BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
SB 848 (Emmerson)
As Amended April 27, 2011
Hearing Date: May 3, 2011
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
EC/SK
SUBJECT
Court of Appeal Districts
DESCRIPTION
This bill would remove the Counties of Inyo, San Bernardino, and
Riverside (Division Two) from the Fourth Appellate District and
create the new Seventh Appellate District consisting of those
counties.
BACKGROUND
In 1904, the California Constitution was amended to create the
Court of Appeal, with three Appellate Districts. In 1928, the
California Constitution was amended by SCA 12 to authorize the
Legislature to create additional Court of Appeal Districts and
divisions within those districts. One year later, in 1929, the
Legislature utilized its new power by creating the Fourth
Appellate District, and, in 1961, the Fifth Appellate District
was created. The last District Court of Appeal created by the
Legislature was the Sixth Appellate District, which was
authorized by AB 1538 (Harris, Ch. 959, Stats. 1981). AB 1538
also instituted the current three-division structure of the
Fourth Appellate District.
In 1997, then-Chief Justice Ronald George formed the Appellate
Process Task Force which was charged with making recommendations
to the Judicial Council on how the functions, structure, and
work flow of the Courts of Appeal might be revised to improve
efficiency. The Report of the Appellate Process Task Force,
released in August 2000, detailed the Task Force's
recommendations to the Judicial Council. Among other changes,
the report recommended that four free-standing divisions (i.e.
(more)
SB 848 (Emmerson)
Page 2 of ?
divisions geographically separate from other divisions within
the same district) should be converted into separate Court of
Appeal Districts. The Second Division of the Fourth Appellate
District was among those recommended for conversion.
This bill would create the new Seventh Appellate District
consisting of Inyo, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties
(Division Two).
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the California Constitution, provides that, "�t]he
Legislature shall divide the State into districts each
containing a court of appeal with one or more divisions. Each
division consists of a presiding justice and 2 or more associate
justices." (Cal. Const. art. VI, sec. 3.)
Existing law divides the state into six Court of Appeal
Districts. (Gov. Code Sec. 69100.)
Existing law provides that the Fourth Appellate District
consists of the Counties of Inyo, San Bernardino, Riverside,
Orange, San Diego, and Imperial. (Gov. Code Sec. 69100.)
Existing law divides the Fourth Appellate District into three
divisions: (1) the First Division consists of 10 judges and
holds its regular sessions in San Diego; (2) the Second Division
consists of seven judges and holds its regular sessions in the
San Bernardino/Riverside area; and (3) the Third Division
consists of eight judges and holds its regular sessions in
Orange County. (Gov. Code Sec. 69104.)
Existing law provides that upon the creation of a new Court of
Appeal District or division, the Governor shall appoint judges
to serve on that court, and specifies the method for the
subsequent retention elections for those judges. (Gov. Code Sec.
69107.)
This bill would remove the Counties of Inyo, San Bernardino, and
Riverside (the Second Division) from the Fourth Appellate
District and create the Seventh Appellate District consisting of
those counties.
This bill would specify that the seven existing justices on the
Second Division of the Fourth Appellate District would serve as
the justices of the new Seventh Appellate District.
SB 848 (Emmerson)
Page 3 of ?
This bill would specify that the new Seventh District Court of
Appeal will have one division and shall hold its regular
sessions in the San Bernardino/Riverside area.
This bill specifies that the judge currently serving as the
presiding judge in the Second Division of the Fourth Appellate
District would serve as the administrative presiding judge of
the new Seventh Appellate District.
This bill would specify that the terms of office of the judges
moved to the new Seventh Appellate District would not be
affected by the reorganization and that no action by the
Commission on Judicial Appointments would be necessary.
SB 848 (Emmerson)
Page 4 of ?
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author,
The Fourth District is unique because when it was created,
each division was given its own separate facility. Division
Two, which includes Riverside, San Bernardino and Inyo is
already a free-standing division and by making it its own
separate district it will reduce a layer of bureaucracy and
will concentrate the budget and administrative
responsibilities within a more cohesive geographical unit.
This also makes more sense from an efficiency stand point.
A supporter of the bill, the County of San Bernardino, further
describes the need for this bill as follows:
The Inland Empire is one of the fastest growing regions in
California, and has a unique and pressing need for additional
judicial resources at both the trial and appellate court
levels. . . . Conversion of the 4th Appellate District,
Division 2, into the 7th Appellate District will remove an
unnecessary layer of bureaucracy standing between Division Two
and the people of the Inland Empire.
2. Bill would create a new appellate district; questions
raised about the necessity of the bill as well as its
impacts on the administration of justice and scarce judicial
resources
This bill would create the new Seventh Appellate District by
removing Division Two from the Fourth Appellate District. By
creating a new appellate district, this bill raises the policy
question of whether that creation is necessary in the first
place and whether it might inadvertently have adverse
consequences.
a. Whether this bill is necessary
In creating a new appellate district, this bill makes the
fundamental assumption that the current structure of the
Fourth District Court of Appeal is not functioning well. It
is not clear, however, that this is the case. On this point,
the Judicial Council notes that, "�t]here is no evidence to
suggest that the current organizational structure for the
SB 848 (Emmerson)
Page 5 of ?
courts of appeal, including the Fourth District, is not
working well. Over ten years ago, the Judicial Council
rejected a similar proposal to convert free-standing divisions
into new court of appeal districts, and since that time there
has been no study or other effort by the Council or any of its
advisory committees or task forces calling for such a
reorganization."
