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  ****