BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 324
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 324 (Buchanan)
As Amended February 7, 2012
2/3 vote. Urgency
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(April 25, |SENATE: |31-0 |(February 17, 2012) |
| | |2011) | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |17-0 |(February 21, 2012) |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
|(Appropriations) | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: B.,P., & C.P.
SUMMARY : Specifies that juvenile offenders who have been
adjudicated for an offense requiring registration as a sex offender
may be committed to the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation's Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF).
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill, and
instead:
1)Stipulate the court may commit a juvenile to DJF for the
commitment of an offense requiring registration as a sex
offender, as referenced in Penal Code (PC) Section 290.008.
Doing so addresses the December 12, 2011, decision in In re C.H.
(2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, wherein the California Supreme Court ruled
that current law does not expressly authorize commitment of a
juvenile sex offender to the DJF if the offender was not
adjudicated for a Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section
707(b) offense (the citation generally used to identify serious
and violent offenses).
2)Stipulate that wards ineligible for DJF commitment do not include
wards required to register as sex offenders.
3)Authorize counties to contract with DJF to house wards who were
in DJF custody on December 12, 2011, whose commitment was
recalled as a result of the C.H. case. (The state's intent is to
AB 324
Page 2
not charge the counties for such arrangements.)
As passed by the Assembly , this bill required the Department of
General Services, when selecting locations for state-owned or
-leased buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet, to consider the
residential location of the workforce to be housed, and the
availability of transit service.
FISCAL EFFECT :
1)Foregone General Fund (GF) savings in the range of $10 million
per year for about two years to continue housing 65 wards
prohibited from DJF placement pursuant to the C.H. ruling of
December 12, 2011. (The proposed budget assumes these wards
would be housed at DJF.)
Since the 65 wards who were in DJF custody as of December 12,
2011, are no longer DJF-eligible, and are in various
stages of release to local custody and care, this bill authorizes
counties to contract with the state to house these wards. DJF
would not charge the counties for these contracts. Based on a
per capita cost of $163,000 and an average of 24 months in DJF
custody, if counties contracted with the state for all 65 wards,
the cost would be about $10 million per year for two years.
2)Unknown out-year annual GF costs in the range of $7 million to
house PC Section 290.008 wards, assuming 22 commitments per year
and a two-year average length-of-stay. (This assumes the budget
proposal to not charge the counties $125,000 per DJF commitment,
as part of the January 2012 budget trigger cuts, is maintained.)
3)Should the bill fail, there will be analogous annual
nonreimbursable costs to local governments to place these wards
in appropriate local settings/programs if DJF is not an option.
4)Unknown, likely minor, GF trial court savings to the extent
restoring DJF as an option for PC Section 290.008 wards results
in fewer adult filings for offenders who, prior to C.H., would
have been charged as juveniles and housed in DJF.
COMMENTS :
Rationale . Sponsored by the California District Attorneys
Association (CDAA) and the California Probation Officers
Association (CPOC), this bill would clarify that a juvenile
AB 324
Page 3
offender adjudicated for a specified sex offense may be committed
to the DJF, regardless of whether the juvenile has also been
adjudicated for a current or prior offense under WIC Section
707(b).
According to the author, to ensure that juvenile offenders who have
committed sex offenses remain eligible for DJF commitment, current
law must be amended to clarify the intent of the Legislature in
enacting juvenile justice realignment in 2007. AB 324 clarifies
what most stakeholders and practitioners understood to be the law
after juvenile realignment: that a juvenile offender with either a
WIC Section 707(b) offense or a PC Section 290.008(c) sex offense
is eligible for DJF commitment.
Background . In 2007, SB 81 and SB 191 (juvenile offender
realignment) were enacted to restrict DJF eligibility to the most
serious juvenile offenders, so-called 707(b) offenders. Following
enactment of SB 81 and SB 191, WIC Section 731 specified that only
707(b) offenses were eligible for DJF commitment, while WIC Section
733 specified who was ineligible for DJF, including wards who have
not committed a 707(b) offense, "Unless the offense is a sex
offense set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 290.008 of the
Penal Code." (PC Section 290.008 references registerable sex
offenses.)
While legislative analyses of SB 81 and SB 191 clearly and
explicitly state the Legislature did not intend to exclude any
registerable sex offenders from DJF eligibility, the California
Supreme Court, reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal, ruled
the grammatical construction of the two sections trumped the
contention of the Attorney General that the intent of the
Legislature was to include all registerable sex offenses (Penal
Code Section 290.008), and that as a result, only a ward who has
committed a 707(b) offense may be committed to the DJF.
Sexual offenses requiring registration as a sex offender that are
not included in WIC Section 707(b) include assault with intent to
commit a sexual offense, non-forcible rape, sodomy and oral
copulation, continuous sexual abuse of a child, and lewd or
lascivious acts with a minor. Of the 65 juvenile offenders
currently housed by DJF who were committed for a non-707(b)
offense, 51 were committed for non-forcible lewd and lascivious
acts with a minor.
In re C.H. involved a 13-year-old offender who admitted molesting
AB 324
Page 4
his three-year-old sister and two other siblings. He was
adjudicated under PC Section 288(a) and placed on probation. After
four probation violations for failure to comply with program
placement rules, including 90 days in juvenile hall custody, the
juvenile court committed C.H. to DJF and its sex offender program.
C.H. appealed the juvenile court order, but the Court of Appeal
rejected the claim that C.H. was ineligible for DJF commitment
because PC Section 288(a) was not listed in WIC Section 731.
The California Supreme Court, however, reversed the Court of
Appeal, stating, "The question before us, however, is one of
statutory construction of two provisions with a plain meaning - not
one of policy choice. Our holding must be based on how sections
731(a)(4) and 733((c) are written, not on our view of what could or
should have been enacted. Needless to say, the Legislature is free
to reconsider the policy set out in the current statutes if it
wishes to do so."
Status of wards affected by the C.H. decision . In January, the
Division of Juvenile Justice sent letters to presiding judges of
the juvenile court advising them of the C.H. decision, providing
them with a roster of youth committed to DJF from their respective
counties who may have been ineligible for DJF commitment under the
decision, and to request that the court take appropriate action for
all cases determined by the court to be affected by C.H. As of
February 15, 13 wards have been removed from DJF to their county of
commitments. Of the 65 wards currently at issue, 57 are currently
over the age of 17. The average age at commitment was 16. Of 170
sex offenders currently housed in DJF, 38% are subject to C.H.
Support includes, CDAA, CPOC, Service Employees International Union
(SEIU) Local 1000 and the Peace Officers Research Association of
California (PORAC).
Opposition includes the California Public Defenders Association
(CPDA) and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ), who
contend several of the offenses addressed by this bill should not
be eligible for DJF commitment.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
FN: 0003135
AB 324
Page 5