BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 666 (Stone) - Felons: coming upon prison property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 15, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 6 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 27, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 666 would expand the felony offense applicable to a
previously convicted felon who has been confined in a California
prison from coming upon the grounds of a prison or jail without
consent, as specified, to a person who has served a term in
federal prison, a prison in another state, or a felony jail
term, as specified. This bill specifies a violation of this
provision requires that the person knows or should know that he
or she is required to obtain consent.
Fiscal
Impact:
Potential increase in state costs (General Fund) to the extent
expanding the existing felony offense to a larger population
of previously convicted felons leads to additional state
prison commitments. Data from the DOJ indicates 318 arrests
and 51 convictions over the past three years under this
SB 666 (Stone) Page 1 of
?
provision of law, and the CDCR indicates less than 10 new
admissions to state prison per year. Future annual cumulative
costs for even two additional commitments per year would cost
$68,000 at the current in-state contract bed cost per case.
Potential increase in non-reimbursable local law enforcement
costs (Local Fund) for enforcement to the extent the expansion
of the felony offense results in additional arrests and
convictions, offset to a degree by fine revenue.
Background: Existing law specifically provides that a person who has been
previously convicted of a felony and confined in a state prison
is guilty of a felony if he or she "comes upon the grounds of" a
prison, prison camp, prison forestry camp, jail, or county road
camp without the consent of the warden or other officer in
charge. Under existing law, a violation of this provision of law
is punishable by a sentence of 16 months, two years, or three
years in state prison. (Penal Code (PC) § 4571.)
Under existing law, the provisions of PC § 4571 do not apply to
a person previously convicted of a felony and confined in a
county jail, in federal prison, or a prison in another state.
This bill seeks to expand existing law to apply to this
population.
Proposed Law:
This bill would expand the existing felony offense applicable
to a previously convicted felon who has been confined in a
California prison from coming upon the grounds of a prison or
jail without consent, as follows:
Specifies that every person previously convicted of a
felony under the laws of the United States, the State of
California, or any other state, and confined in the state
prison, a prison of any other state, a federal prison, or a
county jail pursuant to PC § 1170(h), without the consent
of the warden or other officer in charge of the prison,
prison camp, jail, or county road camp, and who knows or
should know that he or she is required to obtain consent,
comes upon the grounds of any of those institutions, or
lands belonging or adjacent thereto, is guilty of a felony.
Specifies for purposes of this section, a person was
confined in a county jail pursuant to PC § 1170(h) if he or
SB 666 (Stone) Page 2 of
?
she served an executed felony sentence, as specified.
Related
Legislation: None applicable.
Staff
Comments: By expanding the definition of the existing felony
offense applicable to previously convicted felons "coming upon
the grounds" of a prison or jail, as specified, this bill could
result in additional arrests, convictions, and commitments to
state prison. Over the past three years, 318 arrests and 51
convictions have been obtained under the existing provision of
law, and the CDCR indicates less than 10 new admissions to state
prison per year. While the number of prospective violations is
unknown, future annual cumulative costs for even two additional
commitments per year would cost $68,000 (General Fund), assuming
an average length of stay of 12 months (under the middle term of
two years and accounting for good time credits) at the current
in-state contract bed cost per case of $34,000.
This bill adds a knowing standard provision that is required in
order to meet the threshold for a violation of the existing
offense. The CDCR indicates that a PC § 4571 notice of required
informed consent is currently posted at all prison entrances. As
a result, it is not estimated that this added provision would
have an impact on the number of admissions to state prison that
otherwise would occur for individuals currently subject to this
provision under current law.
Under 2011 Realignment Legislation, the State provided funding
to the counties to place offenders in county jail for specified
felonies that previously would have required a state prison
sentence. Pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), 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 the 2011 Realignment
Legislation apply to local agencies only to the extent that the
state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Proposition
30 specifies that legislation defining a new crime or changing
the definition of an existing crime is not subject to this
SB 666 (Stone) Page 3 of
?
provision. As a result, any increase in local costs due to the
change in the definition of the existing felony offense is not
estimated to require the state to provide additional funding to
local agencies.
The Three-Judge Court has ordered the State to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of the prison system's design
capacity by February 28, 2016. Pursuant to its February 10,
2014, order, the Court has ordered the CDCR to implement several
population reduction measures, prohibited an increase in the
population of inmates placed in out-of-state facilities, and
indicated the Court will maintain jurisdiction over the State
for as long as necessary to ensure the State's compliance with
the 137.5 percent final benchmark is durable, and that such
durability is firmly established. Any future increases to the
State's prison population challenge the ability of the State to
reach and maintain such a "durable solution," and could require
the State to pursue one of several options, including
contracting-out for additional bed space or releasing current
inmates early onto parole.
-- END --