BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                       AB 673


                                                                      Page  1


          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS


          AB  
          673 (Santiago)


          As Amended  July 1, 2015


          Majority vote


           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  | 79-0 |(April 16,     |SENATE: | 38-0 | (July 16, 2015) |
          |           |      |2015)          |        |      |                 |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Original Committee Reference:  PUB. S.


          SUMMARY:  Establishes procedures for the payment and collection of  
          fines, fees, forfeitures, penalties, assessments, or 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.  


          The Senate amendments: 


          1)Authorize a receiving court to additionally collect penalties,  
            forfeitures, and assessments and allows a receiving court to  
            impose additional local fees and costs, as specified.
          2)Clarify that a receiving court may only collect payment from a  
            defendant attributable to the case for which the defendant is  
            being supervised.  










                                                                       AB 673


                                                                      Page  2


          3)Require the Judicial Council to consider adoption of rules of  
            court as it deems appropriate to implement the collection,  
            accounting, and disbursement of revenue relating to the transfer  
            of jurisdiction of a case to another county.


          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 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.    


          2)Requires the court of the receiving county to accept the entire  
            jurisdiction over the case.  


          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  








                                                                       AB 673


                                                                      Page  3


            seems proper.  


          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.  


          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:  


             a)   Permanency of residence of the offender;
             b)   Local programs available for the offender; and, 


             c)   Restitution orders and victim issues.  


          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










                                                                       AB 673


                                                                      Page  4


             d)   Other victim issues, including residence and places  
               frequented by the victim and enforcement of protective  
               orders.  


          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.  
          AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill:


          1)Required 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)Provided 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)Stated 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  
            agency of those changes.


          4)Provided 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)Allowed 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  








                                                                       AB 673


                                                                      Page  5


            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)Allowed 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.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown.  This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the  
          Legislative Counsel. 
          COMMENTS:  According to the author, "Penal Code [Section (PC  
          Section)] 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." 


          Analysis Prepared by:                                               








                                                                       AB 673


                                                                      Page  6


                          Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744  FN:  
          0001213