BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1306
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 14, 2003

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                              Darrell Steinberg, Chair

                 AB 1306 (Leno) - As Introduced:  February 21, 2003 

          Policy Committee:                              Public  
          SafetyVote:  6-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:              Yes

           SUMMARY  

          This bill:

          1)Provides that whenever any person is granted Proposition 36  
            probation, jurisdiction over the case may be transferred at  
            the discretion of the sentencing court to the court in the  
            county where the probationer lives.

          2)Provides the court in the receiving county an opportunity to  
            determine in a hearing whether the person resides in the  
            county. Only if the receiving court finds that the person does  
            not reside in that county or is not likely to stay in the  
            county for the term of probation, may the court in the  
            receiving county refuse to accept the transfer.

          3)Requires reimbursement to the receiving county for reasonable  
            costs for processing the transfer.

          4)Gives the receiving court jurisdiction over the case  
            including, but not limited to, probation supervision and  
            treatment.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Negligible state-reimbursable costs to local governments as the  
          treatment and probation supervision of Proposition 36 defendants  
          already occurs in the defendant's residence county; the Prop 36  
          funding follows the treatment and residence. This bill changes  
          only the court's ability to transfer legal jurisdiction of the  
          case. 
           








                                                                  AB 1306
                                                                  Page  2

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  . According to the author and the sponsor, the  
            Judicial Council, some courts are reporting that they are  
            unable to ensure effective supervision of defendants on  
            probation under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime  
            Prevention Act of 2000. The problem occurs when jurisdiction  
            remains in one county, while probation supervision and  
            treatment occur in another. This bill remedies this situation  
            by ensuring the sentencing court has authority to transfer  
            jurisdiction to the county of residence.

           2)Background  . When a court seeks to transfer jurisdiction of a  
            Prop 36 case to the county in which a defendant resides,  
            current law  allows  the receiving county, upon a finding that  
            the defendant permanently resides in that county, to choose  
            between two options.  The receiving county may accept full  
            jurisdiction over the case or accept the case only for  
            probation-supervision purposes on a courtesy basis.  This  
            statutory scheme is deficient in two respects.  First, in at  
            least a few counties, the statute is interpreted to permit the  
            receiving court to reject the case.  This makes it difficult  
            for the judge in the county of conviction to provide  
            meaningful supervision as contemplated by Prop 36.  Second,  
            even when cases are accepted, many are accepted for "courtesy  
            supervision" only and the court in the accepting county does  
            not assume jurisdiction of the case. 

            This bill authorizes the sentencing judge to require, rather  
            than permit, the acceptance of a transfer of jurisdiction in a  
            Proposition 36 case, thereby ensuring that judicial oversight  
            occurs in the county where treatment and probation services  
            are being provided.   

            The Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (DADP), which is  
            responsible for implementing Prop 36, has issued policy  
            guidelines encouraging substance abuse treatment be provided  
            in the county in which the defendant resides. Prop 36 funding  
            allocations are made directly to each county by DADP and are  
            based on treatment population and other factors.  To enhance  
            the likelihood of treatment success, the trial judge should be  
            in a position to modify conditions of probation that relate to  
            treatment.  The judge in the county in which treatment takes  
            place is better positioned to develop a suitable treatment  
            plan because he or she is familiar with local treatment  








                                                                  AB 1306
                                                                  Page  3

            options.

           3)Prop 36  . Effective July 1, 2001, except as specified, a person  
            convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense must  
            receive probation with completion of a drug treatment program  
            as a condition of probation. (Penal Code Section 1210, 1210.1,  
            added by Proposition 36, approved November 7, 2000.)



           Analysis Prepared by  :    Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081