BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2262
Page A
Date of Hearing: March 29, 2016
Counsel: David Billingsley
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
AB
2262 (Levine) - As Amended March 28, 2016
SUMMARY: Allows the court to order a defendant to serve all, or
part, of their state prison or county jail sentence in a
residential mental health facility, when a defendant establishes
that they meet specified criteria regarding mental illness.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Permits a defendant, who at any prior time was eligible for
public mental health services due to serious mental illness,
or who is currently, or at any prior time was, eligible for
Social Security Insurance due to a diagnosed mental illness,
to petition the court for a sentence that includes mental
health treatment.
2)Specifies that the petition shall be filed after the
defendant's plea or conviction, but before his or her
sentencing.
3)Specifies that the defendant shall bear the burden of
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she
meets the specified criteria regarding mental illness.
AB 2262
Page B
4)Authorizes the court, upon a determination that a defendant
has met the specified criteria regarding mental illness, and a
determination that it is in the public interest, to order the
one or more of the following:
a) That the defendant serve, if the defendant agrees, all
or a part of his or her sentence in a residential mental
health treatment facility instead of in the state prison or
county jail. Defendants with a current conviction for a
violent felony, as specified, would not qualify.
b) The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) or the county jail to place the
defendant in a mental health program within the state
prison or county jail system, respectively, at a level of
care determined to be appropriate by mental health staff,
within 30 days, of the defendant's placement in the state
prison or county jail.
c) CDCR or the county jail to prepare a postrelease mental
health treatment plan six months prior to the defendant's
release to parole or postrelease community supervision
which specifies the manner in which the defendant will
receive mental health treatment services following that
release, and shall address, if applicable and in the
discretion of the court, medication management, housing,
and substance abuse treatment.
5)The defendant or prosecutor may, at any time, petition the
court to recall a sentence that includes a mental health
treatment order issued under these guidelines and the court
may resentence the defendant, provided the defendant gets
credit for the time he or she served and the court does not
impose sentence longer than originally imposed.
6)Specifies that a re-sentence may, but is not required, to
include other mental health treatment, as specified.
AB 2262
Page C
7)Specifies that the defendant has the right to counsel for
these proceedings.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Finds and declares that the provision of probation services is
an essential element in the administration of criminal
justice. The safety of the public, which shall be a primary
goal through the enforcement of court-ordered conditions of
probation; the nature of the offense; the interests of
justice, including punishment, reintegration of the offender
into the community, and enforcement of conditions of
probation; the loss to the victim; and the needs of the
defendant shall be the primary considerations in the granting
of probation. (Pen. Code, § 1202.7.)
2)Specifies that "probation" means "the suspension of the
imposition or execution of a sentence and the order of
conditional and revocable release in the community under the
supervision of a probation officer." (Pen. Code, § 1203(a).)
3)Specifies that "conditional sentence" means "the suspension of
the imposition or execution of a sentence and the order of
revocable release in the community subject to conditions
established by the court without the supervision of a
probation officer." (Pen. Code, § 1203(a).)
4)Provides that the court, in granting probation, may suspend
the imposing or the execution of the sentence and may direct
that the suspension may continue for a period of time not
exceeding the maximum possible term of the sentence, except as
specified, and upon those terms and conditions as it shall
determine. (Pen. Code, § 1203.1.)
5)States that the court may impose and require any or all of the
terms of imprisonment, fine, and conditions, and other
reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and
proper to the end that justice may be done and for the
rehabilitation of the probationer, and that should the
AB 2262
Page D
probationer violate any of the terms or conditions imposed by
the court in the matter, it shall have authority to modify and
change any and all the terms and conditions and to reimprison
the probationer in the county jail, as specified. (Pen. Code,
§ 1203.1, subd. (j).)
6)Specifies that when it appears to the person in charge of a
jail, or juvenile detention facility, or to any judge of a
court in the county in which the jail or juvenile detention
facility is located, that a person in custody in that jail or
juvenile detention facility may be mentally disordered, he or
she may cause the prisoner to be taken to a facility for
72-hour treatment and evaluation. (Pen. Code, § 4011.6.)
