BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1351|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1351
Author: Eggman (D)
Amended: 9/3/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-2, 7/14/15
AYES: Hancock, Leno, Liu, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Glazer
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/27/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 47-30, 6/3/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Deferred entry of judgment: pretrial diversion
SOURCE: American Civil Liberties Union of California
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Council of La Raza
DIGEST: This bill replaces the existing deferred entry of
judgment drug education and treatment program with a pretrial
diversion program.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/3/15 (1) allow a person previously
convicted of a drug offense that occurred no sooner than five
years prior to the pending case to participate in drug
diversion; (2) provide that a person admitted into a diversion
AB 1351
Page 2
program waive the right to a speedy trial; and (3) and clarify
that the bill does not affect the misdemeanor diversion program
described in Penal Code Sections 1001-1001.9
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides that the entry of judgment may be deferred for a
defendant charged with specific controlled substance offenses
if he or she meets specific criteria, including that he or she
has no prior convictions for any offense involving a
controlled substance and no felony convictions within five
years. (Pen. Code § 1000.)
2)Provides that upon successful completion of a deferred entry
of judgment, the arrest upon which the judgment was deferred
shall be deemed to never have occurred. The defendant may in
response to any question in regard to his or her prior
criminal record that he or she was not arrested or granted
deferred entry of judgment, except as specified. (Pen. Code §
1000.4, subd. (a).)
3)States that a record pertaining to an arrest resulting in
successful completion of a deferred entry of judgment program
shall not, without the defendant's consent, be used in any way
that could result in the denial of any employment, benefit,
license, or certificate. (Pen. Code § 1000.4, subd. (a).)
4)Requires that a defendant be advised that regardless of his or
her successful completion of a deferred entry of judgment
program, the arrest upon which the case was based, may be
disclosed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in response to
any peace officer application request, and that the defendant
is obligated to disclose the arrest in response to any direct
question on the application. (Pen. Code § 1000.4, subd.
(b).)
5)Provides that a court may administer a pre-plea drug diversion
program if the court, the district attorney and the public
defender agree. (Pen. Code § 1000.5.)
This bill:
AB 1351
Page 3
1)Changes the existing deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) program
for specified offenses involving personal use or possession of
controlled substances into a pretrial drug diversion program.
2)Requires, to be eligible for diversion, that the defendant
must not have a prior conviction within five year for a
controlled substance offense other than the offenses that may
be diverted; the offense charged must not have involved
violence or threatened violence; there must be no evidence in
the current incident that the defendant committed a drug
offense other than an offense that may be diverted; and the
defendant must not have any conviction for a serious or
violent felony, as defined, within five years of the current
charges.
3)Provides that a defendant's participation in pretrial
diversion, as with DEJ under current law, shall not constitute
a conviction or an admission of guilt in any action or
proceeding.
4)Changes the minimum time allowed prior to dismissal of the
case from 18 months to six months, and the maximum time the
proceedings in the case can be suspended from three years to
one year, except the court can extend the length of the
program for good cause.
5)Applies the following procedures and rules that apply under
DEJ to pretrial diversion programs and adapts them to
diversion:
a)If the prosecuting attorney, the court, or the probation
department believes that the defendant is performing
unsatisfactorily in the program, convicted of a felony or an
offense that indicates the defendant is prone to violence, or
the defendant is convicted of a felony, the prosecuting
attorney, the court, or the probation department may move for
termination of diversion.
b)If the court finds that the defendant is not performing
satisfactorily in the assigned program, or the court finds that
the defendant has been convicted of a specified type of crime,
the court shall reinstate the criminal charge or charges and
AB 1351
Page 4
schedule the matter for further proceedings.
c)If the defendant has completed pretrial diversion, at the end of
that period, the criminal charge or charges shall be dismissed.
Upon successful completion of a pretrial diversion program, the
arrest upon which the defendant was diverted shall be deemed to
have never occurred.
Background
Under existing law, a defendant charged with violations of
certain specified drug may be eligible to participate in a DEJ
program if he or she meets specified criteria. (Pen. Code §§
1000 et seq.) With DEJ, a defendant must enter a guilty plea
and entry of judgment on the defendant's guilty plea is deferred
pending successful completion of a program or other conditions.
If a defendant placed in a DEJ program fails to complete the
program or comply with conditions imposed, the court may resume
criminal proceedings and the defendant, having already pleaded
guilty, would be sentenced. If the defendant successfully
completes DEJ, the arrest shall be deemed to never have occurred
and the defendant may indicate in response to any question
concerning his or her prior criminal record that he or she was
not arrested or granted pretrial diversion for the offense.
Diversion on the other hand suspends the criminal proceedings
without requiring the defendant to enter a plea. Diversion also
requires the defendant to successfully complete a program and
other conditions imposed by the court. Unlike DEJ however, if a
defendant does not successfully complete the diversion program,
criminal proceedings resume but the defendant, having not
entered a plea, may still proceed to trial or enter a plea. If
diversion is successfully completed, the criminal charges are
dismissed and the defendant may, with certain exceptions,
legally answer that he or she has never been arrested or charged
for the diverted offense.
In order to avoid adverse immigration consequences, diversion of
an offense is preferable to DEJ because the defendant is not
required to plead guilty in order to participate in the program.
