BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1449
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1449 (V. Manuel Pérez) - As Amended: April 23, 2014
SUMMARY : Requires any person released from state prison on or
after January 1, 2015, for a non-serious, non-violent, non-sex
offense, but who has a prior serious, violent, or "strike"
conviction, or a prior conviction classifying him or her as a
high-risk sex offender, or as a mentally disordered offender, to
be subject to parole supervision, rather than post release
community supervision (PRCS).
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the following persons released from prison prior to,
or on or after July 1, 2013, be subject to parole under the
supervision of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subds. (a) and
(i).):
a) A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal
Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c);
b) A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal
Code section 667.5, subdivision (c);
c) A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
d) A high risk sex offender;
e) A mentally disordered offender;
f) A person required to register as a sex offender and
subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time
of the commission of the offense for which he or she is
being released; and,
g) A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the
commission of the offense for which he or she is being
AB 1449
Page 2
released.
2)Requires all other offenders released from prison to be placed
on PRCS under the supervision of a county agency, such as a
probation department. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), &
3451.)
3)Requires all persons paroled before October 1, 2011 to remain
under the supervision of the CDCR until jurisdiction is
terminated by operation of law or until parole is discharged.
(Pen. Code, § 3000.09.)
4)States that the parole period for most offenders is three
years, except as specified. (Pen. Code, § 3000, subd. (b).)
5)Limits the term for PRCS to three years. (Pen. Code, § 3451,
subd. (a).)
6)Provides for intermediate sanctions for violating the terms of
parole, including "flash incarceration" for up to 10 days.
(Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (d).)
7)Provides for intermediate sanctions for violating the terms of
PRCS, including "flash incarceration" for up to 10 days.
(Pen. Code, § 3454.)
8)Specifies that if parole is revoked, the offender may be
incarcerated in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180
days for each custodial sanction. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08,
subd. (g).)
9)Specifies that if PRCS is revoked, the offender may be
incarcerated in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180
days for each custodial sanction. (Pen. Code, § 3455, subd.
(d).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "In 2011,
Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 109, The Public Safety
Realignment Act. The statute stipulates that only the
current conviction offense is considered when determining
whether felons leaving prison will be placed under county or
AB 1449
Page 3
state supervision (probation or parole). The lighter
supervision associated with county probation is not adequate
for many who now receive it, placing the safety of our
communities at risk."
2)Changes to Parole As a Result of Criminal Justice Realignment :
Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were
placed on parole and supervised in the community by CDCR
parole agents. If it was alleged that a parolee had violated
a condition of parole, he or she would have a revocation
proceeding before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). If
parole was revoked, the offender would be returned to state
prison for violating parole.
Realignment shifted the supervision of some released prison
inmates from CDCR parole agents to local probation
departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for
inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 is
limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or
violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are
classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to
undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who,
while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. All other
inmates released from prison are subject to up to three years
of PRCS under local supervision.
Realignment also changed where an offender is incarcerated for
violating parole or PRCS. Most individuals can no longer be
returned to state prison for violating a term of supervision;
offenders serve the revocation term in county jail. The only
offenders who are eligible for return to prison for violating
parole are life-term inmates paroled pursuant to Penal Code
section 3000.1 (e.g., murderers, specific life term sex
offenses).
Additionally, realignment changed the process for revocation
hearings, but this change was implemented in phases. Until
July 1, 2013, individuals supervised on parole by state agents
continued to have revocation hearings before the BPH. After
July 1, 2013, trial courts assumed responsibility for holding
all revocation hearings for those individuals who remain under
CDCR's jurisdiction. In contrast, since the inception of
realignment, individuals placed on PRCS stopped appearing
before the BPH for revocation hearings; their revocation
hearings were handled by the trial court.
AB 1449
Page 4
PRCS provides for lesser, or "intermediate" sanctions, before
supervision is revoked for a violation. This includes "flash
incarceration" for up to 10 days. (Pen. Code, § 3454.)
Intermediate sanctions, including flash incarceration, became
available for state parolees after July 1, 2013. (Pen. Code,
§ 3000.08, subd. (d).) However, despite the new authority to
impose terms of flash incarceration upon state-supervised
parolees, the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) has
made a policy decision not to utilize flash incarceration.
(See Valdivia v. Brown, Response to May 6 Order, filed
05/28/13, p. 17.)