7)States that if a prisoner is detained in, or remanded to, a
mental health facility, the facility shall transmit a report,
which shall be confidential, to the person in charge of the
jail or juvenile detention facility or judge of the court who
caused the prisoner to be taken to the facility and to the
local mental health director or his or her designee,
concerning the condition of the prisoner. (Pen. Code, §
4011.6.)
8)Specifies that if the prisoner is detained in a mental health
facility, the time passed in the facility shall count as part
of the prisoner's sentence.
9)States that if the prisoner is to be released from the
facility before conclusion of their sentence, the professional
person in charge shall notify the local mental health
director, counsel for the prisoner, the prosecuting attorney,
and the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention
facility, who shall send for, take, and receive the prisoner
back into the jail or juvenile detention facility. (Pen. Code,
§ 4011.6.)
10)Provides that a defendant, either charged with or convicted
of a criminal offense, or a minor alleged to be within the
AB 2262
Page E
jurisdiction of the juvenile court, may be concurrently
subject to mental health detention as specified by law under
the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Pen. Code, § 4011.6.)
11)States that upon conviction of any felony in which the
defendant is sentenced to state prison, and the court makes
any of the findings listed below, a court shall, in addition
to any other terms of imprisonment, fine, and conditions,
recommend in writing that the defendant participate in a
counseling or education program having a substance abuse
component while imprisoned:
a) That the defendant at the time of the commission of the
offense was under the influence of any alcoholic beverages;
(Pen. Code, § 1203.096, subd. (b)(1).)
b) That the defendant at the time of the commission of the
offense was under the influence of any controlled
substance; (Pen. Code, § 1203.096, subd. (b)(2).)
c) That the defendant has a demonstrated history of
substance abuse; and (Pen. Code, § 1203.096, subd. (b)(3).)
d) That the offense or offenses for which the defendant was
convicted are drug related. (Pen. Code, § 1203.096, subd.
(b)(4).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "Jails and
prisons have become California's de facto mental health
facilities with those who are mentally ill being far more
likely to be incarcerated than to be in a psychiatric
hospital. Incarcerating those with mental illness does not
make sense from an outcomes or a fiscal stand point. Studies
have found that individuals who participate in mental health
courts reoffend one third of the time than those who do not
AB 2262
Page F
and that participant's show significant improvement in quality
of life. Furthermore, mental health courts have been
demonstrated to save $7 in costs for every $1 spent. It costs
$51,000 a year to house an inmate, and $20,412 to house and
treat a person with mental illness. AB 1006 gives the court
the ability to consider the presence of a mental illness in
criminal sentencing."
2)Prevalence of Mentally Ill Offenders: The Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) Council on Mentally
Ill Offenders (COMIO) regards the growing number of inmates
suffering from mental health issues as a pressing concern.<1>
Nationally, a 2009 American Psychiatric Association study "found
that 14.5% of male and 31.0% of female inmates recently
admitted to jail have a serious mental illness" which is three
to six times higher than rates found in the general
population. "A serious mental illness" included major
depressive disorder, depressive disorder not otherwise
specified, schizophrenia spectrum disorder, schizoaffective
disorder, schizophreniform disorder, brief psychotic disorder,
delusional disorder, and psychotic disorder not otherwise
specified.<2>
In 2009, the Division of Correctional Health Care Services for
the CDCR estimated that 23 percent of California's prison
inmates have a serious mental illness.<3> According to the
Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, an estimated "40 to 70
percent of youth in the California juvenile justice system
---------------------------
<1> http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/comio/Legislation.html
<2> Steadman, H., Osher, F. C., Robbins, P. C., Case, B., &
Samuels, S. (2009). Prevalence of serious mental illness among
jail inmates. Psychiatric Services, 60(6), 761-765.
.
<3> Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families,
Children & the Courts. (2011). Task Force for Criminal Justice
Collaboration on Mental Health Issues: Final Report.
.
