BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2232 Hearing Date: May 10, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Obernolte |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 18, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|ML |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Court Records: Misdemeanors
HISTORY
Source: Judicial Council of California
Prior Legislation:AB 1352 (Levine) - Ch. 274, Stats. 2013
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 76 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to decrease the time period that a
court retains a record for misdemeanor speed contest convictions
from 10 years to 5 years, and to increase the time period that a
court retains a record for misdemeanor reckless driving
convictions from 5 to 10 years.
Existing law provides the manner in which the court may destroy
records after specified retention periods for civil actions,
small claims, criminal actions, juvenile proceedings, appellate
matters of the superior court, and other matters. (Government
AB 2232 (Obernolte ) Page
2 of ?
Code § 68152.)
Existing law requires the court to retain the record for
misdemeanors for 5 years, unless provided otherwise. This
applies to a misdemeanor where a person drives a vehicle upon a
highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons
or property. (Government Code § 68152 (c)(7).)
Existing law requires the court to retain the record for 10
years for a misdemeanor involving a motor vehicle speed contest,
or repeated prior offense within five years, and also for a
misdemeanor involving a person under the influence of any
alcoholic beverage or any drug to drive a vehicle. (Government
Code § 68152.)
Existing law requires a defendant who has been convicted of a
violation of Vehicle Code Section 23152 (DUI) or Section 23153
(DUI with bodily injury) within the past 10 years to participate
in an alcohol program as a condition of probation. (Vehicle Code
Section 23640.)
Existing law allows a conviction for Vehicle Code Section 23109
(speed contest) to be charged as an enhancement of a new
criminal charge alleging a violation of that offense for five
years after the original conviction. (Vehicle Code Section
23109.5 (a).)
This bill changes the time period that a court retains records
for certain vehicular misdemeanors. Specifically, this bill:
1) Decreases the time period that a court retains a record
for misdemeanor speed contest convictions from 10 years to
5 years.
2) Increases the time period that a court retains a record
for misdemeanor reckless driving convictions from 5 to 10
years.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several 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 2232 (Obernolte ) Page
3 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 December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 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).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 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 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
AB 2232 (Obernolte ) Page
4 of ?
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;
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:
In 2013, AB 1352 (Levine) was enacted to, among other
things, update and streamline laws governing court record
retention in the Government Code ((§68152(c)(7)) by
changing the number of years various court records must be
retained.
The intent of the bill was change and bring the timelines
for retaining court records for particular violations in
line with other similar violations. However, there was a
drafting error in the bill. Instead of a five year
schedule, like other Vehicle Code misdemeanors, speed
contests (§23109 and §23109.5) were put on a ten year
schedule. Similarly, reckless driving violations were given
a five year schedule, unlike the 10 year schedule DUI
violations are on.
AB 2232 would correct these drafting errors and add
consistency to the records retention schedule for
misdemeanor Vehicle Code violations. It would reduce the
schedule for speeding contests from 10 to 5 years, in line
with similar violations, and increase the schedule for
reckless driving convictions from 5 to 10 years, as it is
with DUIs.
AB 2232 (Obernolte ) Page
5 of ?
2. Background; Effect of This Bill
Trial courts retain court records for different time periods
based on types of cases involved and pursuant to statutes
requiring records to be retained for specified periods. After
the required time period has elapsed, the court is authorized to
destroy the record. For most misdemeanor cases, courts are
required to retain the records for five years; for other
misdemeanors, the court is required to retain the records for
one to ten years, depending on the nature of the crime.
In 2013, the Legislature enacted AB 1352, which revised and
reorganized the retention period rules for various court
records. However, according to the Judicial Council, the
sponsor of this bill, AB 1352 had several drafting errors
regarding the retention period for certain misdemeanors,
specifically those involving violations of the Vehicle Code.
Under the current framework, the drafting error came about when
the Vehicle Code Sections for speed contests (§§ 23109-23109.5)
were expressly specified - putting those records on the ten year
schedule. Conversely, the Vehicle Code Section for reckless
driving (§ 23103) was not expressly mentioned. Thus, the
default schedule of five years applied.
This bill seeks to correct those errors with the following
changes to retention rules: (1) Decreasing the retention period
for misdemeanor speed contests conviction records from 10 to 5
years; and (2) Increasing the retention period for misdemeanor
reckless driving conviction records from 5 to 10 years. This
bill has no known opposition.
3. Argument in Support
According to the sponsor of this bill, the Judicial Council of
California:
AB 2232 addresses drafting errors in the rules governing
retention of court files regarding certain misdemeanor
traffic offenses. This bill reduces the requirement for
courts to retain files regarding violations of Vehicle Code
sections 23109 (speed contests) and 23109.5 (sentencing for
speed contests) from ten years to five years while
increasing the requirement for courts to retain files
regarding violations of Vehicle Code section 23103
AB 2232 (Obernolte ) Page
6 of ?
(reckless driving) from five years to ten years.
In 2013, a Judicial Council working group assisted in
drafting language for AB 1352 (stats 2013, ch. 274), which
made significant improvements in the laws that govern
retention of court records and clarified the statutes
pertaining to the new ways that court records are produced
and may be retained. During that drafting, an incorrect
code section was inserted in the final version of the bill.
After the bill was chaptered, the error was brought to the
attention of the Judicial Council.
In response, the Judicial Council has sponsored this bill,
which ensures that reckless driving convictions are
retained on the same ten-year retention schedule as
convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol, and
clarifies those convictions for speed contests are retained
on the same five-year retention schedule as all other
misdemeanor Vehicle Code violations. Leaving the status as
is will maintain an inconsistency in records retentions
related to reckless driving convictions as compared to
driving under the influence convictions, and will maintain
in the law what was a drafting error.
-- END -