BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2645
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2645 (Dababneh)
As Amended May 6, 2014
Majority vote
PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Melendez, |
| |Jones-Sawyer, Quirk, |
| |Skinner, Stone, Waldron |
--------------------------------
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.
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.
3)Requires the court of the receiving county to accept the
AB 2645
Page 2
entire jurisdiction over the case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : 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."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0003330