Additionally, the Judicial Council questions whether this bill
would accomplish its goal of reducing bureaucracy by noting
that the bill would actually necessitate the creation of new
administrative and management positions.
IS THERE A NEED FOR THIS BILL? WOULD THIS BILL ACTUALLY
INCREASE BUREAUCRACY BY DUPLICATING ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS?
b. Potential for increased caseloads and delays in the
administration of justice
The Judicial Council contends that, "contrary to the
assertions of the bill's author, converting Division Two of
the Fourth Appellate District into a new court of appeal
district would actually be a more inefficient way of handling
their caseloads, resulting in greater backlogs that will
further delay the administration of justice." In recent
years, the number of appeals filed in Division Two has
increased significantly. As supporters of the bill note, this
is due in large part to the sizable population growth the
Inland Empire has had over the last decade.
Current law and the California Rules of Court, however,
contain provisions helping courts to manage these increasing
workloads. In particular, cases may be transferred between
divisions within a court of appeal district to equalize the
work of judges. In fact, this has actually been done in the
Fourth Appellate District: in order to help ease the increased
caseloads and prevent significant backlogs, the clerk of
Division Two has identified cases for transfer, and the
administrative presiding judge of the Fourth Appellate
District with the approval of the Chief Justice of California
has transferred approximately 500 criminal appeals to
Divisions One and Three from Division Two (approximately 13
per month) since February 2009.
Under this bill, those transfers could no longer occur because
court of appeal districts cannot transfer cases to other
SB 848 (Emmerson)
Page 6 of ?
districts. As a result, this bill would limit the court's
ability to balance judges' workloads. Without the ability to
transfer cases, the proposed Seventh District Court of Appeal
would likely face significantly higher caseloads and longer
delays for decisions.
WOULD THIS BILL ACTUALLY INCREASE BACKLOGS AND CREATE DELAYS
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE?
c. Impact on scarce judicial resources
According to the Judicial Council, this bill would adversely
impact the state's finances and strain scarce judicial
resources. The Judicial Council points out:
. . . There would be one-time start up costs for printing,
signage, and stationery, plus significant ongoing personnel
costs associated with promoting current employees into new
management roles, as well as the increase in salary for the
current presiding justice of Division Two who would become
the administrative presiding judge. Additionally,
virtually all of the criminal appeals that are being
transferred from Division Two are being sent to Division
One in San Diego, which is where the offices of counsel for
both of the parties - the Attorney General and the
Appellate Defenders Incorporated - are located. Requiring
all of those cases to be heard in Riverside, which is the
current location of Division Two, would likely result in
increased travel costs to the state.
WOULD THIS BILL RESULT IN INEFFICIENT USE OF AND UNNECESSARY
STRAIN ON JUDICIAL RESOURCES?
3. The Appellate Process Task Force
In support of the bill, the author notes the Report of the
Appellate Process Task Force, described above. That report,
released in August 2000, suggested that the Second Division of
the Fourth Appellate District be converted into a separate Court
of Appeal District. The report stated that the proposed
conversion would concentrate administrative and budgetary
responsibilities in geographically separate organizational
units, thus reducing an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. In
opposition to this bill, however, the Judicial Council has
indicated that conversion of Division Two would actually entail
duplicating current administrative functions because new
SB 848 (Emmerson)
Page 7 of ?
management positions would need to be created for the Seventh
Appellate District, while maintaining those current managers for
the Fourth Appellate District.
The report also asserted that the conversion would provide a
better link between the geographical jurisdiction exercised by a
stand-alone division and the electoral districts in which its
justices must stand for retention election. The report stated,
"By court rule, appeals are assigned to each of the divisions
from cases arising in superior courts in specifically named
counties. For example, cases in the superior courts in San
Diego and Imperial Counties are appealed only to the Fourth
District, Division One, which sits in San Diego. Yet the
justices who serve on Division One are required to stand for a
retention election in a district that includes Inyo, San
Bernardino, Riverside and Orange Counties."
It is important to note, however, that the report did not
acknowledge that the California Rules of Court also allow for
the transfer of cases between divisions within the same district
court of appeal, as described above. In fact, according to the
Judicial Council, approximately 13 cases per month (500 criminal
appeals) since February 2009 have been transferred from Division
Two to Divisions One and Three. As a result, justices who serve
in those two divisions are hearing cases originating in Inyo,
San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties, and it is thus
not inappropriate that they stand for retention in those
counties.
It should also be noted that the Judicial Council did not
support the Task Force's recommendation to convert the
free-standing divisions into districts. In its meeting on
August, 24, 2000, Chief Justice George expressed concern that
increasing the number of appellate districts would lead to a
proliferation of issues forwarded to the Supreme Court for
resolution of conflicts between districts.
Support : County of San Bernardino; Michael A. Ramos, San
Bernardino County District Attorney; Arthur J. Maillet, Inyo
County District Attorney; Riverside County Bar Association
Opposition : Judicial Council of California
HISTORY
Source : Author
SB 848 (Emmerson)
Page 8 of ?
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : AB 1538 (Harris, Ch. 959, Stats. 1981), See
Background.
**************