BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 517 Hearing Date: April 14, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Monning |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 26, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JM |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Supervised Persons: Release
HISTORY
Source: Judicial Council of California
Prior Legislation:AB 109 (Committee on Budget) Ch. 15, Stats.
2011
AB 117 (Committee on Budget) Ch. 39, Stats. 2011
Support: Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; California
Public Defenders Association, California Judges
Association
Opposition: None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to authorize a court to release a
person on mandatory supervision, post release community
supervision or parole who has been alleged to have violated a
condition of supervision, unless the supervised person is
serving a term of flash incarceration.
Existing law requires all persons paroled before October 1, 2011
SB 517 (Monning ) PageB
of?
to remain under the supervision of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) until jurisdiction is
terminated by operation of law or until parole is discharged.
(Pen. Code § 3000.09.)
Existing law requires the following persons released from prison
on or after October 1, 2011, be subject to parole under the
supervision of CDCR:
A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal
Code Section 1192.7(c);
A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal
Code Section 667.5(c);
A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
A high risk sex offender;
A mentally disordered offender;
A person required to register as a sex offender and
subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time
of the commission of the offense for which he or she is
being released; and,
A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the
commission of the offense for which he or she is being
released. (Pen. Code § 3000.08, subd. (a) and (c).)
Existing law requires all other offenders released from prison
on or after October 1, 2011, to be placed on PRCS under the
supervision of a county agency, such as a probation department.
(Pen. Code § 3000.08(b).)
Existing law limits a PRCS term to three years. (Pen. Code §
3451(a).)
Existing law provides for intermediate sanctions for violating
the terms of PRCS, including "flash incarceration" for up to 10
days. (Pen. Code § 3454.)
Existing law specifies that if PRCS is revoked, the offender may
be incarcerated in the county jail for a period not to exceed
SB 517 (Monning ) PageC
of?
180 days for each custodial sanction. (Pen. Code § 3455, subd.
(d).)
Existing law prohibits the return of an offender who violates
conditions of PRCS to prison. (Pen. Code § 3458.)
Existing law specifies that a parolee held in custody for a
pending parole violation before October 1, 2011, may be returned
to state prison for the violation for period not to exceed 12
months. (Pen Code § 3057, subd. (a).)
Existing law specifies that a parolee held in custody for a
pending parole violation on or after October 1, 2011 will be
returned to county jail, rather than state prison, for up to 180
days of incarceration per revocation. (Pen. Code § 3056, subd.
(a).)
Existing law generally authorizes the use of a penalty known as
"flash incarceration"<1> for felons who have been released from
prison, are subject to supervision by state parole or county
probation, and are believed to have violated a condition of
their supervision. (Penal Code
§§ 3008.8, 3450.)
Existing law specifically authorizes county agencies responsible
for supervising persons subject to postrelease community
---------------------------
<1> Existing law, as enacted by the criminal justice
realignment of 2011, includes legislative findings and
declarations which, among other things, defines "community-based
punishment" to mean "evidence-based correctional sanctions and
programming encompassing a range of custodial and noncustodial
responses to criminal or noncompliant offender activity.
Intermediate sanctions may be provided by local public safety
entities directly or through public or private correctional
service providers and include, but are not limited to, the
following: . . . Short-term 'flash' incarceration in jail for a
period of not more than 10 days. . . ." (Pen. Code § 3450.)
SB 517 (Monning ) PageD
of?
supervision<2> ("PRCS") to do the following:
? [D]etermine and order appropriate responses to
alleged violations, which can include, but shall not
be limited to, immediate, structured, and intermediate
sanctions up to and including referral to a reentry
court . . . , or flash incarceration in a county jail.
Periods of flash incarceration are encouraged as one
method of punishment for violations of an offender's
condition of postrelease supervision.
(c) "Flash incarceration" is a period of detention in
county jail due to a violation of an offender's
conditions of postrelease supervision. The length of
the detention period can range between one and 10
consecutive days. Flash incarceration is a tool that
may be used by each county agency responsible for
postrelease supervision. Shorter, but if necessary
more frequent, periods of detention for violations of
an offender's postrelease supervision conditions shall
appropriately punish an offender while preventing the
disruption in a work or home establishment that
typically arises from longer term revocations. (Pen.
Code § 3454(b) and (c) (emphasis added).)
Existing law authorizes the use of flash incarceration on
parolees, who are supervised by state parole. (Pen. Code §
3008.08, subds. (d), (e) and (f).)
