BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                    AB 2262

                                                                    Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  April 13, 2016


                               Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

          2262 (Levine) - As Amended March 28, 2016

          |Policy       |Public Safety                  |Vote:|6 - 1        |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |

          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  YesReimbursable:   


          This bill 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  


                                                                    AB 2262

                                                                    Page  2

          that they meet specified criteria regarding mental illness.   
          Specifically, this bill:   

          1)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 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 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.

          FISCAL EFFECT:

          1)Potential cost in the hundreds of thousands (GF) to CDCR.   
            This bill would create a parallel track for inmates to be  
            referred to the Mental Health Services Delivery System; one  
            based on the system that has been developed by CDCR's Division  
            of Health Care Services in collaboration with and monitored by  


                                                                    AB 2262

                                                                    Page  3

            the Federal court in Coleman v. Brown, and a second system  
            based on this bill, in which the courts determine that inmates  
            require mental health care. Furthermore, AB 2262 may result in  
            additional inmates being subject to Coleman v. Brown.  It is  
            difficult, if not impossible, to estimate the fiscal impact  
            for this bill.    

            One single additional Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) inmate  
            would cost the state between $20,119 and $45,885 per year at  
            minimum; a single Correctional Clinical Case Management System  
            (CCCMS) inmate would cost the state between $3,808 and  
            $17,919.  CDCR anticipates addition legal cost to petition the  
            courts if their assessment of an inmate is in disagreement  
            with the court, and to remove an inmate from care should the  
            inmate's mental health condition improve. 

            This bill could result in savings to CDCR however, if inmates  
            serve their time in residential facilities instead of  
            correctional institutions.

          2)Potential cost in the hundreds of thousands (Trial Court  
            Fund/GF) to the courts for the additional hearings that will  
            be requested.

          3)Potential significant nonreimbursable state mandated costs to  
            counties to provide additional mental health services to  
            current inmates in county jails.  Some costs will be offset if  
            inmates serve their time in residential facilities instead of  
            county jails.

          SUMMARY (Continued):

          1)Permits a defendant, who at any prior time was eligible for  


                                                                    AB 2262

                                                                    Page  4

            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.  The petition must be filed after the  
            defendant's plea or conviction, but before his or her  

          2)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. 

          3)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    re-sentence the defendant, provided the defendant gets  
            credit for the time he or she served and the court does not  
            impose a sentence longer than originally imposed.

          4)Specifies that a re-sentence may, but is not required, to  
            include other mental health treatment, as specified.

          5)Specifies that the defendant has the right to counsel for  
            these proceedings.


          1)Purpose.  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.  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 2262

                                                                    Page  5

            AB 1006 gives the court the ability to consider the presence  
            of a mental illness in criminal sentencing."

          2)Background.  Under current law, 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 determines. The court also has authority to  
            modify and change any and all the terms and conditions and to  
            reimprison the probationer in the county jail, as specified.

          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."  Also, CDCR data shows higher  
            rates of recidivism in inmates identified with mental health  
            issues when compared to those without.  

          4)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  

          5)Support.  According to The Steinberg Institute, "Simply  
            locking people up with mental illness does not make sense from  


                                                                    AB 2262

                                                                    Page  6

            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, 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."  

          6)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.

          Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)