BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 178
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 178 (Gorell) - As Amended: March 22, 2011
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Expands current sanctions, for failure to appear in criminal
proceedings, to persons released from jail prior to sentencing
pursuant to a court order or county-imposed policy mandating
release of inmates due to jail capacity issues. (If the
underlying charge is a misdemeanor, failure to appear is a
misdemeanor. If the underlying charge is a felony, failure to
appear is a felony, punishable by up to one year in county
jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000, or by 16 months, two, or
three years in state prison.)
2)Applies the existing two-year penalty enhancement for a person
convicted of a felony offense committed while the person is
released on his or her own recognizance (OR) to persons
released from county jail pursuant to a federal court order
mandating the release of inmates due to capacity issues.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown annual GF costs, potentially in excess of $150,000,
for additional state prison commitments. From 2007 through
2010, 190 persons were committed to state prison for failure
to appear. If this bill results in an additional four
commitments, serving one year each, annual GF costs would be
about $250,000, based on per capita inmate costs of $50,000.
2)In addition, while enhancement data shows no enhancements in
2008 through 2010 for committing a felony while released on
OR, expanding the existing enhancement to specifically include
AB 178
Page 2
persons released due to capacity orders, could result in
additional state prison commitments.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The intent of the author and sponsor, the CA
District Attorneys Association (CDAA), is to update and
conform statutes relating to jail inmates released on OR to
include pre-trial inmates released due to federal jail
crowding orders.
According to CDAA, "As the number of inmates released from
county jails due to overcrowding grows, many are failing to
appear in court and/or are committing new offenses upon
release. Unlike defendants who are released on their own
recognizance or on bail, there is a lack of statutory guidance
as to conditions of release for these inmates, as well as
penalties for failing to appear or sentence enhancements for
the commission of new crimes."
2)Court-ordered jail caps . According to the Correctional
Standards Authority (CSA) 15 counties are under court-ordered
jail population caps (Butte, El Dorado, Fresno, Kern, L.A.,
Merced, Placer, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa
Barbara, San Diego, Stanislaus, Tulare and Yolo.) An
additional 12 counties (Amador, Inyo, Madera, Marin, Mariposa,
San Benito, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Tehama, Trinity and
Tuolumne) report they are releasing inmates early under a
self-imposed cap.
3)Is there an actual problem? The most recent CSA jail profile
surveys show that 7,800 jail inmates per month were released
prior to trial from April to June 2010. It is not known how
many of these releases were specifically due to overcrowding,
and/or how many were processed as OR, therefore it is not
clear that this bill addresses a pervasive problem. CDAA was
unable to identify specific cases in which persons released
pre-trial, were unable to be prosecuted as a result of
court-ordered jail releases.
CDAA contends this bill simply creates the assurance that
inmates released prior to sentencing due to overcrowding
issues in county jails will be processed appropriately.
AB 178
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081