BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 617 (Block) - Crimes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: January 14, 2016 |Policy Vote: Public Safety 5-1 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: January 19, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: This bill would, subject to specified exceptions,
allow misdemeanors punishable by a maximum term of confinement
not exceeding six months in a county jail to be charged as a
misdemeanor or an infraction at the discretion of the
prosecuting attorney. This bill would require prosecutors
exercising this charging discretion to collect and report
specified data to the Legislature. The provisions of this bill
would sunset on January 1, 2020.
Fiscal
Impact:
Court administration : Major cost savings, potentially in the
tens of millions of dollars (Trial Court Trust Fund*) annually
through 2019 to the trial courts to the extent defendants that
otherwise would have been charged with a misdemeanor are
charged with an infraction. The number of cases potentially
impacted statewide is unknown, but for every 50,000 cases
impacted, cost savings are estimated at $17.3 million. Any
cost savings experienced by the courts would potentially be
redirected to support trial court operations and services that
SB 617 (Block) Page 1 of
?
have been subject to significant budget reductions.
Restitution fines : Potentially major future reduction in
restitution fines imposed (Restitution Fund), as restitution
fines are only assessed on felony and misdemeanor convictions.
Restitution fines for misdemeanor offenses range from $150 to
$1,000 per conviction. For every 50,000 cases impacted, a
minimum of $7.5 million in restitution fines would no longer
be imposed. Revenue impact would be dependent on the rate of
collection and collectability of the court-ordered debt.
Other Fines/Fees/Assessments : Potentially major future
reduction in fine, fee, and assessments imposed in the tens of
millions of dollars (General Fund / various Special Funds) to
the extent reducing the maximum fine from $1,000 to $250 will
result in lower fine amounts on average being charged. Revenue
impact would be dependent on number of cases impacted, actual
fine imposed, rate of collection, and collectability of the
debt.
Public defenders : Major local cost savings in the millions of
dollars (Local Funds) due to significant workload reduction
resulting from fewer misdemeanor filings and trials, as well
as new costs potentially in the millions of dollars to entitle
indigent defendants charged with an infraction to a public
defender at arraignment. To the extent local agency
expenditures to provide counsel at arraignment qualify as a
reimbursable state mandate, agencies could claim reimbursement
for those costs (General Fund). Creates additional future cost
pressure to have counsel available at arraignment for
alternate misdemeanor/infractions under existing law.
County jails/probation : Potentially major cost savings in the
tens of millions of dollars (Local Funds) in reduced county
jail and probation costs to the extent the offenses impacted
by this bill would have otherwise resulted in a misdemeanor
conviction that included a jail sentence and/or local
supervision.
Local prosecutors : Likely major net cost savings in the
millions of dollars (Local Funds) annually due to fewer
misdemeanor filings and trials, offset in minor part by costs
for data collection and reporting. Costs for data reporting
are likely non-reimbursable (Local Funds), as only those
prosecutors opting to exercise the charging discretion created
by this bill are subject to the reporting requirement.
*General Fund
SB 617 (Block) Page 2 of
?
Background: Existing law provides that except in cases where a different
punishment is prescribed by statute, every offense declared to
be a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail
not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or
by both. (Penal Code (PC) § 19.)
In the case of an infraction, existing law provides that the
offense is not punishable by imprisonment. Existing law further
states that a person charged with an infraction is not entitled
to a trial by jury, nor entitled to have the public defender or
other counsel appointed at public expense to represent him or
her unless he or she is arrested and not released on his or her
written promise to appear, his or her own recognizance, or a
deposit of bail. Except in cases where a different punishment is
prescribed, every offense declared to be an infraction is
punishable by a fine not exceeding $250. (PC §§ 19.6 and
19.8(b).)
Existing law states that except as otherwise provided by law,
all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors apply to
infractions including, but not limited to, powers of peace
officers, jurisdiction of courts, periods for commencing action
and for bringing a case to trial and burden of proof. (PC §
19.7.)
Penal Code § 19.8 includes a list of specific offenses
(including but not limited to disturbing the peace and public
fighting) that may be charged as an infraction or a misdemeanor
(commonly referred to as a "wobblette"). Under existing law, the
decision to reduce the charge occurs at arraignment and may be
made by either the prosecuting attorney or the court, as
follows:
The prosecutor files a complaint charging the offense as
an infraction unless the defendant, at the time he or she
is arraigned, after being informed of his or her rights,
elects to have the case proceed as a misdemeanor, or;
The court, with the consent of the defendant, determines
that the offense is an infraction in which event the case
shall proceed as if the defendant had been arraigned on an
infraction complaint. (PC § 17(d).)
In contrast, although the offense of petty theft (value of the
SB 617 (Block) Page 3 of
?
money or property taken is of a value no greater than $50)
pursuant to PC § 490.1 may be charged as a misdemeanor or an
infraction provided the person charged with the offense has no
other theft or theft-related conviction, in People v. Campbell
(2002) 104 Cal.App.4th Supp.1, the court determined that the
trial court, with the consent of the accused and over the
objection of the prosecutor, was not authorized by statute to
reduce the misdemeanor charge of petty theft to an infraction,
as the plain language of the petty theft statute only provides
charging authority to the prosecutor, and petty theft is not an
offense specifically designated in PC § 19.8.
