BILL ANALYSIS
AB 61
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 61 (Nava) - As Amended: March 16, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill adds sex offenses to the list of crimes for which a
minor is ineligible for deferred entry of judgment.
Specifically, this bill adds the following crimes to the list of
serious offenses that make a minor ineligible for deferred entry
of judgment (DEJ):
1)Rape, as specified.
2)Incest.
3)Sodomy with a person under 14 years of age and more than 10
years younger than the perpetrator, and as specified.
4)Lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14.
5)Oral copulation with a person under 14 years and more than 10
years younger than the perpetrator, and as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Potentially significant annual GF costs, likely in excess of
$200,000, for additional state commitments to the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) Division
of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) to the extent wards who might
otherwise have received DEJ are sent to DJF, at a per capita
cost of about $250,000 annually.
2)Potentially significant annual nonreimbursable costs for
additional county commitments to the extent wards who might
otherwise have received DEJ are placed on probation.
COMMENT
1)Rationale . This bill prohibits DEJ for juveniles who commit
AB 61
Page 2
sex offenses. The author and proponents (generally law
enforcement) contend DEJ can be used to 'launder' sex crimes
from a juvenile's record. According to the author, "This
measure will stop the practice of sending juveniles straight
to a parole officer if they have committed these heinous acts.
It is inexcusable for any sex crimes to be 'swept under the
rug' without repercussions."
2)Support . According to the Peace Officer Research Association
of California, "This bill would add additional crimes for
which a juvenile would not be eligible for deferred entry of
judgment?. There are many sexually violent offenses where the
privilege of deferred entry of judgment is simply not
appropriate. This bill aims to close those loopholes and
ensure that these dangerous juveniles are properly
rehabilitated."
3)Current law provides for DEJ in juvenile court cases,
essentially requiring the minor to admit to the allegation
with the understanding that, upon successful completion of
probation, the positive recommendation of the probation
department, and the motion of the prosecuting attorney,
between 12 and 36 months from the date of the minor's referral
to the program, the court will dismiss the charges.
If it appears to the prosecutor, the court, or the probation
department that a DEJ minor is not performing satisfactorily
in the assigned program or is not complying with terms of
probation, or that the minor is not benefiting from education,
treatment, or rehabilitation, the court shall lift the
deferred entry of judgment and schedule a dispositional
hearing. If, post-DEJ, the minor is convicted or adjudicated
for any felony, or any two misdemeanors, the judge shall enter
judgment and schedule a dispositional hearing.
Deferred entry of judgment provisions apply only if all of the
following circumstances apply:
a) The minor has not previously been declared to be a ward
of the court for a felony.
b) The offense charged is not one of the offenses
enumerated in WIC Section 707(b). (The serious offense list
for juveniles.)
c) The minor has not previously been committed to CDCR's
DJF.
AB 61
Page 3
d) The minor has not had a previous probation revoked.
e) The minor is not ineligible for probation pursuant to
statute prohibiting probation when a gun is used in the
commission of violent felonies.
4)Opposition. The Youth Law Center states, "This bill represents
a fourth attempt at this ill-conceived policy change. We were
present during some of the legislative committee discussions
of SB 520 and SB 1626, the antecedents to this bill. As with
those bills, it is important to correct common misconceptions
about DEJ. There is a belief by some that a young person who
receives DEJ is 'getting off'. Nothing could be further from
the truth. The DEJ law was written by prosecutors, and enacted
as part of Proposition 21 (The Gang Violence and Juvenile
Crime Prevention Act) in 2000. That initiative gave California
some of the toughest juvenile laws in the nation."
David Steinhart, Director of Commonweal's Juvenile Justice
Program, questions the need for a blanket prohibition. "This
bill is inconsistent with the purpose and objectives of the
Juvenile Court law. This bill would remove a dispositional
option from the Juvenile Court that could, under all of the
circumstances of the case, and only with prosecutor's
approval, be appropriate."
Steinberg continues, "Serious juvenile sex offenses are
currently ineligible for DEJ. If the offense charged is a
serious sex crime on the WIC 707 (b) list, the minor is
already ineligible for Deferred Entry of Judgment (WIC Section
790 (a) (2)). Juveniles over 14 charged with a serious sex
offense on the WIC 707(b) list can be, and often are, direct
filed in adult criminal court at the prosecutor's discretion.
DEJ is available only for lesser sex offenses that fall below
the WIC 707(b) threshold.
"Prosecutors have control over who completes DEJ under current
law. Under current law, no minor can get DEJ as an option
unless the prosecutor initiates a request for DEJ in the case.
Subsequently, if DEJ is granted by the court, the deferral of
judgment may be cancelled unilaterally by the prosecutor if he
or she believes the minor has not performed satisfactorily. In
our justice system we rely on prosecutors to represent victim
rights in juvenile delinquency proceedings. In our view,
victims are adequately protected by existing law.
AB 61
Page 4
Finally, Commonweal and the Youth Law Center contend juvenile
sex offenders differ from adults. According to Commonweal,
"Based on the available research, juvenile sex offenders are,
in general, substantially different from predatory adult sex
offenders. Juvenile offenders-whose sex offenses are often in
the range of "improper touching" and other adolescent behavior
mistakes-are particularly amenable to treatment and
rehabilitation."
5)Prior Legislation .
a) AB 2408 (Nava), 2008, was almost identical to AB 61. AB
2408, which failed passage in Senate Public Safety,
included annoying or molesting a child under 18 (a
misdemeanor) in the list of disqualifying sexual offenses.
AB 61 does not include this offense.
b) SB 520 (Ashburn), 2005, was similar and was never heard
in Senate Public Safety.
c) SB 1626 (Ashburn), 2006, was similar, failed passage in
Senate Public Safety, and was later substantially amended.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081