AB 2262
Page G
have some mental health disorder or illness," with 15 to 25
percent considered severely mentally ill. Based on these
numbers, youth in California's juvenile justice system are two
to four times more likely to be in need of mental health care
than California youth generally.<4> The Bureau of Justice
Statistics reported in 2006 that 74 percent of mentally ill
state prisoners and 76 percent of mentally ill local jail
inmates also met the criteria for substance dependence or
abuse indicating a larger issue with co-occurring disorders
among mentally ill offenders.<5>
3)Increased Rates of Recidivism Among Mentally Ill Offenders: A
2012 review conducted by the Utah Criminal Justice Center
found that released inmates with serious mental illness
experience poorer outcomes overall as they are "twice as
likely to have their probation or parole revoked, are at an
elevated risk for rearrest, incarceration, and homelessness,
lack skills to obtain and sustain employment, and have higher
rates of medical problems." <6>
In 2009, the Council of State Governors Justice Center released
a report entitled Improving Outcomes for People with Mental
Illnesses under Community Corrections Supervision, which
stated that the reasons for increased recidivism among mental
---------------------------
<4> Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice. (2010). Juvenile
Justice Policy Brief Series: Mental Health Issues in
California's Juvenile Justice System.
<5> Treatment Advocacy Center & National Sheriffs' Association.
(2010). More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than
Hospitals: A Survey of States.
<6> University of Utah, Utah Criminal Justice Center. (2012).
Treating Offenders with Mental Illness: A Review of the
Literature.
.
AB 2262
Page H
ill offenders may be multifaceted:
Once people with mental illnesses are finally released, it is
often extremely difficult for them to successfully transition
from incarceration to the community. Their mental illnesses
may be linked to community corrections supervision failure in
a number of ways. Skeem and Loudon have characterized these
links as being direct, indirect, or spurious.
First, mental illnesses may directly result in probation or
parole revocation. For example, an individual may not access
treatment, leading him or her to decompensate, behave in a
bizarre or dangerous manner in public, get arrested for this
behavior, and have his or her probation revoked.
Second, mental illnesses may indirectly result in revocation.
For example, an individual with clinical depression may have
impaired functioning that prevents him or her from maintaining
employment and paying court ordered fines, which are standard
conditions of release. Notably, many people with mental
illnesses returning to the community from jail or prison lack
financial or social supports. Some were receiving Medicaid
and other forms of public assistance at the time of their
arrest, and these benefits are typically terminated rather
than suspended during incarceration, and rarely reinstated
immediately upon release. In short, there is often no safety
net to compensate for functional impairments that may place
individuals with mental illnesses at risk for revocation.
Third, mental illnesses may not result in revocation. Instead,
the relationship between the two may be spurious-that is, more
apparent than real-because a third variable associated with
mental illness causes revocation. For example, an individual
with bipolar disorder may be at risk of committing a new
offense not because of his or her mental illness, but because
of criminogenic attitudes or affiliation with antisocial
peers. Alternatively, an individual with psychosis may be
monitored exceptionally closely and revoked readily by his or
her probation officer, given that traditional supervision
AB 2262
Page I
strategies often reflect misconceptions about (and stigma
associated with) mental illness.<7>
CDCR data shows higher rates of recidivism in inmates identified
with mental health issues when compared to those without.
Upon release, inmates exhibiting mental health problems are
assigned one of two mental health services designations:
Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) or Correctional Clinical
Case Management System (CCCMS). Inmates with severe mental
illness expected to experience difficulty transitioning out of
corrections are designated as EOP and receive treatment at a
level similar to day treatment services in the community,
while inmates receiving CCCMS services are housed within the
general population and participate on an outpatient basis. In
the 2012 CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report, 76.7 percent of
first-release inmates with an EOP designation recidivated
after three years, compared to lower rates found in CCCMS
designees (70.6 percent) and those without a designation (62
percent).<8>
According to a 2005 CDCR report, mental health issues "comprised
the single most critical gap in juvenile justice services. ...
According to those surveyed, the number of at-risk youth and
youthful offenders with mental health problems continues to
increase as does the seriousness of their mental illnesses.
The only thing not increasing is the resources to treat and
confine these troubled and troubling youth." Even if juvenile
offenders receive assistance, absence of treatment after
release may contribute to a path of behavior that includes
continued delinquency and adult criminality.<9>
4)Under Existing Law, Judges Have Discretion to Impose
---------------------------
<7>
https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/023634.pdf.
<8>
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/A
RB_FY_0708_Recidivism_Report_10.23.12.pdf.
