BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
4
8
SB 1487 ( Committee on Public Safety) 7
As Introduced March 9, 2010
Hearing date: April 13, 2010
Penal Code (URGENCY)
SM:dl
COUNTY JAIL CUSTODY CREDITS
HISTORY
Source: Chief Probation Officers of California; California
State Sheriffs' Association
Prior Legislation: SBX3 18 (Ducheny) Chap. 28, Stats. of 2009
Support: California Probation, Parole and Correctional
Association; Los Angeles County Sheriff's Association;
Taxpayers for improving Public Safety; California
District Attorneys Assocication
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE AMOUNT OF SENTENCING CREDITS THAT COUNTY JAIL INMATES MAY
EARN BE REVISED TO PERMIT AN INMATE TO REDUCE THEIR SENTENCE BY A
MAXIMUM OF ONE-THIRD?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to revise the amount of sentencing
credits that county jail inmates may earn to a maximum of
(More)
SB 1487 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageB
one-third of their sentence.
Existing law states that it is the intent of the Legislature
that persons convicted of a crime and sentenced to the state
prison under Section 1170 serve the entire sentence imposed by
the court, except for a reduction in the time served in the
custody of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation pursuant to this section and Section 2933.05
(Penal Code 2933(a).)
Existing law provides that for every six months of continuous
incarceration, a prisoner shall be awarded credit reductions
from his or her term of confinement of six months. A lesser
amount of credit based on this ratio shall be awarded for any
lesser period of continuous incarceration. Credit should be
awarded pursuant to regulations adopted by the secretary.
Prisoners who are denied the opportunity to earn credits
pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 2932 shall be awarded no
credit reduction pursuant to this section. Under no
circumstances shall any prisoner receive more than six months'
credit reduction for any six-month period under this section.
(Penal Code 2933(b).)
Existing law states that credit is a privilege, not a right.
Credit must be earned and may be forfeited pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2932. Except as provided in subdivision
(a) of Section 2932, every eligible prisoner shall have a
reasonable opportunity to participate. (Penal Code 2933.)
Existing law provides that, under regulations adopted by the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (CDCR) which shall
require a period of not more than one year free of disciplinary
infractions, credit which has been previously forfeited may be
restored by the secretary. The regulations shall provide for
separate classifications of serious disciplinary infractions as
they relate to restoration of credits, the time period required
before forfeited credits or a portion thereof may be restored,
and the percentage of forfeited credits that may be restored for
these time periods. (Penal Code 2933 (d).)
(More)
SB 1487 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageC
Existing law provides, for credits forfeited for commission of
specified offenses, the CDCR may provide that up to 180 days of
lost credit shall not be restored and up to 90 days of credit
shall not be restored for a forfeiture resulting from conspiracy
or attempts to commit one of those acts. No credits may be
restored if they were forfeited for a serious disciplinary
infraction in which the victim died or was permanently disabled.
(Penal Code 2933 (d).)
Existing law provides that, upon application of the prisoner and
following completion of the required time period free of
disciplinary offenses, forfeited credits eligible for
restoration under the regulations for disciplinary offenses
other than serious disciplinary infractions punishable by a
credit loss of more than 90 days shall be restored unless, at a
hearing, it is found that the prisoner refused to accept or
failed to perform in a credit qualifying assignment, or
extraordinary circumstances are present that require that
credits not be restored. "Extraordinary circumstances" shall be
defined in the regulations adopted by the director. However, in
any case in which credit was forfeited for a serious
disciplinary infraction punishable by a credit loss of more than
90 days, restoration of credit shall be at the discretion of the
secretary. (Penal Code 2933 (d).)
Existing law provides that the prisoner may appeal the finding
through the CDCR review procedure, which shall include a review
by an individual independent of the institution who has
supervisorial authority over the institution. (Penal Code
2933 (d).)
Existing law provides that, notwithstanding any other law, any
person who is convicted of a serious felony, as defined, shall
accrue no more than 15 percent of work time credit. (Penal Code
2933.1(a).)
Existing law provides that for specified violent felonies, up to
360 days of credit may be denied or lost, whether or not
prosecution is undertaken for purposes of this paragraph.
(Penal Code 2932(a)(1).)
