BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    SB 1054


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          1054 (Pavley)


          As Amended  August 1, 2016


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  39-0


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Public Safety   |7-0  |Jones-Sawyer,         |                    |
          |                |     |Melendez, Lackey,     |                    |
          |                |     |Lopez, Low, Quirk,    |                    |
          |                |     |Santiago              |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow,    |                    |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonilla,       |                    |
          |                |     |Bonta, Calderon,      |                    |
          |                |     |Chang, Daly, Eggman,  |                    |
          |                |     |Gallagher, Eduardo    |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia, Holden,       |                    |
          |                |     |Jones, Obernolte,     |                    |
          |                |     |Quirk, Santiago,      |                    |
          |                |     |Wagner, Weber, Wood,  |                    |
          |                |     |Chau                  |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |








                                                                    SB 1054


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Clarifies the collection process for fines and  
          restitution by county collection agencies, and mitigates issues  
          of duplicate collection.  Specifically, this bill:  


          1)Authorizes the agency designated to collect restitution fines  
            and orders from sentenced felony jail inmates to retain an  
            administrative fee to cover the actual costs of collection up  
            to 10% of monies collected, rather than a flat 10% of the  
            monies collected.


          2)Clarifies that the agency designated by the county to collect  
            restitution fines and orders from sentenced felony jail  
            inmates may retain the administrative fee at the time the  
            restitution order or fine is collected.


          3)Provides that if a county agency has been designated to  
            collect restitution orders from sentenced felony jail inmates,  
            persons on post-release community supervision (PRCS) or  
            mandatory supervision, and the county agency objects to  
            referral of the order to Franchise Tax Board (FTB) for  
            collection, neither California Department of Corrections and  
            Rehabilitation (CDCR) nor the county shall refer the order to  
            FTB.


          4)Provides that the victim entitled to the restitution may  
            designate the agency that will collect the restitution.  


          5)Makes technical, non-substantive changes.










                                                                    SB 1054


                                                                    Page  3





          EXISTING LAW:  


          1)Authorizes the CDCR to collect restitution fines and  
            restitution orders from prisoners.
          2)Allows the Secretary of CDCR to collect money from parolees  
            with an outstanding balance on a restitution fine or a victim  
            restitution order.  


          3)Requires CDCR to withhold an administrative fee totaling 10%  
            of money collected from the prisoner or parolee to be held in  
            a special deposit account for the purposes of reimbursing  
            administrative and support costs of the restitution program.  


          4)Authorizes the agency designated by the board of supervisors  
            in the county of incarceration to deduct 20% to 50% from the  
            wages and trust account deposits of a county-jail inmate  
            serving a sentence under realignment and owing a restitution  
            fine or restitution order.  


          5)Allows the agency designated by the board of supervisors in  
            the county of incarceration to withhold an administrative fee  
            totaling 10% of money collected to be held in a special  
            deposit account for the purposes of reimbursing administrative  
            and support costs of the restitution program, as specified.  


          6)Allows the agency designated by the board of supervisors to  
            collect money from inmates released from jail after serving a  
            sentencing under realignment who has an outstanding balance on  
            a restitution fine or a victim restitution order.  


          7)Authorizes the agency designated by the board of supervisors  
            to collect unsatisfied restitutions fines and victim  
            restitution order from persons released on Post-Release  








                                                                    SB 1054


                                                                    Page  4





            Community Supervision (PRCS) or mandatory supervision.  


          8)Gives the board of supervisors discretion to impose an  
            administrative fee not to exceed 10% of the amount collected,  
            the proceeds of which shall be deposited into the county's  
            general fund.  


          9)Requires the Judicial Council to adopt guidelines for a  
            comprehensive program concerning the collection of moneys owed  
            for fees, fines, forfeitures, penalties, and assessments  
            imposed by court order.


          10)Specifies that a restitution order is enforceable as a civil  
            judgment.  


          11)Prioritizes the order in which delinquent court-ordered debt  
            received is to be satisfied.  The priorities are a) victim  
            restitution, b) state surcharge, c) restitution fines, penalty  
            assessments, and other fines, with payments made on a  
            proportional basis to the total amount levied for all of these  
            items, and d) state/county/city reimbursements, and special  
            revenue items.  


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, minor recoverable costs to collection agencies.  


          COMMENTS:  According to the author, "SB 1054 addresses legal  
          ambiguities in the collection of victim restitution fines from  
          inmates sentenced to county jail pursuant to Penal Code Section  
          1170(h) and inmates released from state prison to Post-Release  
          Community Supervision (PRCS).  Because of statutory  
          inconsistencies, it is unclear when a county sheriff is  
          authorized to collect a state authorized administrative fee.   








                                                                    SB 1054


                                                                    Page  5





          Consequently, sheriffs may be unable to collect administrative  
          fees to pay for restitution collection from PC [Penal Code  
          Section] 1170(h) inmates.  In addition, because of an anomaly in  
          current law, an individual on PRCS can be referred to the state  
          Franchise Tax Board for collection of restitution, despite being  
          on local supervision.  This dual state-local authority could  
          lead to unfair restitution collection from an individual  
          released to PRCS.  SB 1054 would specify that counties that  
          supervise criminal populations can collect the restitution and  
          related administrative costs and thus help victims receive  
          restitution.  The bill provides fairness in collecting  
          restitution from criminal offenders released to PRCS, who at the  
          present time may be overcharged restitution fines from both the  
          state and the county.


          "In 2012, the Legislature authorized the collection of  
          restitution from county jail inmate accounts from prisoners  
          sentenced pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h).  Since that  
          time, there has been confusion regarding the collection of  
          administrative fees by county sheriffs pursuant to this statute.  
           Because of this confusion, some counties such as Monterey, San  
          Diego and Sacramento, believe that the collection of the fee is  
          not authorized until the release of the inmate.  However,  
          inmates may empty out their account to prevent the county  
          sheriff from collecting their administrative fee upon their  
          release.  The California Department of Corrections and  
          Rehabilitation (CDCR) has always interpreted the language to  
          allow for immediate collection of the administrative fee, but  
          not all counties agree.  This bill is consistent with recent  
          legislation and clarifies the issue for counties.


          "Existing law authorizes the CDCR to refer any former prison  
          inmate to the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) for collection of  
          restitution.  Currently an individual on Post Release Community  
          Supervision (PRCS) can be referred to the FTB, despite the fact  
          that their supervision is local.  AB 109 transferred supervision  
          of inmates to local control.  It is inconsistent with AB 109 for  








                                                                    SB 1054


                                                                    Page  6





          the State to continue to collect restitution from an individual  
          who is being supervised at the county level.  Current law could  
          lead to unfair double collection of restitution, hindering the  
          successful reentry of an individual back into the community.


          "SB 1054 will resolve these issues to clearly express that a  
          county sheriff can collect the 10% administrative fee at the  
          time restitution is collected on behalf of the victim, and by  
          amending the Revenue and Tax Code to allow a county that is  
          collecting restitution from an individual on PRCS to have  
          primary authority to do so.  After an individual is released  
          from PRCS, the county would then transfer responsibility to the  
          FTB to collect remaining restitution."


          Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion  
          of this bill.




          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744  FN:  
          0003978