BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1306
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1306 (Leno)
As Amended March 15, 2004
2/3 vote. Urgency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |74-0 |(May 22, 2003) |SENATE: |34-0 |(March 25, |
| | | | | |2004) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 :
1)Clarify that before jurisdiction may be transferred, the receiving
court must make a finding of the person's permanent residency in
the receiving county.
2)Add an urgency clause.
EXISTING LAW provides that:
1)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)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)The order of transfer shall be accompanied by an order for
reimbursement of reasonable costs for processing the transfer, as
specified.
4)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
AB 1306
Page 2
condition of probation.
5)Except as specified, a person's parole may not be suspended or
revoked for commission of a NOVIDPO or for 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)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)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)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.
AB 1306
Page 3
Only if the receiving court finds that the person 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: 0004682