BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1306|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1306
Author: Leno (D)
Amended: 3/15/04
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/10/03
AYES: McPherson, Vasconcellos, Burton, Margett, Sher
NO VOTE RECORDED: Romero
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0 (Passed on Consent), 5/22/03 - See
last page for vote
SUBJECT : Drug treatment under Proposition 36 (November
2000):
transfer of case to defendants county of
residence
SOURCE : Judicial Council of California
DIGEST : This bill provides that where close judicial
supervision of a probationer in a Proposition 36 case is
necessary, the court in the county of conviction can
require transfer of jurisdiction of the case to the county
of the probationer's residence.
Senate Floor Amendments of 3/15/04, add an urgency clause
and make the operative provision in this bill more clear.
CONTINUED
AB 1306
PageB
NOTE: This bill passed the Senate on 8/28/03 by a vote of
38-0. This bill was returned for this amendment.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, Proposition 36 (Substance Abuse
and Crime Prevention Act of the November 2000 General
Election), includes these major provisions:
1. Ineligible defendants and parolees are those who (a)
possessed drugs other than for personal use, (b)
committed other offense along with a drug possession
offense, (c) used a firearm while in possession or under
the influence of heroin, cocaine or PCP, (d) previously
have been convicted of a serious felony, and have not
been free of custody or commission of felonies or
dangerous misdemeanors within 5 years (parolees may not
have ever been convicted of a serious felony), (e)
participated in two prior Proposition 36 treatment
programs, and (f) refused treatment under the
Initiative.
2. Placement of persons in treatment programs by the court
and the State Board of Prison Terms (BPT): (a) courts
and the BPT are effectively directed to place a person
in treatment to which the person is amenable, (b) if the
treatment provider reports that the person is unamenable
to a particular program, but may be amenable to another,
the program should be modified, and (c) if the person is
unamenable to all treatment, he or she may be excluded
from Proposition 36 treatment.
Proposition 36 Provisions as to Violations of Probation or
Parole Conditions :
1. Non-drug related violation of probation. The court has
discretion to modify or revoke probation as with any
standard probation program.
2. Drug related violations of conditions of probation and
"arrests" for drug offenses:
A. First Violation: (1) dangerous persons must have
probation revoked, and (2) non-dangerous person may
be subject to more intensive programs.
B. Second Violation: (1) if dangerous or unamenable
AB 1306
PageC
to treatment, probation must be revoked, and (2)
others may face more intensive treatment or
conditions.
C. Third Violation: Violators excluded from
treatment under Proposition 36.
3. Non-drug related violations of parole. The BPT has
discretion to modify or revoke probation as with any
standard probation program.
4. Drug Related Violations of Parole:
A. First Violation: (1) dangerous persons must
have parole revoked, and (2) non-dangerous person
may be subject to more intensive programs.
B. Second Violation: Parole must be revoked.
Existing law 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.
Existing law 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.
Existing law provides that the order of transfer shall be
accompanied by an order for reimbursement of reasonable
costs for processing the transfer, as specified.
This bill provides that whenever a person is granted
probation, the sentencing court may, in its discretion,
transfer jurisdiction of the entire case, upon a finding by
the receiving court of the person's permanent residency in
the receiving county.
This bill also provides that the order of transfer shall
AB 1306
PageD
contain an order committing the probationer to the care and
custody of the probation officer of the receiving county
and an order for reimbursement of reasonable costs for
processing the transfer to be paid to the sending county.
A copy of the orders and probation reports must then be
transmitted to the court and probation officer of the
receiving county within two weeks of the finding by that
county that the person does permanently reside in or has
permanently moved to that county, and thereafter the
receiving court shall have entire jurisdiction over the
case, with the like power to again request transfer of the
case whenever it seems proper.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 3/15/04)
Judicial Council of California (source)
California District Attorneys Association
California Judges Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"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 (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.
The Judicial Council of California states that the State
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (DADP), the entity
responsible for implementing SACPA, has issued policy
guidelines encouraging that substance abuse treatment and
ancillary services be provided in the county in which the
defendant resides. SACPA 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 make modifications to the
conditions of probation that relate to treatment. The
AB 1306
PageE
judge in the county in which treatment takes place may in
some circumstances be better able to develop a suitable
treatment plan because he or she is familiar with local
treatment continuum and supervision alternatives.
For these reasons, the Judicial Council is sponsoring this
bill to authorize the sentencing judge to require
acceptance of jurisdiction over SACPA cases when it is
determined that the defendant permanently resides in a
county other than where the conviction occurred. The
transfer shall be subject to a hearing before the receiving
court in which the defendant shall have the burden to
establish the fact of residence.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Berg, Bermudez, Bogh,
Calderon, Campbell, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu,
Cogdill, Corbett, Correa, Cox, Diaz, Dutra, Dutton,
Dymally, Firebaugh, Frommer, Garcia, Hancock, Harman,
Haynes, Jerome Horton, Shirley Horton, Houston, Jackson,
Keene, Kehoe, Koretz, La Malfa, La Suer, Laird, Leno,
Leslie, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal,
Maddox, Maldonado, Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Montanez,
Mountjoy, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nakano, Nation, Negrete
McLeod, Oropeza, Pacheco, Parra, Pavley, Plescia, Reyes,
Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Runner, Salinas, Samuelian,
Spitzer, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Wiggins, Wolk,
Wyland, Yee
RJG:mel 3/15/04 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****