This bill requires any person released from state prison on or
after January 1, 2015, for a non-serious, non-violent, non-sex
offense, but who has a prior serious, violent, or "strike"
conviction, or a prior conviction classifying him or her as a
high-risk sex offender, or as a mentally disordered offender,
to be subject to parole supervision, rather than PRCS.
Data obtained from the Website of the Chief Probation Officers
of California shows that as of September 2013, there were
slightly over 33,000 individuals beings supervised on PRCS
statewide.
( http://www.cpoc.org/assets/Realignment/dashboard.swf ) One
of the premises of the Post Release Community Supervision Act
was that "Realigning the post release supervision of certain
felons reentering the community after serving a prison term to
local community corrections programs, which are strengthened
through community-based punishment, evidence-based practices,
and improved supervision strategies, will improve public
safety outcomes among adult felon parolees and will facilitate
their successful reintegration back into society." (Pen.
Code, § 3450, subd. (b)(5).) This bill would significantly
undermine one of the major components of realignment, PRCS.
It will likely result in thousands of defendants being placed
on parole instead of PRCS. It seems premature to start
sending back to parole supervision perhaps thousands of
individuals without showing that local supervision is less
effective than parole supervision.
3)Effectiveness of Parole Supervision : The premises of this
bill is that individuals with prior serious, violent, or
"strike" convictions should be supervised by CDCR because
parole agents are better trained to supervise this population.
AB 1449
Page 5
A recent report by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center based on
interviews of county stakeholders charged with implementing
realignment makes the same claim. The report states,
"Probation officers, already facing increasing caseloads, are
ill equipped to manage such serious and sophisticated
offenders." (See Voices from the Field, How California
Stakeholders View Criminal Justice Realignment, by Joan
PetersiliaPh.D., Draft for Review and Comments, November 2013,
with updates December 2013, at p. 217
.) The report cites to the fact that some counties are now
arming their probation officers. (Ibid.) As such, the report
recommends that all offenders with prior or serious violent
convictions should be ineligible for PRCS. (Id. at p. 218.)
However, the presumption that parole agents are more effective
at supervising individuals on supervised release is
questionable. A 2013 report by the Legislative Analyst's
Office noted that in 2010 the parolee failure rate in
California was higher than the probationer failure rate. The
probation "failure rate" was at about 40%, whereas the parolee
failure rate was close to 70%. (See California's Criminal
Justice System - A Primer, January 2013
.)
4)Funding for Realignment Has Already Been Shifted to Local
Governments : As part of realignment the state shifted certain
revenues to local governments. As explained by the LAO:
"(T)he 2011-12 budget package included statutory changes to
realign several criminal justice and other programs from state
responsibility to local governments, primarily counties.
Along with the shift, or realignment, of programs, state law
realigned revenues to locals. Specifically, current law
shifts a share of the state sales tax, as well as Vehicle
License Fee revenue, to local governments. The passage of
Proposition 30 by voters in November 2012, among other
changes, guaranteed these revenues to local governments in the
future.
Would the counties have to return part of their
realignment-allotted revenues back to the State, or would the
State have to pay twice to incarcerate these individuals
AB 1449
Page 6
because the funding is constitutionally protected? (See Cal.
Const., Art. XIII, sec. 36.)
5)Argument in Support : The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
writes, "Current law allows most felons released from state
prison, after serving sentences for felonies which are not
violent or serious, to be supervision on Post Release
Community Supervision (probation) [sic] rather than on state
parole. AB 1449 requires this class of felons who have one or
more prior convictions for violent or serious crimes to be
supervised on state parole.
"According to the LA County Sheriff Department, over 63% of the
felons released from prison and placed on PRCS are classified
as high risk or very high risk. There are currently 11,481
felons with these classifications free on PRCS in LA County.
Since realignment took effect, felons on PRCS in the county
have been arrested for new crimes over 26,000 times. Many of
these offenders had serious crimes in their criminal records,
but their release offense qualified them for PRCS rather than
parole. Clearly, the light supervision on PRCS is not
adequate for many who now receive it. There are scores of
Californians who have been murdered, raped, or violently
assaulted by criminals on PRCS.
"Allowing criminals with serious priors to be released on to the
more intense supervision provided under state parole, as
provided under this bill, will strengthen the protection our
state gives to innocent Californians."
