared
by: Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
AB 673
Page 6