BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2695
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2695 (Obernolte) - As Amended April 19, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill revises the procedure for when there is a question
about the mental competence of a juvenile charged with a crime.
Specifically, this bill:
AB 2695
Page 2
1)States that whenever the court has a doubt that a minor who is
subject to any juvenile proceedings is mentally competent, the
court shall suspend all proceedings and make a determination
of competence.
2)Specifies that a minor is mentally incompetent if he or she is
unable to understand the nature of the proceedings, including
his or her role in the proceedings, or unable to assist
counsel in conducting a defense in a rational manner,
including a lack of a rational and factual understanding of
the nature of the charges or proceedings.
3)Provides a process for establishing competency. States that
unless the parties stipulate to a finding that the minor lacks
competency, or the parties are willing to submit on the issue
of the minor's lack of competency, the court must appoint an
expert, with expertise in child and adolescent development and
forensic evaluation of juvenile, to evaluate the minor through
interviews with minor and counsel and review of available
records, and determine whether the minor is competent.
4)If the expert finds that the minor lacks competency, the
expert must make recommendations regarding the type of
remediation services the minor requires. Requires the court
upon a finding of incompetency, to refer the minor to services
designed to help the minor attain competency. Service
providers shall determine the likelihood of the minor
attaining competency within a reasonable period of time, and
if the opinion is that the minor will not attain competency
within a reasonable period of time, the minor shall be
returned to court at the earliest possible date.
5)Provides a process to move the case forward until the minor
attains competency, or the minor remains in a remediation
program. In no case will the remediation extend beyond two
years, - current law is three years - or a period of time
equal to the maximum term of detention for the most serious
AB 2695
Page 3
charge, whichever is shorter, if the petition involves a
felony; or one year, or the time equal to the maximum term, on
a petition that contains only a misdemeanor.
6)States that if the court finds that the minor will not achieve
competency, the court shall dismiss the charges, and states
that the proceedings above apply to juveniles before the
criminal court.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Unknown, but likely in the low hundreds of thousands of
dollars, reimbursable mandate costs (GF) for county probation
departments to provide a higher level of remediation services
to minors. If 500 minors are housed for an additional five
days and the cost for the higher level of services is an
additional $100 per day, the annual cost would be $250,000.
However, pursuant to Proposition 30 (November 2012) any
legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an
overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a
local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by
realignment only apply to local agencies to the extent that
the state provides annual funding for the cost increase.
2)Minor absorbable costs to the Judicial Council to establish a
new Rule of Court.
3)Minor and absorbable costs to the courts.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "There are a number of
deficiencies in the existing laws that lay out the procedures
for determining whether minors are able to understand and
AB 2695
Page 4
participate in court proceedings. As a result, juveniles that
may lack competency are being underserved and left without
proper protection.
"AB 2695, sponsored by the Judicial Council, would address these
issues and revise the provisions for assessing a minor's
competency and set guidelines for how to proceed if they are
deemed incompetent. It is the result of a two-year working
group, consisting of members of California's Family and
Juvenile Law Advisory Committee, Collaborative Justice Courts
Advisory Committee and Mental Health Issues Implementation
Task Force. Among the stakeholders that participated in the
working group were judges, a chief probation officer, a deputy
district attorney, a deputy public defender and a private
defense attorney.
"Together with input from public comment, the working group
drafted a set of amendments to the Welfare and Institutions
Code that would clarify and improve these procedures. The
result, AB 2695, presents a cohesive set of guidelines for
competency proceedings that will better protect minors who are
facing competency questions."
2)Opposition. The California Public Defenders Association
(DPDA) states, "Certainly Welfare and Institutions Code
section 709 in its current configuration leaves much to be
desired with respect to policies and procedures regarding
juvenile adjudicative competency. However, AB 2695, as
currently proposed, fails to improve upon current law and in
many respects creates an even more problematic process
regarding children whose competency has been called into
question in juvenile delinquency proceedings. CPDA further
opposes AB 2695's provisions that gives the juvenile court
authorization to refer minors for services after the court's
jurisdiction has been terminated due to the substantial
likelihood the minor will not attain competency in a
reasonable amount of time."
AB 2695
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081