Having a conviction for possession of controlled substances,
even if dismissed, could trigger deportation proceedings or
prevent a person from becoming a U.S. citizen.
(Paredes-Urrestarazu v. U.S. INS (9th Cir. 1994) 36 F3d. 801.)
AB 1351
Page 5
This bill seeks to minimize the potential exposure to adverse
immigration consequences for persons who commit minor drug
possession offenses by re-establishing a pretrial diversion
program for minor drug possession.
Prior to 1997, the program pursuant to Penal Code § 1000 et seq.
was a pretrial diversion program. SB 1369 (Kopp, Chapter 1132,
Statutes of 1996) changed the diversion program to a DEJ
program. Proponents of SB 1369 and its DEJ provisions argued
that DEJ would provide more effective drug treatment than
diversion courts. While many involved in DEJ and drug court
programs believe in the effectiveness of the programs, research
has not established the superiority of DEJ or drug court
programs over other forms of drug treatment. SB 1369 did
include a provision allowing any county to elect to operate a
drug possession diversion program, with the approval of the
presiding judge, the district attorney and the public defender.
It is unknown whether studies have been done comparing the
effectiveness of DEJ and true diversion, including long-term
outcomes.
Recent research has considered the effectiveness of varying
forms of court-based drug treatment with other forms or sources
of treatment demand. (Much of the basis for this comment is a
report or monograph written by Senate Fellow, Bethany Renfree at
the request of Senator Jackson.) UCLA studies of the
effectiveness of SACPA - Proposition 36 of 2000 were released in
2003 and 2006.
(http://www.uclaisap.org/prop36/documents/sacpa_costanalysis.pdf)
SACPA requires drug treatment without incarceration for
non-violent drug possession. UCLA found that the SACPA model
was as effective as drug court or voluntary treatment models and
produced $2.50 in savings from every dollar spent. Improvements
in funding allocations and programs would have produced better
results.
State funding for SACPA ended in 2006. Individual counties must
bear the costs of the program. The California Society of
Addiction Medicine has more recently found that SACPA produced
positive results, including for participants who did not
complete the full program.
An extensive 2007 study of 474 drug offenders in drug court in
Maricopa County Arizona (the Phoenix area) compared the outcomes
in drug court treatment for persons who were subject to jail
AB 1351
Page 6
sanctions against those who were not subject to sanctions. The
study found that the threat of jail sanctions did not affect the
participant's rate of retention in or completion of the program.
There has been some published research concluding that specific
drug court models may be effective in reducing drug abuse, at
least in the short term. The model is the HOPE program in
Hawaii, in which the court engages in very close, direct and
constant monitoring of participants in the program.
Participants are drug tested frequently and must follow program
conditions or be subject to immediate, short-term incarceration.
Deferred entry of judgment and true pre-plea diversion (DEJ) are
distinct programs from the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention
Act - SACPA ("Prop 36") - program. After enactment of SACPA in
2000, the California Attorney General opined that SACPA did not
repeal DEJ by implication. (84 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 85 - 2001.)
Deferred entry of judgment - as the name of the program denotes
- applies prior to imposition of judgment and sentence. SACPA
is a probation program under which a person convicted of a
non-violent drug possession offense must be offered treatment,
without incarceration, on probation. Further, the offenses
covered by the two programs, while overlapping to a great
extent, are not the same. The offenses covered under SACPA are
broader than those included under DEJ. As the covered offenses
and eligibility requirements are broader under SACPA than DEJ,
it is most likely that a person who fails in DEJ would be
eligible for SACPA.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified9/4/15)
American Civil Liberties Union of California (co-source)
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (co-source)
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (co-source)
National Council of La Raza (co-source)
AB 1351
Page 7
African Advocacy Network
Asian Americans Advancing Justice
Asian Law Alliance
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Partnership
California Public Defenders Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Central American Resource Center - Los Angeles
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Community United Against Violence
Congregations Building Community
County Behavioral Health Directors Association
Del Sol Group; Dolores Street Community Services
Faith in Action Kern County
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
Human Rights Watch
Immigration Action Group; Institute for Justice
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership
Justice Not Jails
MAAC
Mujeres Unidas y Activas
National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter
National Day Laborer Organizing Network
National Immigration Law Center
Pangea Legal Services
PICO California; Placer People of Faith
Presente.org; Progressive Christians Uniting
Red Mexicana de Lideres y Organizaciones Migrantes
Santa Clara County Public Defender's Offic
Silicon Valley De-Bug
Solutions for Immigrants
William C. Velasquez Institute
Vital Immigrant Defense Advocacy and Services
OPPOSITION: (Verified9/4/15)
AB 1351
Page 8
California District Attorneys Association
California State Board of Pharmacy
California State Sheriffs' Association
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 47-30, 6/3/15
AYES: Alejo, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon,
Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Daly, Dodd, Eggman,
Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin,
Nazarian, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood,
Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang,
Dababneh, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gatto, Gray, Grove,
Harper, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein,
Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson,
Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooper, O'Donnell, Thurmond
Prepared by:Jerome McGuire / PUB. S. /
9/4/15 11:29:25
**** END ****