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 ****