<9> California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
(2005). Status Report on Juvenile Justice Reform.
AB 2262
Page J
Conditions on Felony or Misdemeanor Cases When a Defendant is
Placed on Probation: Probation is the suspension of the
imposition or execution of a sentence and the conditional
release of a defendant into the community under the direction
of a probation officer. "Probation is generally reserved for
convicted criminals whose conditional release into society
poses minimal risk to public safety and promotes
rehabilitation." (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th
1114,1120.) Probation can be conditioned on serving a period
of incarceration in county jail and on conditions reasonably
related to the offense. Certain convicted felons are not
eligible for probation. Other felons are presumptively
ineligible for probation, but may be granted probation in an
unusual case.
The primary considerations in granting probation are: (1)
Public safety; (2) the nature of the offense; (3) the
interests of justice; (4) the victim's loss; and (5) the
defendant's needs. (Pen. Code, § 1202.7.)
Courts have broad general discretion to fashion and impose
additional probation conditions that are particularized to the
defendants. People v. Smith (2007) 152. Cal.App.4th 1245,
1249. Courts may impose any "reasonable" conditions necessary
to secure justice and assist the rehabilitation of the
probationer. Under existing law, a judge can impose a
condition of probation that a defendant spend a certain amount
of time in a residential mental health facility in conjunction
with a jail sentence, or as an alternative to a jail sentence.
In imposing probation conditions related to mental health, the
court is not limited to ordering residential mental health
treatment. The court can order outpatient mental health
treatment, or other mental health directives the court finds
appropriate. When a defendant is placed on probation the
court retains jurisdiction over the case to ensure the
defendant complies with probation. The court has the power
to impose further punishment if the defendant does not comply
with probation.
AB 2262
Page K
5)California's Current Sentencing Scheme Does Not Provide an
Option for a Judge to Impose a Split Prison Sentence: Under
California's sentencing scheme, if a person is sent to state
prison, they are sentenced for a determinate amount of time.
Once an individual is sentenced to State Prison they are
committed to the custody of CDCR. Once CDCR has custody of a
defendant, CDCR, not the court, decides where and in what type
of custodial setting the defendant serves their state prison
term.
When a court sentences a defendant to state prison, the court
loses jurisdiction over the individual.
"If the judgment is for imprisonment, 'the defendant must
forthwith be committed to the custody of the proper officer
and by him or her detained until the judgment is complied
with.' The sheriff, upon receipt of the certified abstract of
judgment "or minute order thereof," is required to deliver the
defendant to the warden of the state prison together with the
certified abstract of judgment or minute order. 'It is clear
then that at least upon the receipt of the abstract of the
judgment by the sheriff, the execution of the judgment is in
progress.'
"Thus, for example, in People v. Banks, we considered the
effect of a stay of execution in the context of the trial
court's authority to grant probation for certain offenses. We
observed that upon entry of a guilty plea, if the trial court
chooses to retain jurisdiction under the statutes dealing with
probation, it may pronounce judgment and suspend its execution
by refraining from issuing a commitment of the defendant to
the prison authority. We stated: "The critical requirement
for control over the defendant and the rest of the action is
that the court shall not have surrendered its jurisdiction in
the premises by committing and delivering the defendant to the
prison authority." People v. Karaman, (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335,345
(citation omitted)(italics added.)
Because the court loses jurisdiction over a defendant when
AB 2262
Page L
they are sentenced to state prison, it is unclear who would
have the authority to enforce transfer of a defendant from a
mental health facility to a state prison if treatment in a
residential mental health treatment was ordered for a portion
of the defendant's sentence at the beginning of the sentence.
The same problem would exist if the court sentenced the
defendant to begin their term with state prison, but directed
the later part of the state prison term to be served in a
mental health facility.
For the same jurisdictional reasons, it is unclear what
remedies would be available if a defendant left a residential
mental health treatment facility after being sentenced to such
a facility for a portion of, or all of, a state prison
sentence.
