BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2839 Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Thurmond |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 13, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Criminal Penalties: Nonpayment of Fines
HISTORY
Source: Conference of California Bar Associations
Prior Legislation:AB 1375 (Thurmond) Chapter 209, Stats. 2015
Support: Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; California
Public Defenders Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to clarify that when a criminal
defendant is ordered imprisoned for non-payment of a
non-restitution criminal fine, only the base fine is used when
determining the term of imprisonment.
Existing law authorizes the court to incarcerate a defendant
until an imposed criminal fine is satisfied, but limits such
imprisonment to the maximum term permitted for the particular
offense of conviction. (Penal Code § 1205 (a).)
AB 2839 (Thurmond ) Page
2 of ?
Existing law requires that the time of imprisonment for failure
to pay a fine be calculated as no more than one day for every
$125 of the fine. (Penal Code § 1205 (a).)
Existing law states that this provision applies to any violation
of any of the codes or statutes of the state which are
punishable by a fine or by a fine and imprisonment, but that it
does not apply to restitution fines or restitution orders.
(Penal Code § 1205 (c) & (f).)
Existing law provides that all days spent in custody by the
defendant must first be applied to the term of imprisonment and
then to any fine including, but not limited to, base fines at
the rate of not less than $125 per day, or more, in the
discretion of the trial court. (Penal Codea § 2900.5. (a).)
This bill prohibits the term of imprisonment for nonpayment of a
fine from exceeding one day for each $125 of the base fine or
the term for which the defendant may be sentenced.
This bill specifies that all days that a defendant is in custody
shall be credited upon the defendant's term of imprisonment or
credited proportionally to any criminal base fine, excluding
restitution or restitution orders, at a rate of not less than
$125 per day.
This bill states that any fees and assessments imposed on the
base fine shall be reduced proportionally to the reduction of
the base fine awarded as a result of custody credits.
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
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.
AB 2839 (Thurmond ) Page
3 of ?
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
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
AB 2839 (Thurmond ) Page
4 of ?
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:
Last year, the Legislature unanimously approved AB 1375
to help address the excesses of the "debt trap" faced
by many defendant facing small fines in criminal court.
The bill enacted an inflationary adjustment from $30
to $125 per day to the rate at which jail time offset
assessed fines that the prisoner could not pay. The
purpose of the bill was to reduce the time spent in
jail by indigent defendants unable to pay small fines.
Unfortunately, in response, some courts have now
changed their method of calculating the fines against
which the jail time is offset. Where before the offset
was applied to the base fine, with penalties and
assessments disregarded or reduced, these courts now
are applying the credit only after penalties and
assessments have been added. The net result in these
courts is that indigent defendants now end up facing
more jail time for the same minor fine, rather than
less.
AB 2839 will address this issue by specifying that the
credit for jail time is to be applied to the base fine,
not to the fine enhanced by penalties and assessments.
2. Criminal Fines and Penalties
Criminal fines and penalties have climbed steadily in recent
decades. Government entities tasked with collecting these
fines have realized diminishing returns from collection
efforts. A recent San Francisco Daily Journal article noted,
AB 2839 (Thurmond ) Page
5 of ?
"California courts and counties collect nearly $2 billion in
fines and fees every year. Nevertheless, the state still has
a more than $10.2 billion balance of uncollected debt from
prior years, according to the most recent date from 2012."
(See Jones & Sugarman, State Judges Bemoan Fee Collection
Process, San Francisco Daily Journal, (January 5, 2015).)
"Felons convicted to prison time usually can't pay their
debts at all. The annual growth in delinquent debt partly
reflects a supply of money that doesn't exist to be
collected." (Id.) In the same article, the Presiding Judge
of San Bernardino County was quoted 1 However, imprisonment
pending payment of a fine is unconstitutional as applied to
a convicted indigent defendant if the failure to pay is due
to indigence and not to willfulness. (In re Antazo (1970) 3
Cal.3d 100, 103-104.) AB 1375 (Thurmond ) Page 4 of 4 as
saying "the whole concept is getting blood out of a turnip."
(Id.)
3. Clarifying Credits Apply to the Base Fine
As noted in the author's statement, AB 1375 (Thurmond),
enacted last year, increased the amount of credit toward
fines that a person gets for each day served in jail. This
bill clarifies that fees and assessments are to be imposed
on the base fine as reduced by custody credits. Currently,
courts impose fees and assessments automatically in
proportion to the base fine. Existing law states that when
incarcerated individuals receive credit toward their
criminal fines -excluding restitution fines and orders-,
those individuals receive not less than $125 per day in
custody. This bill would apply those custody credits to the
base fine, rather than the total of the base fine with added
fees and assessments. Because fees and assessments are
calculated proportionally to the base AB 2839 Page 3 fine,
these amendments would reduce the total of the fines imposed
on defendants by reducing the base fine.
4. Support
The Conference of California Bar Associations, the sponsor
of this bill, states:
AB 2839 (Thurmond ) Page
6 of ?
AB 2839 is follow-up legislation to AB 1375 (Thurmond)
of 2015, reaffirming that bill's intent and
invalidating its mis-implementation by at least one
court. AB 1375, which was approved unanimously by both
houses, amended Penal Code §§1205 and §2900.5 to
increase the minimum credit for incarceration towards
paying off a criminal fine from $30.00 per day to
$125.00 per day. The intent of the bill was to make it
easier for poor defendants charged with minor offenses
to ease the burden of paying off ever-increasing fines
by converting those fines to jail time at a more
reasonable rate, and to ease jail overcrowding by
enabling low-income defendants to satisfy their debt
more quickly. The bill was also intended to reduce
incarceration costs, since counties end up paying
significant amounts of money to incarcerate
non-violent, poor defendants, jailed only for
non-payment of debt.
For forty years, California courts have calculated jail
credits against the base fine, with penalties and
assessments reduced proportionately. Unfortunately, in
response to the change made by AB 1375, some courts
have changed their method of calculating the fines
against which the jail time is applied by applying
credits only after penalties and assessments have been
added. In these courts, indigent defendants now face
more jail time for the same minor fine than they did
before AB 1375, despite the legislation's clear intent.
This also increases jail overcrowding for minor
offenses, and costs counties more money in
incarceration costs.
AB 2839 would restore the "normal" calculation method
in place for the forty years before the passage of AB
1375, thereby ensuring that the Legislature's intent in
enacting the bill is given effect, jail overcrowding is
reduced, and local costs are kept low.
-- END -
AB 2839 (Thurmond ) Page
7 of ?