Existing law provides that "flash incarceration" can be served
in a city jail. (Pen. Code § 3000.08, subds. (d)-(e).)
This bill provides that if a person under supervision is alleged
---------------------------
<2> "Postrelease Community Supervision ("PRCS") generally
provides that certain felons released from prison "shall, upon
release from prison and for a period not exceeding three years
immediately following release, be subject to community
supervision provided by a county agency designated by each
county's board of supervisors which is consistent with
evidence-based practices, including, but not limited to,
supervision policies, procedures, programs, and practices
demonstrated by scientific research to reduce recidivism among
individuals under postrelease supervision." (Pen. Code § 3451.)
SB 517 (Monning ) PageE
of?
to have violated the terms of probation, mandatory supervision,
post release community supervision or parole, the court may
order release of the person under any terms and conditions the
court deems appropriate.
This bill provides that the authority and discretion of the
court to release a person facing a revocation hearing does not
apply if the person is serving a period of flash incarceration.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight 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.
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 February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 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).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
SB 517 (Monning ) PageF
of?
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
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:
Prior to the implementation of criminal justice
realignment under AB 109, the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation had the authority to
issue arrest warrants for parole violations along with
issuing and recalling parole holds. While the courts
were given the statutory authority to issue arrest
warrants for parole violations under realignment, the
legislation failed to give explicit statutory
authority for the courts to recall a parole hold.
Without this statutory authority, a supervising parole
or probation officer has the sole authority over
custody decisions of a supervised individual in jail
on a parole hold.
SB 517 (Monning ) PageG
of?
When a supervised person is rearrested and placed in
custody, the supervising officer can either impose
sanctions on the offender, such as flash
incarceration, or petition the courts to have their
parole revoked. Until that happens, however, the
courts have no statutory authority to release the
individual from the parole hold. Additionally, an
October 2014 appellate court decision, Williams v.
Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636, now
requires the supervising officer to act within 10 days
of placing a supervised person on a parole hold, by
either imposing sanctions or initiating revocation
proceedings with the courts.
SB 517 will provide the courts with discretion when
determining the custody status of an individual on
probation, parole, or post release community
supervision who is placed in county jail on a parole
hold for violating their terms of supervision. This
measure will correct an oversight of realignment and
ensure that courts have the same authority CDCR had
prior to realignment.
1.Changes to Parole and Other Forms of Supervision as a Result
of Criminal Justice Realignment
Prior to realignment in 2011, inmates released from prison were
placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole
agents of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR). If it was alleged that a parolee had violated a
condition of parole, he or she would have a revocation
proceeding before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). If parole
was revoked, the offender would be returned to state prison for
violating parole.
Realignment shifted the supervision of some released prison
inmates from CDCR parole agents to local probation departments.
Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for inmates released from
prison on or after October 1, 2011 is limited to those
defendants whose term was for a serious or violent felony; were
serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are classified as high-risk
sex offenders; who are required to undergo treatment as mentally
SB 517 (Monning ) PageH
of?
disordered offenders; or who, while on certain paroles, commit
new offenses. All other inmates released from prison are
subject to up to three years of postrelease community
supervision (PRCS) under local supervision. (Pen. Code §§
3000.08, subds. (a)-(c) and 3451, subd. (a).)
Realignment also changed where an offender is incarcerated for
violating parole or PRCS. Most individuals can no longer be
returned to state prison for violating a term of supervision;
offenders serve the revocation term in county jail. There is a
180-day limit to incarceration. The only offenders who are
eligible for return to prison for violating parole are life-term
inmates paroled pursuant to Penal Code Section 3000.1 (e.g.,
murderers, specific life term sex offenses). (Pen. Code §§
3056, subd. (a), 3455, subd. (c) and 3458.)
Additionally, realignment changed the process for revocation
hearings, but this change is being implemented in phases. Until
July 1, 2013, individuals supervised on parole by state agents
continue to have revocation hearings before the BPH. After July
1, 2013, the trial courts will assume responsibility for holding
all revocation hearings for those individuals who remain under
the jurisdiction of CDCR. In contrast, since the inception of
realignment, individuals placed on PRCS stopped appearing before
the BPH for revocation hearings. Their revocation hearings are
handled by the trial court. PRCS currently provides for lesser
or "intermediate" sanctions before PRCS is revoked for a
violation. This includes "flash incarceration" for up to 10
days. (Pen. Code § 3454.) Intermediate sanctions, including
flash incarceration, will also be available for state parolees
after July 1, 2013. (Pen. Code § 3000.08(d).)
-- END -