BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1417
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 1417
(Melendez) - As Introduced February 27, 2015
SUBJECT: COURT FEES: CRIMINAL CASES
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD COURT CLERKS BE PROHIBITED FROM CHARGING FEES
FOR MAKING COPIES AND CERTIFYING COURT DOCUMENTS IN CRIMINAL
CASES?
SYNOPSIS
This bill, sponsored by the California District Attorneys
Association, seeks to prohibit court clerks from charging fees
for certain services rendered in criminal actions, including
making copies and certifying copies of documents. Currently,
these fees are charged to anyone who utilizes the clerk to make
copies or certify documents. The net effect of this bill is to
increase funding for district attorney's offices and decrease
funding for the trial courts. The fees that this bill seeks to
prohibit were included in the 2005 Budget Act Bill and have been
in place for almost ten years. According to the author, the
fees being charged in criminal cases have resulted in
significant challenges for some District Attorney offices.
Counties are responsible for funding, among other things, the
district attorney's offices and indigent criminal defense.
Since the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, the state has been
responsible for the funding of the courts. According to the
AB 1417
Page 2
Judicial Council, the fees that this bill would eliminate amount
to more than one million dollars annually. This reduction to
the courts' budget would come on top of the current $600 million
gap between what the trial courts need to handle their current
case filings and what they have to spend. It is likely that the
additional reduction proposed by this bill would result in more
reduced court services statewide, possibly including more closed
courtrooms, reduced self-help, and reduced court reporters.
SUMMARY: Removes the authority of a clerk to charge specified
fees. Specifically, this bill:
1)Removes a clerk's authority to charge a fee:
a) For services rendered in any criminal action unless
otherwise specifically authorized by law; and
b) For the performance of an official service rendered in
an action to a municipality or county in the state, to the
state government, or to the United States or an officer
acting in his or her official capacity.
2)Defines "official service" to include: filing, certifying, or
copying a document.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that no fee may be charged by the clerk for services
rendered in any criminal action unless otherwise specifically
authorized by law, except the clerk may charge a fee for
making or certifying a copy of any filed paper, record, or
proceeding in a criminal action. (Government Code Section
AB 1417
Page 3
70633(b). Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory
references are to that code.)
2)Except as permitted by # 1), above, provides that no fee may
be charged by the clerk for service to any municipality or
county in the state, to the state government, nor to the
United States of America or any of its officers acting in his
or her official capacity. (Section 70633(c).)
3)Unless specifically provided otherwise, provides that no
state, county, city, district, political subdivision, body, or
public officer acting in his or her official capacity on
behalf of the state, county, city, district or political
subdivision shall pay any fee for the filing of any document,
for the performance of any official service, or for the filing
of any stipulation or agreement that may constitute the
appearance in a court by any party to the stipulation or
agreement. (Section 6103.)
4)Provides that nothing is intended to relieve a county of the
responsibility for justice-related expenses not included in #
1) above, which are otherwise required by the county, as
specified, including but not limited to, indigent defense
representation and investigation. (Section 77201(g).)
5)Provides that nothing is intended to relieve a county of the
responsibility for justice-related expenses not included in
#1) above, which are otherwise required by the county,
including but not limited to, indigent defense representation
and investigation. (Section 77201.1(d).)
6)Excludes from the definition of court operations that the
state is responsible for, funding of district attorney
services, probation services and indigent criminal defense.
AB 1417
Page 4
(Section 77003(a)(7)-(8).)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS: This bill seeks to address two challenges that some
District Attorney offices are experiencing due to budgetary
shortfalls. The first challenge involves District Attorney
Offices being charged clerk fees of up to $250 plus $25 per
page, in order to obtain a certified copy of records for use in
a single criminal case. Because state mandates require
certified copies of prior convictions in criminal cases, the
allegations of prior convictions must be proven by certified
copies of those convictions. According to the sponsor, the
California District Attorneys Association, these fees have
created such a hardship on District Attorney Offices that in
some instances prosecutors have been forced to strike prior
conviction allegations from their cases due to a lack of funds
to pay the required fees for certified copies. Many times this
allows career criminals to escape certain enhancements that
would be applied to their sentences based on their criminal
histories. The second challenge involves a District Attorney's
ability to secure certified copies of restitution orders issued
by the court and required to be sent to the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), in order
for CDCR to issue restitution payments to crime victims.
