BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 673| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 673 Author: Santiago (D) Amended: 7/1/15 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/23/15 AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/16/15 (Consent) - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Probation and mandatory supervision: jurisdiction SOURCE: Chief Probation Officers of California DIGEST: This bill 1) provides that where a defendant's case has been transferred from the county of conviction to the superior court in another county for purposes of probation or mandatory supervision, the receiving court shall accept full jurisdiction over the case at the time the transfer is ordered; 2) provides that the defendant shall continue to pay outstanding restitution, fines, fees and other costs to the collection program in the county from which the case was transferred; and 3) authorizes the receiving court, with the approval of the court that transferred the case, to collect payments from the defendant. ANALYSIS: 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 AB 673 Page 2 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 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 AB 673 Page 3 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: Permanency of residence of the offender; Local programs available for the offender; and Restitution orders and victim issues. (Pen. Code, § 1203.9, subd. (d).) 1)States that the transferring court must consider at least the following factors when determining whether transfer is appropriate: The permanency of the supervised person's residence; The availability of appropriate programs for the supervised person; Restitution orders, including inability to determine restitution amount and the victim's ability to collect; and Other victim issues, including residence and places frequented by the victim and enforcement of protective orders. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.530(f).) 1)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).) This bill: 1)Provides that when probation or mandatory supervision is transferred to the superior court in another county, along with jurisdiction over the entire case, the receiving court shall accept jurisdiction as of the date that the transferring court orders the transfer. 2)Provides that, notwithstanding the fact that jurisdiction over AB 673 Page 4 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 program for the transferring court for proper distribution and accounting. 3)States that the receiving court and receiving county probation department may amend financial orders and add additional local fees as authorized, and shall notify the responsible collection program of those changes. 4)Provides that any local fees imposed by the receiving court shall be collected by the collection agency for the transferring court, which shall remit the payments to the receiving court for accounting and distribution. 5)Allows receiving court, with the approval of the transferring court, to collect all "court-ordered payments" from a defendant attributable to the transferred case. The collection agency for the receiving court shall transmit funds collected from the defendant to the collection program for the transferring court for deposit and accounting. A collection program for the receiving court shall not charge administrative fees for collections completed for the transferring without an agreement with the other agency. 6)Provides that a collection program for a receiving court shall not report funds collected on behalf of the transferring court as part of those collections required to be annually reported to the Administrative Office of the courts. 7)Provides that the Judicial Council shall consider adopting rules of court to implement the statutory provisions concerning collection of restitution, fines, fees and other costs when supervision of a probationer or person on mandatory supervision is transferred to a court other than the court of conviction. Background AB 673 Page 5 Recent history of probation and mandatory supervision transfer bills. This is the most recent in a series of bills that are intended to streamline and improve the process of transferring cases involving supervised inmates who reside in the county of transfer. AB 1306 (Leno, Chapter 30, Statutes of 2004) required the receiving court to accept the transfer of jurisdiction over the entire case in which the defendant residing in the receiving county was a participant in a SACPA (The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act - Proposition 36 of the 2000 General Election) drug treatment program. In other circumstances, the receiving court could continue to provide only courtesy supervision. SB 431 (Benoit, Chapter 588, Statutes of 2009) required the court in the receiving county to accept the case unless the transferring court found in a noticed hearing that the transfer was inappropriate after considering comments from the proposed county of transfer. SB 431 did not change the rule that the court in the county of conviction shall transfer a SACPA case without the requirement of a noticed hearing. AB 492 (Quirk, Chapter 13, Statutes of 2013) eliminated the distinction between transfers of SACPA probation and other forms of supervision. AB 2645 (Dababneh, Chapter 111, Statutes of 2014) directed transferring courts to determine restitution issues prior to transfer. It appears that the constitutionally-compelled requirement of full victim restitution, and the expansion of specialized probation programs, including SACPA and collaborative courts, has created a need for consistent programs and procedures in supervision cases. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:NoLocal: No SUPPORT: (Verified 6/30/15) Chief Probation Officers of California (source) AFSCME, Local 685 Association of Deputy District Attorneys California District Attorneys Association California Probation Parole and Correctional Association AB 673 Page 6 Judicial Council Los Angeles Probation Officers' Union Riverside Sheriffs' Association OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/30/15) None received ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: 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 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. AB 673 Page 7 ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/16/15 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins NO VOTE RECORDED: Quirk Prepared by:Jerome McGuire / PUB. S. / 7/2/15 8:23:42 **** END ****