Similarly, this bill would allow misdemeanors, with specified
exceptions, punishable by a maximum term of confinement not
exceeding six months in jail to be charged as a misdemeanor or
an infraction at the discretion of the prosecuting attorney.
Proposed
Law: This bill would provide that except as provided by express
statutory provisions providing an alternative punishment or
procedure, a crime punishable as a misdemeanor with a maximum
term of confinement not exceeding six months in a county jail
may be charged as a misdemeanor or an infraction at the
discretion of the prosecuting attorney. Specifically, this bill:
Codifies legislative findings declaring that there are
low-level misdemeanor offenses that, at the discretion of
the prosecuting attorney, and based on the facts of the
committed offenses, the lack of prior delinquency or
criminality of the offender, and the lack of the offender's
need for supervision, can be effectively prosecuted as
infractions. And, that reducing these misdemeanors to
infractions will not compromise public safety, and that
diverting low-level misdemeanor offenders away from the
criminal justice system and the stigma associated with it
will avoid costs associated with protracted court
involvement, jury trials, attorney representation,
confinement, and probation involvement.
Provides that a person charged with an infraction
pursuant to the bill's provisions is subject to PC § 19.6
(shall not be punished by imprisonment, shall not be
entitled to a trial by jury, and shall not be entitled to
have the public defender or other counsel appointed at
public expense to represent him or her, subject to
SB 617 (Block) Page 4 of
?
exceptions.
Specifies that an indigent person charged with an
infraction pursuant to the bill's provisions is entitled to
have the public defender or other counsel appointed at
public expense to represent the person at arraignment.
Provides that a person charged with an infraction
pursuant to the bill's provisions has the right to elect
that the charge be brought as a misdemeanor and, if that
election is made, has all of the rights, privileges,
punishments, consequences, fines, penalties, and
disabilities afforded those charged with a misdemeanor.
Requires the person to be notified of this right in writing
or in person before a disposition of the charge is
accepted.
Specifies that an offense charged as an infraction
pursuant to the bill's provisions is punishable by a fine
not to exceed $250, except where a lesser fine is expressly
prescribed.
Provides that the provisions of the bill do not apply to
the following offenses:
o A misdemeanor firearms violation.
o A misdemeanor violation of the requirement to
register pursuant to Chapter 5.5 of Title 9 of Part 1
of the Penal Code.
o A misdemeanor violation of a crime for which a
person is required to register pursuant to Section
290.
o A misdemeanor child endangerment or child
abuse violation.
o A misdemeanor elder abuse violation.
o A misdemeanor domestic violence violation.
o A misdemeanor driving-under-the-influence
violation.
o A misdemeanor sex offense.
o A misdemeanor that is imposed by an initiative
statute that does not permit a lesser punishment.
o A misdemeanor violation resulting in
restitution being owed to a victim.
o A misdemeanor violation of the California
Occupational Safety and Health Act (Cal-OSHA).
o A misdemeanor violation of specified
environmental offenses.
Requires a district attorney who charges infractions
pursuant to the bill's provisions to report the following
SB 617 (Block) Page 5 of
?
data for his or her jurisdiction for the period January 1,
2017, to January 1, 2019, to the Legislature by March 1,
2019:
o The specific offense filed under this section.
o The number of cases filed under this section
as an infraction.
o The number of defendants who elected to
proceed with an infraction.
o The number of defendants that elected to
proceed with the charge as a misdemeanor.
Sunsets the provisions of the bill on January 1, 2020,
unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before
January 1, 2020, deletes or extends that date.
Staff
Comments: By allowing misdemeanors, with specified exceptions,
to be charged as either a misdemeanor or an infraction, this
bill could potentially result in major cost savings to the
courts, county jails, prosecutors, public defenders, and
probation departments, to the extent prosecutors exercise the
charging discretion created in this bill to charge these
offenses as infractions.
It cannot be determined with certainty how many cases will be
impacted by this measure, as the impact will be dependent on
numerous factors including but not limited to the charging
discretion of prosecutors and the decisions made by individuals
who elect to proceed with either an infraction charge or
misdemeanor charge.
According to the Judicial Council's 2015 Court Statistics
Report, there were over 915,500 misdemeanor filings and nearly
741,000 dispositions of misdemeanor cases statewide in Fiscal
Year 2013-14. Of the total misdemeanor cases resolved, 99
percent of cases were disposed of before trial, and one percent
of misdemeanor dispositions resulted in court or jury trials.
