BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
5
7
9
AB 579 (Melendez)
As Amended January 15, 2014
Hearing date: March 25, 2014
Penal Code (Urgency)
AA:mc
MANDATORY SUPERVISION
HISTORY
Source: California State Sheriffs' Association; Chief Probation
Officers of California
Prior Legislation: SB 76 (Budget Committee) - Ch. 32, Stats. of
2013
AB 109 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 15, Stats. 2011
Support: California District Attorneys Association; Los Angeles
Police Protective League; Los Angeles County Probation
Officers' Union, AFSCME, Local 685; Association for Los
Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Riverside Sheriffs'
Association; California Public Defenders Association;
San Diego County District Attorney
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
(More)
AB 579 (Melendez)
Page 2
SHOULD STATUTORY LAW BE CLARIFIED TO EXPRESSLY STATE THAT
MANDATORY SUPERVISION COMMENCES UPON RELEASE FROM CUSTODY?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide expressly that, when a
court commits a person convicted of a jail felony to both county
jail and a period of time under the supervision of the probation
department (a "split sentence"), the period of mandatory
supervision shall commence upon release from custody.
Current law generally provides that, for any person sentenced on
or after October 1, 2011, certain felonies - those which by
their statutory terms specifically so provide, and for which an
offender is otherwise eligible - are punishable by a term of
imprisonment in a county jail and not state prison, as
specified. (Penal Code � 1170(h).)
Current law further provides that, for convicted felony
offenders subject to confinement in a county jail, courts may
impose the felony sentence to commit a defendant to county jail
as follows:
For a full term in custody as determined in accordance
with the applicable sentencing law.
For a term as determined in accordance with the
applicable sentencing law, but suspend execution of a
concluding portion of the term selected in the court's
discretion, during which time the defendant shall be
supervised by the county probation officer in accordance
with the terms, conditions, and procedures generally
applicable to persons placed on probation, for the
remaining unserved portion of the sentence imposed by the
court. The period of supervision shall be mandatory, and
(More)
AB 579 (Melendez)
Page 3
may not be earlier terminated except by court order.
During the period when the defendant is under such
supervision, unless in actual custody related to the
sentence imposed by the court, the defendant shall be
entitled to only actual time credit against the term of
imprisonment imposed by the court. (Penal Code �
1170(h)(5).)
This bill clarifies that mandatory supervision in this context
"shall begin upon release from custody."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
(More)
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
(More)
AB 579 (Melendez)
Page 5
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
AB 579 (Melendez)
Page 6
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
SB 76 (Chapter 32, Statutes of 2013) was a budget
trailer bill that enacted several changes in the
criminal justice issue area including language that
clarified within PC 1170(h)(5)(B)(ii) (split sentence
authority) that mandatory supervision begins upon
release from custody. Unfortunately, this change was
inadvertently chaptered out by SB 463 (Pavley, Chapter
508, Statutes of 2013).
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, current law provides courts with the
discretion to include a period of mandatory supervision as part
of a felony jail sentence imposed pursuant to Penal Code section
1170(h)(5). This is a new "split sentence" mechanism created by
realignment (AB 109, Stats. 2011). Mandatory supervision is the
period of time in a split sentence when a person is under the
supervision of a county probation department as part of their
sentence. This bill clarifies that mandatory supervision "shall
begin upon release from custody." In 2013, SB 76 (Chapter 32,
Statutes of 2013), a budget trailer bill, included this
clarification but this language was inadvertently chaptered out
by SB 463 (Pavley), Chapter 508, Statutes of 2013. This bill
would restore the change made by SB 76 last year.
***************