BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 651 Hearing Date: April 21, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Leyva |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 27, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JM |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Juvenile Conduct: Victims
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles County District Attorney; Crime Victims
Action Alliance
Prior Legislation:None
Support: California District Attorneys Association; Association
of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Los Angeles Police
Protective League; Los Angeles County Probation
Officers Union; American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees, Local 685; Association of
Deputy District Attorneys
Opposition:None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to make the definition of a victim
in the context of restitution orders in juvenile delinquency
matters the same as the definition of a victim in adult criminal
sentencing.
SB 651 (Leyva ) Page
2 of ?
Existing provisions in the California Constitution state that
all crime victims have the right to seek and secure restitution
from the perpetrators of these crimes. Restitution must be
ordered in every case without exception. Where a defendant has
been ordered to pay restitution, all money, or property
collected from the defendant must be first applied to satisfy
restitution orders. (Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 28, subd.
(b)(13)(A)-(C).)
Existing law provides for restitution orders in criminal
convictions - enforceable as a civil judgment - to ensure that a
victim of a crime who incurs any economic loss shall receive
restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime.
If a restitution order is made, the defendant has the right to
a hearing before the court to dispute the determination of the
amount of the order. A restitution order may be modified upon
motion of the district attorney, the victim or victims, or the
defendant. (Pen. Code § 1202.4, subds. (f) and (i).)
Existing law provides that a restitution order shall be prepared
by the court and identify each victim and each loss. (Pen. Code
§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(3).)
Existing law generally provides for victim restitution and a
victim restitution fine from minors found to have committed a
crime by the juvenile court. Juvenile court restitution is
largely parallel to or consistent with restitution law
applicable to adult criminal cases. (Welf. and Inst. Code §
730.6.)
Existing law comprehensively defines a victim for purposes of
adult criminal sentencing. The definition includes the
following:
The immediate surviving family of the actual victim.
A corporation, other specified commercial or legal
entity, a government or governmental subdivision, agency,
or instrumentality, when such an entity is a direct victim
of a crime.
SB 651 (Leyva ) Page
3 of ?
A person who has sustained economic loss from a crime
and who, at the time of the crime, had the status or
identity of one of the following:
o The parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse,
child, or grandchild of the victim One who living in
the household of the victim;
o One who had previously lived in the household
of the victim for a period of not less than two years
in a relationship substantially similar to a familial
relationship;
o A more broadly defined family member of the
victim who witnessed the crime, such as the victim's
fiancé or fiancé;
o The primary caretaker of a minor victim;
o A person eligible to receive assistance from
the Restitution Fund;
o A governmental entity that is responsible for
repairing, replacing, or restoring public or private
owned property that has been defaced with graffiti or
other inscribed material, as specified. (Pen. Code §
1202.4, subd. (k).)
Existing law defines a victim for purposes of restitution in a
juvenile case to include:
The immediate surviving family of the actual victim;
A governmental entity that is responsible for repairing,
replacing, or restoring public or private owned property
that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed
material, as specified. (Welf. and Inst. Code § 730.6,
subd. (j).)
SB 651 (Leyva ) Page
4 of ?
Existing decisional law provides that a juvenile court has the
authority to issue a broad restitution order, consistent with
the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile court. (In re
Alexander A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 847, 854-855.)
Existing provisions of the California Constitution define a
victim as "a person who suffers direct or threatened physical,
psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission
or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act. The term
'victim' also includes the person's spouse, parents, children,
siblings, or guardian, and includes a lawful representative of a
crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically or
psychologically incapacitated." (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28,
subd. (e), italics added.)
Existing decisional law provides that a juvenile court
restitution orders must comply with the broad definition of a
victim in the California Constitution. (In re Scott H. (2013)
221 Cal.App.4th 515, 522.)
This bill defines a victim for purposes of restitution in
juvenile delinquency matters to be the same as the definition of
a victim for purposes of restitution orders in adult criminal
sentencing.
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
SB 651 (Leyva ) Page
5 of ?
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
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
SB 651 (Leyva ) Page
6 of ?
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author and sponsor:
Currently, [the juvenile court restitution statute
does not include a direct victim's] immediate family
members are not entitled to restitution for
?.crime-related expenses because they do not fall
within the definition of a victim in Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 730.6(j).) Because that
section does not mirror the definition of a victim in
Penal Code Section 1202.4 (f), the Los Angeles County
District Attorney has had to rely on the appellate
courts' interpretation of the statute to obtain
restitution orders on behalf of victims in juvenile
court cases.
The court in In re Scott H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 515
considered whether the family members of the victim of
a lewd conduct offense committed by a juvenile
offender were entitled to restitution for mental
health counseling fees. The juvenile court ordered
restitution for the therapy, but the juvenile court
SB 651 (Leyva ) Page
7 of ?
order was reversed by the Court of Appeal because the
family members were not specifically defined as
victims in the juvenile court restitution statute.
The California Supreme Court vacated the decision of
the Court of Appeal and directed the court to
reconsider its decision in light of [the expansive
definition of a victim] in the California
Constitution. Had the Welfare and Institutions Code
mirrored the Penal Code restitution provisions, the
juvenile court restitution order would have stood
without the need for a Supreme Court decision.
2.The California Constitution and Appellate Decisions
Expansively Define the term "Victim" in the Context of
Restitution Orders in Juvenile Delinquency Cases
As noted in the author's statement, appellate decisions have
held that juvenile delinquency restitution orders must comply
with the provisions of the California Constitution that broadly
define a crime victim. (In re Scott H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th
515, 522.) Further, as the major goal or purpose of the
juvenile court is rehabilitation of a delinquent minor,
restitution orders need not exactly match the economic losses
caused by the minor's conduct. (In re Alexander A. (2011) 192
Cal.App.4th 847, 854-855.)
In considering other bills, committee members have expressed
concern about the ability of minors to pay large restitution
orders. The Constitution requires full restitution to victims
of delinquent acts. The court can decline to order a juvenile
to pay full restitution if it finds "compelling and
extraordinary reasons" to do so. However, "a minor's inability
to pay [is] not a compelling or extraordinary reason not to
impose a restitution order."
Arguably, the Constitution requires a juvenile court to order a
delinquent minor to pay restitution to essentially the same
SB 651 (Leyva ) Page
8 of ?
extent as required by criminal sentencing provisions. If that is
correct, making the juvenile restitution statute consistent with
adult the relevant adult statute will provide clarity for
juvenile court judges and will avoid the expenditure of
appellate court resources and time for challenges by prosecutors
of juvenile court restitution orders.
--END--