(More)
SB 1487 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageD
Existing law provides that up to 180 days of credit may be
denied or lost for a single act of misconduct, except for
specified violent felonies, which could be prosecuted as a
felony whether or not prosecution is undertaken. (Penal Code
2932(a)(2).)
Existing law provides that up to 90 days of credit may be denied
or lost for a single act of misconduct which could be prosecuted
as a misdemeanor, whether or not prosecution is undertaken.
(Penal Code 2932(a)(3).)
Existing law provides that up to 30 days of credit may be denied
or lost for a single act of misconduct defined by regulation as
a serious disciplinary offense by the CDCR. Any person confined
due to a change in custodial classification following the
commission of any serious disciplinary infraction shall, in
addition to any loss of time credits, be ineligible to receive
participation or work time credit for a period not to exceed the
number of days of credit which have been lost for the act of
misconduct or 180 days, whichever is less. The prisoner may
appeal the decision through the department's review procedure,
which shall include a review by an individual independent of the
institution who has supervisorial authority over the
institution. (Penal Code 2932(a)(4).)
Existing law provides that any procedure not provided for by
this section, but necessary to carry out the purposes of this
section, shall be those procedures provided for by the CDCR for
serious disciplinary infractions if those procedures are not in
conflict with this section. (Penal Code 2932(c).)
Existing law provides that a prisoner sentenced to the state
prison under Section 1170 shall receive one day of credit for
every day served in a county jail, city jail, industrial farm,
or road camp after the date he or she was sentenced to the state
prison as specified in subdivision (f) of Section 4019. (Penal
Code 2933.)
Existing law provides that the following credits may be earned
(More)
SB 1487 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageE
by a prisoner is confined in a county jail, or other county
correctional facility:
Except as noted below, one day of credit for every four
days of custody if the inmate is willing to perform any
assigned labor and another day of credit for every four
days of custody for not violating any rules or regulations,
resulting in a total sentence reduction of 50% if all
conditions are met.
Prisoners who have been convicted of a serious felony,
as defined, are registered sex offenders or have a prior
conviction for a serious felony, receive one day of credit
for every six days of custody if the inmate is willing to
perform any assigned labor and another day of credit for
every six days of custody for not violating any rules or
regulations, resulting in a total sentence reduction of
one-third if all conditions are met.
Prisoners convicted of a violent felony, as defined, may
receive only 15% credit.
(Penal Code 4019, 2933.1.)
This bill would repeal the increase in credits made available to
some county jail inmates in SBX3 18 (2009) and return the
credits available to those inmates to a maximum of one-third of
their sentence.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
(More)
SB 1487 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageF
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
(More)
SB 1487 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageG
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
adequate medical and mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
Last year SB 678 was enacted in an effort to create
incentives for counties to increase community
corrections programs and improve the success rate of
offenders placed on felony probation. This was done
in recognition of the fact that every success on
probation means less crime being committed, fewer
victims, and one less inmate in state prison. Part of
that community corrections model involves judges
utilizing county jail time as intermediate sanctions
for minor probation violations as opposed to sending
----------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (August 4, 2009).
(More)
SB 1487 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageH
every offender to state prison.
Last year the Legislature also passed SB3X 18, which
enacted a number of prison reforms. Incidental to one
of those reforms - credits for prison inmates - were
changes to credits for jail inmates. For many years,
county jail inmates have been able to earn enough
credits to reduce their jail sentence by up to
one-third. SB3X 18 increased these jail credits to
make them consistent with the credit rules for state
prison inmates and, except for serious and violent
offenders, increased these credits to up to one-half
the jail inmate's sentence.
While the credit changes for county jail inmates
included in SB3X 18 were enacted for sound reasons of
parity and consistency, it has been brought to our
attention that these changes will have the unintended
effect of undercutting the community corrections
effort launched by SB 678. In order for the community
corrections model to work, local jail time has to be
sufficiently available as a sanction for probation
violations as to constitute an adequate alternative to
state prison. By reducing the number of days an
offender may be sentenced to county jail to 180, in
many circumstances this reduced local sanction could
present judges with an inadequate alternative to a
state prison commitment, and could therefore undermine
the effort to improve public safety outcomes among
felony probationers. This bill addresses this concern
by restoring the credits available for jail inmates
under the law prior to the enactment of SB3X 18. This
bill does not affect the prison inmate credit reforms
enacted by SB3X 18.
