BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
0
1
AB 1016 (Achadjian) 6
As Amended March 23, 2011
Hearing date: June 28, 2011
Penal Code
AA:dl
MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS:
TRIAL COSTS
HISTORY
Source: San Luis Obispo County
Prior Legislation: SB 1562 (Maldonado) - Chapter 812, Statutes
of 2006
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None Known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW BE CLARIFIED WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE CONTINUING TO
REIMBURSE COUNTIES FOR TRIAL COSTS FOR MENTALLY DISORDERED
OFFENDERS, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
(More)
AB 1016 (Achadjian)
Page 2
The purpose of this bill is to clarify that the state will
continue to reimburse counties for trial costs for mentally
disordered offenders, as specified.
Current law states that a prisoner who is otherwise eligible for
parole may be committed for treatment by the Department of
Mental Health if the following criteria are met:
a) He or she has a serious mental disorder that is not is
remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment;
b) The severe mental disorder was one of the causes of or
was an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime for
which the prisoner was sentenced for prison;
c) The prisoner has been in treatment for the severe mental
disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to the
prisoner's parole or release;
d) Prior to the prisoner's release or parole, a practicing
psychologist or psychiatrist from the state Department of
Mental Health (DMH) have evaluated the prisoner and a chief
psychiatrist of CDCR has certified that the prisoner has a
severe mental disorder, that the disorder is not in
remission, or cannot be kept in remission without
treatment, that the severe mental disorder was one of the
causes or was an aggregating factor in prisoner's criminal
behavior, that the prisoner has been in treatment for the
severe mental disorder for 90 days or more prior to
release, and that because of his or her severe mental
disorder the prisoner represents a substantial danger of
physical harm to others; and,
e) The prisoner was sentenced to a determinate sentence for
specified crimes. (Penal Code � 2962.)
Current law entitles a city, county or superior court to
(More)
AB 1016 (Achadjian)
Page 3
reimbursement for reasonable and necessary costs connected with
state prisons or prisoners in connection with any of the
following:
f) Any crime committed in a state prison, whether by a
prisoner, employee, or other person;
g) Any crime committed by a prisoner in furtherance of an
escape, as specified;
h) Any hearing on any return of a writ of habeas corpus
prosecuted by or on behalf of a prisoner;
i) Any trial or hearing on the question of the sanity of a
prisoner:
j) Any costs not otherwise reimbursable related to
extradition of a prisoner;
aa) Any costs incurred by a coroner in connection with the
death of a prisoner;
bb) Any costs incurred in transporting a prisoner within the
host county or as requested by the prison facility or
incurred for extra security while the prisoner is outside a
state prison; or,
cc) Any crime committed by a state inmate at a state
hospital for the care, treatment, and education of the
mentally disordered, as specified. (Penal Code � 4750.)
Current law states that no city, county, or other jurisdiction
may file for reimbursement under this section more than six
months after the close of the month in which the costs were
incurred. (Penal Code � 4750(j).)
Current law states that a financial officer or other designate
official of a county shall make statement of non-treatment and
treatment costs related to a hearing for specified prison or
(More)
AB 1016 (Achadjian)
Page 4
state hospital related offenses, to be certified by the judge of
the superior court of that county, and sent to the controller
for approval. Upon approval, the county shall be reimbursed for
all non-treatment related costs from a fund appropriated by the
Legislature. (Welfare and Institutions Code � 4117(a).)
This bill clarifies that the state will continue to reimburse
counties for trial costs for mentally disordered offenders
(MDOs), as specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
(More)
AB 1016 (Achadjian)
Page 5
(More)
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Current law requires reimbursement for MDO trial costs
but does not specify which funds should be used to
make such reimbursements. Assembly Bill 1016 would
clarify that the State Controller can reimburse a
county for the non-treatment costs associated with
conducting Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) Trials,
which the county is already owed pursuant to existing
law, from monies appropriated by the Legislature for
the purpose of reimbursing cities and counties for
prison and prisoner related costs.
2. What This Bill Would Do
The Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis of this bill
explains:
As noted by the author and the sponsor (San Luis
Obispo County), and as confirmed by the State
Controller's Office, this bill simply clarifies the
state's intent to reimburse counties for MDO trials.
Over the past several years, the San Luis Obispo
County District Attorney's Office has averaged about
$600,000 annually in state reimbursements for MDO
cases per year, pursuant to current law. In late
(More)
AB 1016 (Achadjian)
Page 7
2010, the controller stopped processing MDO trials
because it was not explicitly authorized under Penal
Code 4750. (The reference was inadvertently omitted
from related legislation, SB 1562 (Maldonado),
Statutes of 2006). After a series of meetings the
controller's office agreed to pay all outstanding
reimbursements owed to the county and resume
reimbursements, but requested clarifying references in
Penal Code 4750.
***************