Statewide data on the number of misdemeanor cases that would
potentially be impacted under this measure was not available at
the time of this analysis. However, after accounting for only
those misdemeanor offenses with maximum terms of six months or
less, as well as excluding the specific offenses exempted under
SB 617 (Block) Page 6 of
?
the provisions of this bill and the offenses already eligible to
be charged as infractions pursuant to PC § 19.8, data specific
to San Diego County indicates slightly more than 25 percent of
misdemeanor filings per year could potentially be impacted by
this bill. As the impact to individual counties will likely vary
and could vary widely, for a rough sense of magnitude,
extrapolating from the San Diego County data to misdemeanor
filings statewide results in nearly 230,000 misdemeanor cases
per year potentially eligible statewide. The number of cases
that will ultimately be charged as infractions under the
provisions of this bill in any one year statewide is unknown,
but for every 50,000 cases in which an infraction is charged in
lieu of a misdemeanor, cost savings to the courts are estimated
at $17.2 million, based on the difference between the average
court cost to administer a misdemeanor ($380) vs. an infraction
($35) case [Legislative Analyst's Office, California's Criminal
Justice System: A Primer, 2013, p. 36]. To the extent the number
of cases impacted is greater or less, cost savings to the courts
would be commensurately higher or lower.
This bill could significantly reduce the amount of restitution
fines imposed, as restitution fines are only assessed on felony
and misdemeanor convictions. In addition to any restitution
required to be paid to a victim, existing law pursuant to PC §
1202.4(b)(1), requires the court to impose a separate and
additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and
extraordinary reasons for not doing so. The amount of the
restitution fine is set at the discretion of the court and
commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. For
misdemeanor convictions, the fine amount ranges between $150 and
$1,000.
To the extent the provisions of this bill result in a reduction
in the number of misdemeanor convictions, the number of cases in
which a restitution fine will be imposed will likewise decrease.
Although the number of cases to be impacted statewide is
unknown, for every 50,000 cases impacted, assuming the minimum
fine amount of $150 per misdemeanor conviction, $7.5 million in
restitution fines would no longer be imposed. The revenue impact
in any one year would be dependent on numerous factors including
the rate of collection and collectability of the court-ordered
debt.
SB 617 (Block) Page 7 of
?
With regard to other criminal fines, this bill could result in a
reduction in the level of fine, fee, and assessments imposed in
the tens of millions of dollars (General Fund / various Special
Funds) to the extent reducing the maximum fine from $1,000 to
$250 results in lower fine amounts on average being imposed in
these cases. Accounting for the additional state penalty
assessment and state surcharge assessed on base fines, this bill
could reduce the amount of court-ordered debt imposed and
payable to various state funds by up to $675 per case.
-------------------------------------------
| |Misdemea|Infracti|
| | nor | on |
|-------------------------+--------+--------|
|Base fine (maximum) | $1,000 | $250 |
|-------------------------+--------+--------|
| | | |
|-------------------------+--------+--------|
|State penalty assessment | $1,000 | $250 |
|($10 per $10 BF) | | |
|-------------------------+--------+--------|
|70% of assessment to | $700 | $175 |
|state funds | | |
|-------------------------+--------+--------|
|State surcharge (20% of | $200 | $50 |
|BF) | | |
|-------------------------+--------+--------|
| | | |
|-------------------------+--------+--------|
|Total state funds | $900 | $225 |
|impacted per case | | |
|-------------------------+--------+--------|
|Difference | |($675) |
| | | |
-------------------------------------------
As this bill is intended to impact non-serious offenses, the
misdemeanor fine imposed could potentially have been
significantly lower than the maximum in most cases, or
alternatively, closer to the maximum assuming no jail time would
SB 617 (Block) Page 8 of
?
have been imposed. Given the potential number of cases impacted,
however, even a slight decrease in the average fine amount
imposed would result in a potential reduction to state funds in
the millions of dollars. The actual impact to state fund
revenues in any one year would be dependent on numerous factors
including but not limited to the number of cases impacted, the
fine amount imposed, the rate of collection, and collectability
of the debt.
This bill creates a new requirement on public defenders by
entitling indigent defendants charged with an infraction to
appointment of a public defender or appointed counsel at public
expense at arraignment. Although the provisions of this bill
will significantly reduce the existing level of workload
required of public defenders in misdemeanor cases, to the extent
the Commission on State Mandates determines the provisions of
this bill create a higher level of service on public defenders,
local agency expenditures resulting from providing counsel at
arraignment could potentially qualify as a reimbursable state
mandate, and local agencies could claim General Fund
reimbursement for those costs.
Staff notes it is unclear whether the new requirement to have
public defenders available at arraignment for persons charged
with an infraction will also require adjustments to existing
court processes, timelines, or procedures that could result in
additional administrative costs to the court. This new
requirement also potentially creates additional future cost
pressure to have public defenders or appointed counsel available
at arraignment for alternate misdemeanor/infractions under
existing law that are not afforded this service.
Recommended Amendments: Subdivision (c) of Section 19.5
provides that a person charged with an infraction is subject to
PC § 19.6, which provides in part that a person charged with an
infraction is not entitled to have the public defender or other
counsel appointed at public expense to represent him or her, as
specified. However, subdivision (d) of Section 19.5 provides
that an indigent person charged with an infraction shall be
entitled to counsel at arraignment. To address this
contradiction, staff recommends the following amendment on page
SB 617 (Block) Page 9 of
?
3, in line 24:
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), an An indigent person
charged with an infraction pursuant to this section shall be
entitled to have the public defender or other counsel appointed
at public expense to represent the person at arraignment.
-- END --