2. Changes to County Jail Credits Under SB3X 18.
Prior to the enactment of SBX3 18 (Ducheny) (2009), state
prisoners, with specified exceptions, could earn credits
(More)
SB 1487 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageI
allowing for their sentence to be reduced by up to one-half.
County jail inmates, with specific exceptions, were eligible to
earn credits totaling a maximum of one-third of their sentence.
SBX3 18 made two changes to these credit formulas. With
specified exceptions, it provided that defendants committed to
state prison would begin earning credits at the 50% rate from
the date of their arrest, as opposed to the date they actually
arrived in prison. It also increased the available credits for
those county jail inmates not en route to prison from one-third
to one-half. Excepted from these provisions are defendants
convicted of a serious or violent felony, or with a prior
conviction for a serious or violent felony, or who are required
to register as sex offenders. Those defendants are still
eligible only for a maximum credit of one-third of their time in
county jail. (Penal Code 4019, subd. (b), (c).) Defendants
convicted of violent felonies are eligible only for a maximum of
15% credits. (Penal Code 2933.1.)
(More)
3. Potential Consequences for Rehabilitation Efforts
Last year, SB 678 (Leno and Benoit), Chap. 608, stats. of 2009,
created the "California Community Corrections Performance
Incentive Act of 2009," which created incentives for counties to
improve the performance of offenders placed on probation. The
goal of SB 678 was to reduce crime "through a community
corrections strategy focused on increasing the supervision and
management of felony offenders on probation." (Author's
statement, Senate Public Safety Committee analysis of SB 678.)
Additionally, SB 678 was intended to "reduce prison
overcrowding, not by early release but by decreasing the
criminal activity of those already on felony probation."
(Ibid.) The approach taken by SB 678 was to make "offenders
MORE accountable for their actions by providing better
supervision, monitoring and intermediate sanctions that will
change their behavior." (Ibid.)
Since the enactment of SBX3 18, which went into effect January
25, 2010, some concerns have been expressed that the increase in
credits that could be earned by some county jail inmates under
the provisions of that bill could have the effect of
undercutting the efforts begun under SB 678 to reduce state
prison commitments through improved local supervision on
probation. The Chief Probation Officers of California state:
It is important to probation's ability to succeed
under another recently passed piece of legislation, SB
678 that the enhanced sentencing credits do not apply
to local offenders. Specifically, under SBX3 18 the
credit calculation would provide a maximum custody
time of 180 days. Under the previous statute there
was a total of 240 days potentially to serve. SB 678
is directed at felons on probation and incentivize the
use of evidence based practices and closer supervision
when appropriate to reduce recidivism. An important
tool is the use of local custody time to ensure we
incentivize the offender's behavior in the community
and their continued treatment and program support.
(More)
SB 1487 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageK
Given the average length of court proceedings and the
additional custody credits associated with the new
law, offenders will quickly reach their maximum local
custody limit which will result in fewer local
probation and treatment options. This could lead to
more prison commitments because there is less time to
work with them in community. More prison commitments
undermine our ability to provide successful outcomes
to offenders on probation.
A hypothetical example might help illustrate the concerns
expressed by the probation chiefs. A person is convicted of a
felony for committing a purse-snatching that did not result in
any physical injury to the victim but well might have. The
court views the offense as serious but, after reading the
probation presentence report, learns that the crime was
committed to raise money to support a heroin habit. The court
decides that, to prevent this person from reoffending, a jail
sentence combined with drug treatment is the most effective
strategy. The judge imposes a sentence of 180 days and requires
the offender to successfully complete a drug treatment program
as a condition of his felony probation upon his release from
jail. Because the person has served 60 days awaiting trial and
sentencing, the offender has 120 days left to serve in county
jail. Upon release, the defendant begins the drug treatment
program but, after several months, relapses and tests positive
for heroin use, a violation of his probation. The judge, based
on this single relapse, would prefer to impose a significant
county jail sentence, while continuing to hold out the
possibility of a state prison commitment if there are further
violations. However, the judge at this point has used up all
the available county jail time and, consequently, may feel that
a state prison sentence is the only alternative.
DOES ALLOWING COUNTY JAIL INMATES TO REDUCE THEIR MAXIMUM LOCAL
CONFINEMENT TIME TO 180 DAYS UNDERMINE THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
STRATEGY OF SB 678?
SB 1487 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageL
***************