BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2199|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2199
Author: Muratsuchi (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 5/13/14
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, De Le�n, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Knight
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 4/10/14 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Mandatory supervision: costs
SOURCE : Chief Probation Officers of California
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the probation department to
charge a defendant for all, or a portion of, the reasonable cost
of mandatory supervision, subject to the defendants ability to
pay.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes the court, when imposing a
sentence for a county jail-eligible felony, to commit the
defendant to county jail as follows:
A. For a full term in custody as determined in
accordance with applicable sentencing law; or
B. For a term as determined in accordance with the
applicable sentencing law, but suspend execution of a
CONTINUED
AB 2199
Page
2
concluding portion or the term selected in the court's
discretion, during which time defendant will be placed
on mandatory supervision for the remaining unserved
portion of the sentence imposed by the court. The
period of supervision shall be mandatory and may not be
earlier terminated except by court order. During the
period when the defendant is under mandatory
supervision, unless in actual custody, the defendant
shall be entitled to only actual time credit against
the term of imprisonment imposed by the court. (Penal
Code [PEN] Section 1170, subd. (h)(5).)
Existing law requires the probation officer, when a defendant is
granted probation or a conditional sentence, to determine a
defendant's ability to pay all or a portion of the reasonable
cost of probation supervision and probation report preparation.
(PEN Section 1203.1b, subd. (a).)
This bill revises this provision to require additionally that
the probation officer, when a defendant receives a term of
mandatory supervision pursuant to PEN Section 1170. subd.
(h)(5), determine a defendant's ability to pay all or a portion
of the reasonable cost of mandatory supervision, which is not to
exceed the actual average cost thereof.
Existing law entitles the defendant to a hearing to have the
court determine his/her ability to pay, as well as determine the
payment amount, unless he/she waives it. (PEN Section 1203.1b,
subd. (a).)
Existing law entitles the defendant the right to assistance of
counsel at that hearing. (PEN Section 1203.1b, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires the court to set the amount of the payment
and order the defendant to pay that amount to the county in a
manner that is reasonable and compatible with the defendant's
financial ability. (PEN Section 1203.1b, subd. (b).)
Existing law defines "ability to pay" as the overall capacity of
the defendant to reimburse the costs, or a portion of the costs,
of conducting the presentence investigation, preparing the
probation reports, processing jurisdictional transfers, and the
costs of supervision. (PEN Section 1203.1b, subd. (e).)
CONTINUED
AB 2199
Page
3
This bill amends this section to expressly include the cost of
mandatory supervision.
Existing law sets forth criteria for the court to consider in
determining the defendant's ability to pay, including:
A. Present financial position;
B. Reasonably discernible future financial position for
the next year;
C. The likelihood that the defendant shall be able to
obtain employment within the one-year period from the date
of the hearing; and
D. Any other factor or factors that may bear upon the
defendant's financial capability to reimburse the county
for the costs. (PEN Section 1203.1b, subd. (e).)
Existing law provides for additional hearings during the period
of probation to review the defendant's ability to pay the
probation costs. (PEN Section 1203.1, subd. (c).)
This bill revises this provision to also allow for additional
hearings during the period of mandatory supervision to review
the defendant's financial ability to pay mandatory supervision
costs.
Prior Legislation
AB 109 (Assembly Budget Committee, Chapter 15, Statutes of
2011), realigned responsibilities for certain parolees and newly
convicted offenders who are deemed to be non-violent,
non-serious and non-sex offenders from state to local
jurisdictions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/14/14)
Chief Probation Officers of California (source)
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
California Police Chiefs Association
CONTINUED
AB 2199
Page
4
California Probation, Parole, and Correctional Association
California State Association of Counties
California State Sheriffs' Association
Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union, Local 685
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/14/14)
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Chief Probation Officers of
California writes, "While the mandatory supervision population
deadline is a similarly situated population to those on
probation or who receive a conditional sentence, in December
2013, People v. Fandinola found that the probation supervision
fee may not be applied to the mandatory supervision portion of a
split sentence because Penal Code 1203.1b did not expressly note
Mandatory Supervision. This ruling has the potential to
disincentivize split sentences, which may result in more
straight jail sentences granted by courts due to the cost of
supervision.
"AB 2199 would bring needed parity to these populations of
similarly situated offenders by allowing defendants to be
charged for the reasonable costs of mandatory supervision.
Ability to pay provisions would similarly apply and probation
(sic) would not be revoked for someone's inability to pay.
These supervision fees help cover a portion of the actual cost
to provide critical adult field service supervision and
programs."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Taxpayers for Improving Public
Safety (TIPS) writes:
Individuals released upon probation and parole typically
(although there are always the example of Paris Hilton,
Jenna Jameson and Amanda Bynes), leave with little or no
opportunity for employment or at best, a minimum wage job.
At the very same time, most probationers and parolees are
subject restitution orders which mandate that 50% of
income be collected. As a consequence of existing law,
the parolees and probationers lack the ability to pay for
transportation, housing food, clothing, utilities and
basic living necessities.
CONTINUED
AB 2199
Page
5
This legislation if enacted would add to the amount
withheld from parolees and probationers income thus
forcing them, out of necessity to survive, to return to
criminal behavior. Although this legislation may have
merit for those parolees and probationers who are employed
in a position that is not minimum wage, this legislation
provides no distinction between the two groups of
individuals.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 4/10/14
AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Dickinson, Donnelly, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Beth
Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray,
Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein,
Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,
Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez,
Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Skinner,
Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk,
Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Daly, Eggman, Jones, Salas, Vacancy
JG:d 5/14/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED