BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
AB 2396 (Bonta) - Professional licenses: expunged convictions.
Amended: May 15, 2014 Policy Vote: BP&ED 5-3
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 4, 2014
Consultant: Mark McKenzie
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 2396 would prohibit professional licensing
boards from denying a license solely on the basis of a
conviction that has been withdrawn, set aside, or dismissed, as
specified.
Fiscal Impact: The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA)
indicates that the majority of boards and bureaus under its
jurisdiction would have minor and absorbable costs. However,
the following boards indicate costs would be incurred as a
result of increased workload to conduct investigations on
license applicants with expunged convictions:
The Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS) estimates annual
costs of $227,195. (Behavioral Science Examiners Fund)
---see staff comments---
The Board of Psychology estimates annual costs of $86,266.
(Psychology Fund)
The Board of Pharmacy estimates costs in 2015-16 of $56,000
and ongoing costs of $48,000. (Pharmacy Board Contingent
Fund)
The Dental Board estimates annual costs of $26,640. (State
Dentistry Fund)
Background: Under current law, boards under the jurisdiction of
DCA may deny, suspend, or revoke a license if the crime is
substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties
of the business or profession for which the application is made,
or for which the license was issued. In addition, boards are
required to develop criteria to evaluate the rehabilitation of a
person when considering whether to deny, suspend or revoke a
license, taking into account all competent evidence of
rehabilitation furnished by the applicant or licensee.
Generally, the criteria consider the nature and severity of the
AB 2396 (Bonta)
Page 1
crime, the time that has elapsed since the crime, the extent the
applicant has complied with the terms of probation, parole
restitution and any other evidence of rehabilitation. Boards
cannot deny a license if the individual has met all the
rehabilitation criteria.
Existing law (Penal Code 1203.4) authorizes a court to withdraw
or set aside a guilty plea and dismiss the accusatory pleading
in cases in which the defendant has fulfilled the condition of
probation, or if relief is granted in the interest of justice,
as specified.
Existing law (Penal Code 1203.4a) authorizes a court to withdraw
or set aside a guilty plea and dismiss the accusatory pleading
in cases in which the defendant convicted of a misdemeanor or
infraction and who has fully complied with and performed the
sentence of the court, if one year has elapsed since the date of
judgment, as specified.
Existing law (Penal Code 1203.41) authorizes a court to withdraw
or set aside a guilty plea and dismiss the accusatory pleading
in cases in which a defendant is sentenced to county jail
pursuant to realignment and not under mandatory supervision or
serving a sentence for, on probation for, or charged with the
commission of any offense, and at least one year has elapsed
since the judgment.
Proposed Law: AB 2396 would specify that a person shall not be
denied a license solely on the basis of a conviction that has
been withdrawn, set aside, or dismissed pursuant to the Penal
Code provisions noted above.
Staff Comments: Over half of the boards under DCA require
criminal history information, and other boards require
applicants to self-report any criminal history. If a board
denies a license, it is required to notify the applicant by
letter, which provides the applicant with the specific reasons
why the application was denied. An applicant has the right to
appeal the denial of the application by requesting a statement
of issues hearing, and must submit a request for that hearing
within 60 days of the date of the letter. Once a written
request for a hearing is made, it is forwarded to the Attorney
General's office. At the hearing, an applicant may present
evidence and witnesses to prove that his or her application for
a certificate or license should not be denied.
AB 2396 (Bonta)
Page 2
Under current law, when a board denies, revokes, or suspends a
license, the burden is on the applicant to prove the board acted
in error. Under this bill, the board would have to provide
substantial evidence when denying, revoking, or suspending a
license, shifting the burden to the board. The cost to each
board within DCA preliminarily has varied widely, based it
appears, on the potential new workload to investigate license
applicants that have expunged convictions and collect evidence
to prove the underlying cause of the conviction to form basis
for the denial.
The Board of Behavioral Sciences estimates it would incur
increased costs of approximately $227,000 annually as a result
of the bill. In 2012-13, BBS denied 47 licenses due to
convictions. Although BBS currently investigates all cases in
which a license is denied due to a conviction, obtaining
certified copies of arrest and conviction documents is
sufficient evidence to substantiate a cause for denial. This
bill would require BBS to incur 25 hours of additional
investigatory staff time for each case in order to prove that
the underlying cause of the conviction is a basis for denial.
In addition, BBS expects to incur additional AG expenses and
costs related to hearings. Staff notes those licensees where
their felony, misdemeanor, or criminal conviction was dismissed
pursuant to Penal Code Sections 1203.4, 1203.4a, or 1203.41 as
being the sole reason their license was denied, revoked, or
suspended may be a very small number of licensees. It is
unclear whether the number of cases the BBS expects to warrant
further investigation would all be cases in which the license
was denied as a result of a conviction dismissed pursuant to
these Penal Code provisions.
As noted above, the boards that have reported increased costs as
a result of this bill are primarily those involved in certain
health-related professions. Notably absent from this list is
the Medical Board, whose staff indicates that license denials
based on a prior conviction, even those that were dismissed, are
already thoroughly investigated.