BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2645
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2645 (Dababneh) - As Introduced: February 21, 2014
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Requires a court transferring a probation or mandatory
supervision case to another county to determine the amount of
victim restitution before the transfer is made. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Requires a court transferring a probation or mandatory
supervision case to another county to first determine the
amount of victim restitution, unless the court is unable to
make that determination within a reasonable time.
2)States that if the case is transferred without a determination
of restitution, the transferring court must complete the
determination as soon as practicable.
3)States that, with the exception of the restitution order, the
receiving county has full jurisdiction over the case.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows a person released on probation or mandatory supervision
to make a motion to transfer the case to the county in which
the person permanently resides. (Pen. Code, � 1203.9, subd.
(a).)
2)Requires the court, upon receipt of a motion for inter-county
transfer, to transfer jurisdiction of the case to the superior
court in the county in which the defendant permanently
resides, unless the transferring court determines that the
transfer would be inappropriate and states its reasons on the
record. (Pen. Code, � 1203.9, subd. (a).)
3)Requires the court of the receiving county to accept the
entire jurisdiction over the case. (Pen. Code, � 1203.9,
subd. (b).)
AB 2645
Page 2
4)Mandates that the order of transfer contain an order
committing the probationer to the care and custody of the
probation officer of the receiving county and an order for
reimbursement of reasonable costs for processing the transfer
to be paid to the sending county as specified. A copy of the
orders and probation reports shall be transmitted to the court
and probation officer of the receiving county within two weeks
of the finding by that county that the person does permanently
reside in or has permanently moved to that county, and
thereafter the receiving court shall have entire jurisdiction
over the case, with the like power to again request transfer
of the case whenever it seems proper. (Pen. Code, � 1203.9,
subd. (c).)
5)Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules providing factors
for the court's consideration when determining the
appropriateness of a transfer, including but not limited to
the following:
a) Permanency of residence of the offender;
b) Local programs available for the offender; and,
c) Restitution orders and victim issues. (Pen. Code, �
1203.9, subd. (d).)
6)States that the transferring court must consider at least the
following factors when determining whether transfer is
appropriate:
a) The permanency of the supervised person's residence;
b) The availability of appropriate programs for the
supervised person;
c) Restitution orders, including inability to determine
restitution amount and the victim's ability to collect; and
d) Other victim issues, including residence and places
frequented by the victim and enforcement of protective
orders. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.530(f).)
7)States that, to the extent possible, the transferring court
must establish any amount of restitution owed by the
AB 2645
Page 3
supervised person before it orders the transfer. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 4.530(g)(2).)
8)States it is the unequivocal intention of the People of the
State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a
result of criminal activity shall have the right to
restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes for
losses they suffer. Restitution shall be ordered from the
convicted persons in every case, regardless of the sentence or
disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss,
unless compelling and extraordinary reasons exist to the
contrary. (Cal. Const., art. I, � 28, subd. (b).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "This measure
will protect victims from unnecessary hardship while
restitution amounts are being determined by requiring that the
amount be set before a court transfer can take place, except
in special circumstances. Under current law a victim risks
losing restitution if they cannot travel to the receiving
county to pursue restitution in person. Victims should not be
forced to deal with extensive delays, incur travel costs and
spend time away from work and loved ones in order to get the
restitution due to them as a victim of crime. Additionally,
this measure would enhance probation supervision in
misdemeanor cases by limiting transfers of misdemeanor cases
to those that involve serious offenses and only after the
court determines that the continued supervision of the
probationer is in the best interests of the public or any
victim."
2)Retaining Jurisdiction of Restitution : Crime victims have a
constitutionally protected right to restitution from the
defendant who harmed them. (Cal. Const., Art. I, � 28(b).) A
court retains jurisdiction of a case for the purpose of
imposing restitution until the losses are determined. (See
Pen. Code, � 1202.4, subd. (f); see also People v. Bufford
(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 966, 970 [court retained jurisdiction
to set restitution following completion of prison term]; but
see People v. Ford (2013) formerly at 217 Cal.App.4th 1354,
review granted 10/23/2013 (S212940/A135733) [issue on review
is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to award
AB 2645
Page 4
restitution to the victim although defendant's probationary
term had expired nine days earlier?].)
But when a case is transferred from one county to another, the
transferring county loses jurisdiction, and the receiving
county accepts jurisdiction of the case. (Pen. Code, 1203.9,
subd. (b).) The Rules of Court promulgated by the Judicial
Council require that whenever possible the transferring county
establish the amount of victim restitution owed before making
such a transfer. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.530(g)(2).)
According to the sponsor of this bill, oftentimes cases are
transferred to another county without a determination of
victim restitution. The receiving court is not as well
situated to determine restitution the relevant witnesses and
information are in the transferring county. The victim may
also suffer hardship if required to travel to the receiving
county to seek restitution. Requiring the transferring county
to determine restitution before transferring the case,
whenever possible, alleviates these concerns.
3)Argument in Support : The Judicial Council , the sponsor of
this bill, writes, "Under exisiting law, transferring courts
must consider restitution orders and victim issues before
deciding the appropriateness of a proposed intercounty
transfer. (Pen. Code, � 1203.9(e)(3).) Despite the
California Rules of Court requirement that courts consider:
(1) whether the transfer would impair the ability of the
receiving court to determine a restitution amount; (2) impair
the ability of the victim to collect court-order restitution;
and (3) to the extent possible, establish the amount of
restitution before transfer; courts often transfer cases
without first determining victim restitution amounts and
without any indication that the restitution amount was
properly considered. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.530(f)(3)
& 4.530(g)(2).) As a result, receiving courts are often
unable to determine accurate restitution amounts because the
relevant witnesses and information are not readily available
in the receiving county. Those transfers also create
significant hardships on victims who risk losing restitution
if they are unable to travel to the receiving county to pursue
or clarify a request for restitution in person.
"To improve victim access to restitution and promote
efficiencies in determining restitution amounts, AB 2645
AB 2645
Page 5
amends section 1203.9to (1) prohibit transfers until
restitution amounts have been determined unless a transferring
court finds that a determination of restitution cannot be made
within a reasonable amount of time from the date of the motion
to transfer; (2) require courts that transfer cases without
first determining restitution to retain jurisdiction to
determine the amount as soon as practicable; and (3) clarify
that, in all other respects, the receiving court receives full
jurisdiction over the matter. AB 2645 will facilitate the
collection of victim restitution without compromising public
safety."
4)Prior Legislation :
a) SB 431 (Benoit), Chapter 588, Statutes of 2009, required
the county of a probationer's residence to accept transfer
of jurisdiction over the case from the county in which the
probationer is convicted, with specified exceptions.
b) AB 306 (Aguiar), Chapter 273, Statutes of 1993, provided
for reasonable reimbursement to the sending county by the
receiving county for processing a probationer's transfer.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council (Sponsor)
California District Attorneys Association
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744