BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2262
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2262 (Levine) - As Amended March 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|6 - 1 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
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
sentencing.
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.
COMMENTS:
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
term.
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)
319-2081