BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1306
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1306 (Leno)
As Amended August 26, 2003
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |74-0 |(May 22, 2003) |SENATE: |38-0 |(August 28, |
| | | | | |2003) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
SUMMARY : Authorizes the court to transfer probation and
jurisdiction to the defendant's county of permanent residence if
he or she is receiving treatment pursuant to Proposition 36.
The Senate amendments , make a non-substantive, technical change.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that whenever any person is released on probation,
the case may be transferred to any court in any other county
in which the person resides permanently. The court of the
receiving county shall first be given an opportunity to
determine whether the person resides in and has stated the
intention to remain in the county for the duration of
probation. The court may refuse to accept the transfer, as
specified.
2)Provides that if the court of the receiving county finds that
the person permanently resides in or has moved to the county,
it may in its discretion either accept the entire jurisdiction
over the case or assume supervision on a courtesy basis.
3)Provides that the order of transfer shall be accompanied by an
order for reimbursement of reasonable costs for processing the
transfer, as specified.
4)Provides that effective July 1, 2001, except as specified, a
person convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense
(NOVIDPO) shall receive probation with completion of a drug
treatment program as a condition of probation.
5)Provides that, except as specified, a person's parole may not
be suspended or revoked for commission of a NOVIDPO or for
AB 1306
Page 2
violating a drug-related condition of parole, but that an
additional condition of parole for those offenses or
violations shall be completion of a drug treatment program.
6)Provides that if a person on parole, or placed on probation
for a NOVIDPO, violates a drug-related condition of
supervision, a misdemeanor for simple possession or use of
drugs or drug paraphernalia, being present where drugs are
used, or failure to register as a drug offender, the court may
not revoke probation or parole for a first drug-related
violation unless the state proves that the person is a danger
to the safety of others.
7)Provides that for the second drug-related violation of
probation or a misdemeanor for simple possession or use of
drugs or drug paraphernalia, being present where drugs are
used, or failure to register as a drug offender, the court may
revoke probation if the state proves either that the person
poses a danger to the safety of others or is unamenable to
drug treatment. In determining whether a defendant is
unamenable to treatment, the court may consider serious rule
violations at the treatment program, repeated rule violations
that inhibit the defendant's ability to function in the
program, or continually refusing to participate. If the court
does not revoke probation, it may intensify or alter the
treatment plan.
8)Provides that for the third drug-related violation of
probation, the court may revoke probation if the state proves
either that the person was arrested for the commission of a
NOVIDPO or violated a drug-related condition of probation.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Provided 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 any
other county in which the person resides permanently.
"Resides permanently" is defined as residing with the stated
intention to remain for the duration of probation.
2)Provided that in the event of a transfer of jurisdiction, the
court in the receiving county shall be given an opportunity to
determine in a hearing whether the person resides in the
county. Only if the receiving court finds that the person
AB 1306
Page 3
either does not reside in that county or does not state an
intention to remain in the county for the duration of
probation may the court in the receiving county refuse to
accept the transfer.
3)Required that an order of transfer shall contain an order
requiring the probationer to report to the probation officer
of the receiving county and an order for reimbursement to the
receiving county for reasonable costs for processing the
transfer.
4)Required the transmittal of orders, probation reports, and a
certified copy of the file as specified.
5)Provided that the receiving court shall have entire
jurisdiction over the case including, but not limited to,
probation supervision and treatment.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis, 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 Proposition 36 funding follows the
treatment and residence. This bill changes only the court's
ability to transfer legal jurisdiction of the case.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "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 (SACPA). The problem arises when
jurisdiction remains in one county, while probation supervision
and treatment occur in another. This bill remedies this by
ensuring that the sentencing court has the authority to transfer
jurisdiction to the county of residence."
Please see the policy committee analysis for full discussion of
this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Bruce Chan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0003091