6)Argument in Opposition : The California Public Defenders
Association argues, "Under current law, as enacted by
Realignment on October 1, 2011, only people with who, because
of the gravity of their backgrounds or gravity of their
present offenses, are released on state parole. The rest are
released from prison on locally supervised postrelease
community supervision.
"For example, currently, people whose background a serious or
violent felony who commit a new felony, even a low-level
non-violent one, are sent to prison. But only those with two
serious or violent felonies are released on parole. Those
with only one serious or violent felony are released on
postrelease community supervision. That reflects the fact
society and public safety are better served when only those
AB 1449
Page 7
with the worst records are released on parole, while the rest
are released to local supervision.
"This bill would, effective January 1, 2015, increase the number
and type of offender released to state parole, and decrease
the number and type released to postrelease community
supervision. Using the example in the above paragraph, under
this bill, people with only one serious or violent felony
prior conviction would no longer be released on postrelease
community supervision, they would be released on parole.
"But our state parole system has failed to protect society and
public safety. Parole's higher level of supervision should be
reserved for only the worst offenders; it may be able to
succeed when its caseload is limited to the worst offenders.
But for others, even the mid-level people, who went to prison
because of their background but whose current offense is
low-level and non-violent, should be retained on local
postrelease community supervision, because that is more likely
to succeed and better protect and rehabilitate.
"This bill would have the effect of dramatically increasing,
perhaps doubling, the number of people released on parole.
This dramatic increase would come at a time when parole
budgets and staff have been drastically cut. The result of
this bill would be fewer, underfunded parole agents
supervising a much larger population of releases. This would
greatly increase risks to public safety. This increased risk
ultimately would require a total re-redirection of funding
back to state parole, completely defeating the purpose of
realignment and jeopardizing public safety during the
necessary transition period."
7)Related Legislation : AB 1901 (Muratsuchi) authorizes a court,
upon a motion by the district attorney, or upon the court's
own motion, to order a person who will serve a term in a state
prison for a crime that is not a serious felony, violent
felony, an offense for which the person was sentenced pursuant
to the Three Strikes Law, a crime where the person is
classified as a high-risk sex offender, to be released on
parole rather than post release community supervision. AB
1901 will be heard in this Committee today.
8)Prior Legislation :
AB 1449
Page 8
a) AB 63 (Patterson), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session,
required that a person on PRSC or parole whose supervision
was revoked for removing or disabling global positioning
system (GPS) affixed as a condition of release, and who was
ordered to serve a term of custody for the violation, to
serve that term in the state prison. AB 63 failed passage
in this Committee.
b) AB 1065 (Holden), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session,
originally specified that an inmate being released from
state prison is ineligible for PRCS if that inmate had,
under a previous sentence, been deemed a mentally
disordered offender MDO. AB 1065 failed passage in this
Committee and was subsequently amended to address a
different, but related subject.
c) AB 1334 (Conway), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session,
required all persons released from prison for a current, or
prior, conviction or juvenile adjudication requiring
sex-offender registration to be subject to parole
supervision by the CDCR. AB 1334 failed passage in this
Committee.
d) SB 226 (Emmerson), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session,
required that a defendant convicted of a felony and found
to have a "severe mental disorder" as specified, serve
their sentence in state prison rather than county jail and
also be supervised on state parole upon release. SB 226
failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
e) SB 287 (Walters), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session,
made the provisions for PRCS inapplicable to any person
released from prison who has a prior conviction for a
serious or violent felony, a crime for which the person
received a third strike, or a crime that resulted in the
person being classified as a High Risk Sex Offender. SB
287 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
f) SB 710 (Nielsen), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session,
made the provisions of PRCS applicable only to persons
released from prison prior to January 1, 2014, and required
all offenders released from prison on or after that to be
subject to parole supervision by CDCR for a minimum period
of three years. SB 710 failed passage in the Senate Public
Safety Committee.
AB 1449
Page 9
g) AB 109 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 15, Statutes of
2011, enacted Criminal Justice Realignment which, among
other things, limited which felons could be sent to state
prison, and required that more felons serve their sentences
in county jails.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Police Chiefs Association (Sponsor)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California District Attorneys Association
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
Golden State Bail Agents Association
Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
American Friends Service Committee
California Public Defenders Association
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744