Without certified copies of the restitution orders, victims
cannot be placed on record to receive restitution payments from
CDCR. The clerks charge these fees to anyone who utilizes the
clerks' services for making copies and certifying documents.
This bill seeks to prohibit clerks from charging fees for making
and certifying records in criminal cases.
According to the author:
Based on this ambiguity and confusion between Government
AB 1417
Page 5
Code §6103 and §70633, courts are now charging fees to
certify and copy records for use in criminal cases, and a
simple prior conviction file can now cost as much as $250
to obtain. District Attorneys are being charged by the
courts to obtain hard copies of the priors that must be
used as evidence because the courts have not completely
implemented the CCRA.
There are generally two scenarios where certified documents
and/or copies are requested.
The first scenario is when a certified copy of a prior
conviction is sought and obtained because it is necessary
for a pending criminal case. The second scenario involves
securing a certified copy of a Restitution Order issued by
the Court to be sent to CDCR. CDCR needs certified copies,
and District Attorneys' offices secure those copies to send
on to CDCR so victims can be on record for restitution
payments made through CDCR.
In both cases, charging District Attorneys' offices for
court records requires the District Attorney to weigh the
monetary cost of obtaining the records against their
obligation to seek justice for victims of crime. This is a
calculation that undermines the pursuit of justice.
There is No Conflict between Government Code Sections 70633 and
6103. The proponents of this bill claim that the law on the
issue of fees in criminal cases is conflicting. Government Code
Section 70633 clearly states that a clerk may charge a fee for
making or certifying records in a criminal action. Government
Code Section 6103 states, no fees may be charged, and no
governmental entity shall pay or deposit any fee for the filing
of any document or paper, for the performance of any official
service, or for the filing. However, the section also includes
AB 1417
Page 6
the following, "this section does not apply?where it is
specifically provided otherwise?." The language in Section
70633 that authorizes the clerk to charge fees in criminal cases
falls squarely in the category of "where it is specifically
provided otherwise". There is no conflict between these two
statutes.
Bill Will Result in Reduced Funding for the Courts, Which are
Still Reeling From Years of Reduced Budgets and, as a Result,
Reduced Services to the Public. A February 2015 report of the
Judicial Council titled, Funding California's Courts-2015-2016
Budget Considerations states, "California's court system, the
largest in the nation, serves 38 million people. Unprecedented
budget cuts since 2008 have closed 52 courthouses, reduced
services statewide, and eroded the public's access to the
courts. Currently, 52 courthouses and 202 courtrooms remain
closed due to funding shortages; resulting in more than 2
million Californians who no longer have a courthouse in their
local communities. Since fiscal year 2007-2008, trial court
employee numbers are down by 19%, which amounts to nearly 4,000
lost jobs in the courts." This bill will result in less support
for the trial courts.
According to the Judicial Council, the fees charged by court
clerks in criminal cases amount to more than one million dollars
in annual revenue. Cuts to the state trial courts have been in
the range of one billion dollars since 2008. According to the
Judicial Council, the gap in funding for what the trial courts
need to handle their current filings and what they have
available to spend is approximately $600 million dollars
annually. Because the courts are the custodian of records for
court files, the courts may charge fees as they deem appropriate
for copying and certifying those records, so long as they are
given statutory authority to do so. The cost to represent the
people of the county is the county's responsibility and the
costs to meet those responsibilities, outside of funding
allocations from the state for court operations, must be borne
by the county. The provisions of this bill would prohibit a
AB 1417
Page 7
valuable revenue source that is helping the courts' ability to
provide services.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California District Attorneys
Association (CDAA) writes: "For many years, and before the
enactment of Criminal Convictions Record Act (CCRA), government
agencies have been exempt from having to pay for court fees in
criminal cases. The California Supreme Court, in the case of
People v. Superior Court (Laff), (2001) 25 Cal.4th 703 made it
clear that the parties to a criminal action cannot be made to
pay for the costs of the court, absent express legislation
authorizing such a charge. Courts are now charging as much as
$250 plus $25 per page, to certify and copy records for use in
criminal cases. District attorneys are being charged by the
courts to obtain hard copies of the priors that must be used as
evidence because the courts have not completely implemented the
CCRA."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California District Attorneys Association (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
AB 1417
Page 8
Analysis Prepared by:Khadijah Hargett / JUD. / (916) 319-2334