BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1156 Hearing Date: July 7, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Brown |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 27, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JM |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Imprisonment in County Jail
HISTORY
Source: California Public Defenders; Conference of California
Bar Associations; Judicial Council of California
Prior Legislation: AB 109
(Committee on Budget) - Ch. 15, Stats. 2011
AB 117 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 39, Stats.
2011
SB 42 (Nejedly) - Ch. 1139, Stats. 1976
Support: American Civil Liberties Union; California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice;
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; National
Association of Social Workers; Sheriff of the City and
County of San Francisco
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 54 - 24
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to apply a wide range of sentencing
AB 1156 (Brown ) PageB
of?
statutes and rules applicable to prison sentences to felony
sentences imposed under criminal justice realignment.
Existing law:
Requires the court to choose the lower, middle or upper term
when imposing a prison sentence and to state reasons for the
sentencing choice. The court shall impose the middle term
unless it finds factors in aggravation or mitigation justifying
imposition of the upper term or lower term, respectively.
(Penal Code § 1170 (b).)
Requires the sentencing court to inform a defendant sentenced to
prison that he or she may be required to serve a period of
parole. (Id.)
Provides that when a defendant has been committed to state
prison, the court may, within 120 days of commitment on its own
motion, or at any time upon the recommendation of the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or the Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH), recall the sentence and resentence the
defendant. Any new sentence may be no greater than the initial
sentence. The court shall apply the sentencing rules in the
Rules of Court so as to eliminate disparity and promote
uniformity in sentencing. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (d)(1).)
States that in any case in which the amount of pre-sentence
credit exceeds the sentence imposed, the sentence shall be
deemed to have been served. The court shall advise the
defendant that he or she will serve a parole term, unless the
in-custody credits exceed both confinement time and parole.
(Pen. Code, § subd. (a)(3).)
Provides that if CDCR or BPH determine both that the prisoner
has six months or fewer to live and would not pose a threat to
public safety if released, CDCR director BPH may recommend to
the court that the prisoner's sentence be recalled. The court
may order the prisoner's release if it makes those same
findings. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (e)(1)-(2).)
Requires the court to hold a hearing to consider whether a
prisoner's sentence should be recalled within 10 days of receipt
of a positive recommendation by the CDCR director or BPH. (Pen.
Code, § 1170, subd. (e)(3).)
AB 1156 (Brown ) PageC
of?
States that the Judicial Council shall promote uniformity of
sentencing by adopting rules that set out criteria for the
consideration of trial judge in making decisions to:
Grant or deny probation;
Impose the lower or upper term;
Impose concurrent or consecutive sentences;
Determine whether or not to impose an enhancement when an
enhancement is permitted by law; or
Deny a period of mandatory supervision in the interests of
justice, or determine the appropriate period and conditions of
mandatory supervision. (Pen. Code, § 1170.3, subd.
(a)(1)-(5).)
Provides that any person convicted of a felony who has been
released from any state penal institution, whether discharged on
completion of the total term or released on parole, who has not
been incarcerated in a state penal institution since his or her
release, and who has resided in California for three years may
file a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon.
(Pen. Code, § 4852.01, subd. (a).)
This bill:
Clarifies that in any case where the pre-imprisonment credit of
a person sentenced to the county jail under the 2011 Realignment
Act exceeds any sentence imposed, the entire sentence shall be
deemed to have been served, except for the remaining portion of
mandatory supervision, and the defendant shall not be delivered
to the custody of the county correctional administrator.
Provides that when a defendant is sentenced to the county jail
under the 2011 Realignment Act, the court may, within 120 days
of the date of commitment on its own motion, or upon the
recommendation of the county correctional administrator, recall
the sentence previously ordered and resentence the defendant in
the same manner as if he or she had not previously been
sentenced, provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than
the original sentence.
Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules providing criteria
for the imposition of the lower, middle or upper term, and
determine the county or jurisdictional territory when the court
AB 1156 (Brown ) PageD
of?
is imposing a concurrent or consecutive sentence under the 2011
Realignment Act upon a person previously sentenced to the county
jail under the 2011 Realignment Act in another county or
jurisdictional territory.
Specifically requires the court to choose the lower, middle or
upper term when imposing an executed felony jail term and to
state reasons for the sentencing choice. The court shall impose
the middle term unless it finds factors in aggravation or
mitigation justifying imposition of the upper term or lower
term, respectively.