6)Logistical Difficulties of Post Sentencing Procedures to
Petition the Court to Resentence the Defendant: The proposed
legislation allows for the defendant or prosecutor to petition
the resentence the defendant, and provides that defendants
have a right to counsel for those proceedings. From a
practical standpoint, appointing counsel for an individual who
is in a residential mental health treatment facility presents
challenges for a system where most of the defendants are
represented by Public Defender Offices. Public Defender
Offices are accustomed to visiting and representing clients in
custody at the local county jail. To see and represent
clients placed in a variety of mental health facilities that
can be in disparate geographic regions would present
substantial obstacles to such representation. The same
obstacles are present if a defendant in state prison required
representation on a resentencing.
7)Suggested Committee Amendments to be Taken in the Future:
Specify that if a judge re-sentences a defendant, the court
may not impose a sentence longer than originally imposed.
8)Argument in Support: According to The Steinberg Institute,
"As co-sponsor of AB 2262 (Levine), the Steinberg Institute is
AB 2262
Page M
starkly aware of the fact that roughly half of all prisoners
in California are mentally ill and have received psychiatric
treatment within the past year. Many of these offenders'
crimes were directly linked to their mental health condition
and the lack of appropriate treatment. According to the U.S.
Supreme Court, conditions in California prisons are
exacerbating psychiatric disorders of prisoners living with
mental illness. When released from custody, parolees with
mental illness have a higher recidivism rate compared to
healthy parolees, according to the Department of Corrections.
This creates a revolving door of high cost individuals
remaining in the criminal justice system and not accessing the
treatment they need to be-come productive citizens.
"AB 2262, the Mental Health Justice Act, addresses this issue by
allowing Superior Courts discretion when sentencing an
offender with a mental illness to include mental health
treatment in prison and county jails when in the best
interests of the defendant and the community.
"Under current law, when an offender is convicted of a crime,
courts have power only over the length of the offender's
sentence. Even when mental illness is an obvious component of
the offender's crime, courts have no statutory authority to
require mental health treatment or supervision.
"AB 2262 does the following:
"If a defendant has pled guilty or no contest to, or has been
convicted of, an offense that will result in a sentence to
state prison or county jail, the defendant or the prosecutor
may submit evidence, for the courts consideration during
sentencing, of a defendant's diagnosed mental illness that was
a substantial factor that contributed to the defendant's
criminal conduct.
"Having considered the evidence submitted and if the court
determines that it is in the best interest of public safety,
the court may do one, or more of the following:
AB 2262
Page N
"(A) Order that the defendant serve, if the defendant agrees,
all or a part of his or her sentence in a residential mental
health treatment facility instead of in the state prison or
county jail, unless that placement would pose an unreasonable
risk of danger to public safety.
"(B) Direct the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or
county jail authority to place the defendant in a mental
health program within the state prison or county jail system,
respectively, at a level of care determined to be appropriate
by the department's mental health staff or county mental
health staff, within 30 days, of the defendant's sentencing.
"(C) Order the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation or
the county jail to prepare a post release mental health
treatment plan six months prior to the defendant's release to
parole or post release community supervision. The treatment
plan shall specify the manner in which the defendant will
receive mental health treatment services following that
release, and shall address, if applicable and in the
discretion of the court, medication management, housing, and
substance abuse treatment.
"At any time, upon a petition from the defendant or prosecutor,
if it is in the public interest, the court may recall a
sentence that includes a mental health treatment order issued
under this section and either resentence the defendant to any
other mental health treatment authorized under subdivision (c)
or resentence the defendant in the same manner as if he or she
had not previously been sentenced with application of this
section, provided that the initial sentence, and the defendant
receives credit for the time he or she served.
"Simply locking people up with mental illness does not make
sense from an outcomes standpoint, or from a civil rights
perspective for that matter. We believe AB 2262 can help to
mitigate the state's current struggle to treat offenders with
a mental health diagnosis in prison and county jails,
AB 2262
Page O
especially as people with mental illness are far less likely
to commit a crime, violate prison rules, or recidivate if they
are receiving high quality treatment."
"California has made great strides over the past ten years
improving the lives of individuals with severe mental illness
through the Mental Health Services Act and subsequent
legislative reforms to the mental health system. However,
despite all the progress we have made, there still remains a
great deal of work to be done. AB 2262 helps ensure the courts
have appropriate and cost-effective sentencing options and
that offenders who suffer from a diagnosable mental illness
receive the care they need."
