BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1156
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1156 (Brown)
As Amended September 1, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |54-24 |(June 2, 2015) |SENATE: | |(September 2, |
| | | | |25-14 |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
SUMMARY: Takes various provisions of law relating to persons
convicted of a felony and sentenced to the state prison, and
applies them to persons convicted of a felony and sentenced to a
county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act.
The Senate amendments delete a provision that required the
Judicial Council to formulate rules regarding the determination
of the incarcerating jurisdiction when the Court is imposing a
sentence concurrent or consecutive to a sentence imposed in
another county pursuant to the 2011 Realignment Act.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Clarifies that in any case where the pre-imprisonment credit
of a person sentenced to the county jail under the 2011
AB 1156
Page 2
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.
2)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.
3)Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules providing
criteria for the imposition of the lower, or upper term, and
determine the county or jurisdictional territory when the
court 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.
4)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.
5)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.
6)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.
Makes additional non-substantive changes, conforming changes,
and deletes obsolete provisions.
AB 1156
Page 3
7)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.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill:
1)Clarified 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.
2)Provided 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.
3)Required the Judicial Council to adopt rules providing
criteria for the imposition of the lower, or upper term, and
determine the county or jurisdictional territory when the
court 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.
4)Extended 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.
AB 1156
Page 4
5)Clarified 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.
6)Extended 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.
Makes additional non-substantive changes, conforming changes,
and deletes obsolete provisions.
7)Provided 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
1)Minor one-time costs (General Fund) to the Judicial Council to
adopt rules of court.
2)Minor to moderate ongoing local costs, potentially in excess
of $50,000 to $100,000 (General Fund) statewide for local law
enforcement agencies to provide written notification to
persons released or discharged from mandatory supervision or
PRCS of the eligibility and procedures for a certificate of
rehabilitation and pardon. Workload to provide notification
would vary by county and be dependent on the method of
implementation of the mandate. To the extent the increased
costs to local agencies are not considered realigned "public
AB 1156
Page 5
safety services" under 2011 Realignment, local agencies could
potentially claim reimbursement for these state-mandated
costs.
3)Potential net cost savings (Local Fund/General Fund) to the
counties for other activities authorized and prescribed.
Potential cost savings will be realized to the extent county
jails terms are reduced under the resentencing, compassionate
release, and credit earning provisions of this measure.
COMMENTS: 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. "
Analysis Prepared by:
Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN:
0001971