Requires the sentencing court to inform a defendant sentenced to
prison may be required to serve a period of postrelease
community supervision.
Clarifies that a person released from the state prison on post
release community supervision shall be supervised by the
probation department of the county to which the person is
released, and requires that the inmate be informed of his or her
duty to report to the county probation department upon release.
Extends the right to petition for a certificate of
rehabilitation and pardon to persons convicted of a felony and
sentenced to a county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act and
requires that the inmate be informed in writing by the facility
official of this right.
Provides that a person shall not be subject to prosecution for a
non-felony offense arising out of a violation in the California
Vehicle Code, with the exception of Driving under the Influence
(DUI), that is pending against him or her at the time of his or
commitment to a county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act.
Extends provisions related to the compassionate release of a
state prison inmate, who is terminally ill, to an inmate
sentenced to a county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
AB 1156 (Brown ) PageE
of?
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
AB 1156 (Brown ) PageF
of?
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
AB 1156 eliminates discrepancies and inconsistencies
in treatment between felons sent to prison and felons
sent to county jail under Realignment that were not
addressed in the original or subsequent legislation.
These inconsistencies are unnecessary, unfair, and
costly. Their elimination will enhance the fairness
of the system and save the taxpayers money. "
2.Criminal Justice Realignment
Criminal justice realignment was a sea change in California
criminal law, arguably comparable in importance to enactment of
the Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL) in 1976. For most crimes,
the DSL eliminated indeterminate sentences under which the time
a defendant served in prison was determined by the Adult [
parole] Authority within a statutory range. Under the DSL, a
court chooses from a "triad" of possible set or determined terms
- lower, middle or upper. The middle terms is imposed unless
there are factors in aggravation or mitigation justifying an
upper
or lower terms. Over time, additional penalties - enhancements
- and new sentencing schemes, including the Three Strikes law,
were steadily enacted. The new penalty provisions were often
enacted in response to particularly notorious crimes for which
it was argued the DSL provided insufficient punishment.
The DSL requires the sentencing court to make a number of
choices in imposing sentence. These choices or decisions
include granting or denying probation and whether to impose the
lower, middle or upper term if probation is denied or
prohibited. Where the defendant is convicted of more than one
AB 1156 (Brown ) PageG
of?
felony offense, or if enhancements (e.g., use of a weapon or
prior convictions) apply, sentencing becomes more complicated.
The court chooses one offense to be the principal term and
builds the sentence around it, making decision about whether
sentences should be served consecutively (back-to-back) or
concurrently (at the same time). Other sentencing decisions may
apply, such as whether to strike punishment in any part. All of
the sentencing rules a court must follow and choices a court
must make have been considered in myriad appellate cases since
enactment of the DSL. The published opinions of the courts
become another body of law, binding on the trial courts. Where
the appellate courts are in conflict, the California Supreme
resolves the conflict and settles the issue.
Voters and the Legislature steadily approved prison construction
from 1982 through the 1990s, but construction programs largely
slowed or stopped with the opening of a new prison in Delano in
2005.<1> Recently, new prison medical facilities have been
built through the supervision of a receiver<2> appointed by the
federal courts in response to a finding that California prisons
were so crowded as to deny adequate medical care, creating an
unconstitutional system of cruel and unusual punishment.<3>
California spent heavily on medical facilities and care, but the
federal court continued to demand that the prison population be
reduced.
The prison population was only substantially reduced through
implementation of criminal justice realignment after 2011.
Realignment essentially transferred responsibility for low-level
felony inmates from state prison to counties and county jail.
Certain offenders are excluded from county jail sentencing -
those with a prior or current serious or violent felony
conviction, or any person required to register as a sex
offender. Excluded defendants continue to serve imposed and
---------------------------
<1> http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0620/p03s02-usju.html
<2>
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-spending-billio
ns-to-build-new-prisons-2335352.php
<3>
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/budget/three-judge-panel/three
-judge-panel-022814.aspx
AB 1156 (Brown ) PageH
of?
executed felony terms in prison.
This bill applies the sentencing statutes and court rules
enacted and promulgated for the DSL to sentences imposed
pursuant to criminal justice realignment. This bill should
provide clarity and guidance for trial courts in making
sentencing decisions under realignment.
-- END -