9)Argument in Opposition: According to The California District
Attorneys Association, "Beyond our concerns with the timing,
frequency, and nature of the evidence being presented, we
object to this bill's attempt to place the trial court judge
in the role of mental health expert - a role that they likely
have neither the training, nor the inclination to carry out.
Courts already have the authority to order a hearing to
determine whether a defendant is mentally competent to stand
trial, and now would be put in the position of evaluating
evidence of mental illness to determine appropriate placements
and programming for these individuals. We do not believe the
court should be involved in post-conviction treatment issues.
"While the initial blurring of the lines between judge and
mental health evaluator is of great concern at the time of
sentencing, so too is the continuing jurisdiction that the
court would retain over every one of these cases as a result
of the bill allowing defendants and prosecutors to return to
the court 'at any time' for a change in the placement order or
discharge plans. This puts an unknown, but significant,
burden on trial court resources, and marks a drastic departure
from the traditional role of the court.
"Finally, we believe that the determination of whether a
convicted defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger
AB 2262
Page P
to public safety, for purposes of determining eligibility for
residential mental health treatment, is based on an
unreachable standard. Penal Code section 1170.18(c) currently
defines "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" as an
unreasonable risk that the person will commit one of the few
enumerated violent felonies in PC 667(e)(2)(C)(iv).
"Those crimes are limited to sexually violent offenses, murder,
certain sex crimes with children under 14 years old, assault
with a machine gun on a peace officer, possession of weapons
of mass destruction, or a crime punishable by death or life
imprisonment. Put another way, those crimes do not include,
and it would not be enough to show a likelihood that the
individual would commit, any of the following violent offenses
(and this is a partial list):
Carjacking
Armed robbery
Assault on a peace officer with something other than a
machine gun
Most felonies in which the defendant personally uses a
firearm
Assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate
Kidnapping
Holding a hostage by10) a state prison inmate
A felony where the defendant personally inflicted great
bodily injury
Moreover, to be eligible for residential mental health
treatment, the defendant must not be subject to the Three
Strikes Law. So, in order to render someone ineligible to
serve their sentence in a residential facility, a court would
have to determine that someone who has not committed a strike
in the past, now poses an unreasonable risk of committing one
of these few heinous offenses in the future.
"There are no tests, no assessments, and no fortune-telling
devices that foresee when a person is likely to commit a
murder, or a rape, or possess a weapon of mass destruction.
AB 2262
Page Q
Even the most finely tuned assessment tool, at best, can say
that an offender has a likelihood of violently recidivating -
but not which type of crime he or she will commit. These
assessment tools are simply scales based on other offenders
with similar characteristics and backgrounds - essentially a
criminal actuarial table. They can predict a possibility of
committing a crime in the future compared to others with the
same data points, but cannot predict which crime or whether
the crime will occur. Nor are they intended for this purpose,
but as a guide to assist in planning the appropriate level of
supervision and treatment to reduce that likelihood to
recidivate.
"Surely there is a use for these tools under the model
contemplated by AB 2262, but it should not be to predict
whether someone will commit a particular, fact-specific
offense as criteria for a placement in a lower security
facility.
"In practice, we believe that the "unreasonable risk" standard
is insufficient to ensure that violent individuals are not
placed in residential treatment facilities."
11)Related Legislation: AB 1006 (Levine), of the 2015-2016
Legislative Session, would have allowed the court to order the
defendant to serve part of his or her sentence in a
residential mental health treatment facility or order the
defendant placed in a mental health program in the state
prison or county jail, if the defendant had a diagnosable
mental condition. AB 1006 was held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
12)Prior Legislation: SB 1323 (Cedillo), of the 2005-2006
Legislative Session, would have appropriated $350,000 from the
General Fund for allocation, over 5 years, to the County of
Los Angeles, for the purpose of funding one position to work,
in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Superior Court, on
a 5-year Prototype Court Pilot Program for nonviolent felony
offenders in the state who have been identified as having both
AB 2262
Page R
serious mental health and substance abuse problems. SB 1323
was held in Senate Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Steinberg Institute (Co-sponsor)
National Alliance on Mental Illness, California
1 Private Individual
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
Alameda County District Attorney
Analysis Prepared
by: David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744