BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
AB 2690 (Mullin) - Driving under the influence.
Amended: March 20, 2014 Policy Vote: Public Safety 7-0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 4, 2014
Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 2690 would change the term "prior violation"
to "separate violation" in the statute authorizing enhanced
penalties for multiple driving under the influence (DUI)
violations that occur within 10 years, as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
Potential increase in state incarceration costs (General
Fund) to the extent the enhanced penalty for multiple DUI
offenses leads to additional CDCR commitments (for those
previously convicted of a serious or violent felony) and/or
longer lengths of sentences. CDCR data indicates over 1,000
commitments to state prison in 2013 under the relevant DUI
offense statutes. To the extent even one-half to one percent,
or five to 10 commitments are impacted by the bill's
provisions would result in increased state incarceration
costs of about $150,000 to $300,000 based on the in-state
contract bed cost of $30,000.
Potential increase in local incarceration costs to the
extent the enhanced penalty for multiple DUI offenses leads
to additional jail commitments and/or longer jail terms. To
the extent a portion of the new and/or extended jail
sentences resulting from this bill would have spent the
enhancement in prison prior to 2011 Realignment would
potentially result in these costs being subject to state
reimbursement.
Under 2011 Realignment Legislation, the state provided funding
to the counties to place offenders in county jail for specified
felonies ("1170(h) felonies") that previously would have
required a state prison sentence. Pursuant to Proposition 30
(2012), legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has
an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a
AB 2690 (Mullin)
Page 1
local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the
2011 Realignment Legislation apply to local agencies only to the
extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost
increase. While Proposition 30 specifies that legislation
defining a new crime or changing the definition of an existing
crime is not subject to this provision, changing the penalty for
a crime is not specifically exempted and could potentially
require a subvention of funds from the state.
Background: A non-injury DUI offense is normally punished as a
misdemeanor. However, a DUI offense may be charged as a felony
if the defendant has a prior violation within 10 years of a DUI
offense that was punished as a felony, or the defendant has a
prior conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while
intoxicated, or the defendant has been previously convicted
within the last 10 years of three or more separate DUI
violations.
Under existing law, a DUI offense charged as a felony as
described above is subject to a penalty of imprisonment in state
prison or confinement in a county jail for not more than one
year and by a fine of not less than $390 nor more than $1,000.
Existing law states the Legislature's intent that the timing of
court proceedings should not permit a person to avoid aggravated
mandatory minimum penalties for multiple separate offenses
occurring within a 10-year period, and that a person be subject
to the enhanced mandatory minimum penalties for multiple
offenses within a period of 10 years, regardless of whether the
convictions are obtained in the same sequence as the offenses
had been committed. (Vehicle Code (VC) � 23217.)
This bill seeks to address the issue that occurs when the order
of an offender's DUI convictions does not follow the order of
the commission of the offenses, which in certain cases can
result in the inapplicability of penalty enhancements. By
revising the words "prior violation" used in VC � 23550.5(a) to
"separate violation," the intended penalty enhancements will
clearly apply regardless of the timing of DUI offenses.
Proposed Law: This bill would change the term "prior violation"
to "separate violation" in VC � 23550.5(a), which authorizes
enhanced penalties for multiple driving under the influence
(DUI) violations that occur within 10 years.
AB 2690 (Mullin)
Page 2
Staff Comments: This bill could result in moderate increases in
state incarceration costs (General Fund) to the extent enhanced
penalties for multiple DUI offenses leads to additional CDCR
commitments (for those previously convicted of a serious or
violent felony) and/or longer lengths of sentences based on the
revised statute. CDCR data indicates over 1,000 commitments to
state prison in 2013 under the relevant DUI offense statutes. To
the extent even one-half to one percent, or five to 10
commitments are impacted by the bill's provisions would result
in increased state incarceration costs of about $150,000 to
$300,000 in one year based on the in-state contract bed cost of
$30,000.
This bill could also result in increases in local incarceration
costs to the extent the enhanced penalty for multiple DUI
offenses leads to additional jail commitments and/or longer jail
terms. To the extent a portion of the new and/or extended jail
sentences resulting from this bill would have spent the
enhancement in prison prior to 2011 Realignment (as specified
felony violations of VC � 23152, 23153, and 23175 have been
realigned to the counties) would potentially result in these
costs being subject to state reimbursement.
Under 2011 Realignment Legislation, the state provided funding
to the counties to place offenders in county jail for specified
felonies ("1170(h) felonies") that previously would have
required a state prison sentence.
Staff notes that because the DUI enhancement under existing law
applies only if prior violations of specified VC occurred, no
costs were provided to local agencies under 2011 Realignment
Legislation for the enhanced penalty upon separate VC
violations. Pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), legislation
enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of
increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for
programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment
Legislation apply to local agencies only to the extent that the
state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Although
Proposition 30 specifies that legislation defining a new crime
or changing the definition of an existing crime is not subject
to this provision, changing the penalty for a crime is not
specifically exempted and could potentially require a subvention
of funds from the state.
AB 2690 (Mullin)
Page 3
While it is unknown how many cases would potentially be impacted
by this measure, assuming even two annual convictions subject to
the enhancement are realigned felonies that would have served
the enhancement in prison but instead serve the one year
enhancement in jail, would result in annual costs of $73,000
(General Fund) assuming an average daily jail rate of $100.