BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
7
2
AB 2724 (Bradford) 4
As Introduced February 21, 2014
Hearing date: June 24, 2014
Penal Code
MK:mc
FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT: FINES
HISTORY
Source: Western Center on Law and Poverty; East Bay Community
law Center; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Prior Legislation: SB 366 (Wright) - held in Senate
Appropriations, 2013
Support: Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; All of Us
or None; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice;
Legal Barriers to Employment Project; Los Angeles
Community Action Network; Ella Baker Center for Human
Rights; National Employment Law Project; Personal
Insurance Federation of California; Public Counsel;
Rubicon Programs; Sarah Webster Fabio Center for Social
Justice; San Francisco Public Defender; Taxpayers for
Improving Public Safety; Watsonville Law Center;
Western Regional Advocacy Project; Equal Rights
Advocates
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 78 - Noes 0
(More)
AB 2724 (Bradford)
Page 2
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW PROVIDE THAT THE ABILITY TO PAY A FINE IS NOT A
PREREQUISITE IN FILING A REQUEST THAT A COURT VACATE A CIVIL
ASSESSMENT?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD THE LAW PROVIDE THAT AN AGREEMENT TO PAY A FINE IN
INSTALLMENTS OR PERFORM COMMUNITY SERVICE IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE
COURT TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES LIFT THE HOLD
ON A PERSON'S DRIVER'S LICENSE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that the ability to pay a
fine is not a prerequisite to filing a request that the court
vacate a civil assessment, and that an agreement to pay a fine
in installments or perform community service in lieu of paying
the fine is sufficient for the court to request that the hold on
the defendant's driver's license be lifted.
Existing law requires the court, upon the request of the
defendant, to consider the defendant's ability to pay in any
adjudication of a Vehicle Code violation. Existing law further
requires the court, if it determines that the defendant has the
ability to pay all or part of the costs, to set the amount to be
reimbursed and order the defendant to pay that sum to the county
in the manner in which the court believes reasonable and
compatible with the defendant's financial ability, or, with the
consent of a defendant who is placed on probation, the court
shall order the probation officer to set the amount of payment,
not to exceed the maximum amount set by the court, and the
manner in which the payment is to be made to the county.
Existing law further requires the court to take into account the
(More)
AB 2724 (Bradford)
Page 3
amount of any fine imposed upon the defendant and any amount the
defendant has been ordered to pay in restitution in making a
determination of whether a defendant has the ability to pay.
(Vehicle Code, � 42003 (c).)
Existing law allows the court, in addition to any other penalty
in an infraction, misdemeanor or felony, to impose a civil
assessment of up to $300 against any defendant who fails to
appear in court for any proceeding, fails to pay any portion of
the fine ordered by the court, or fails to pay an agreed-upon
bail installment, as specified. (Penal Code, � 1214.1 (a).)
Existing law provides that the assessment described above will
not become effective until at least 10 calendar days after the
court mails a warning notice to the defendant, as specified.
Existing law requires the court to vacate the assessment if the
defendant appears within the time specified in the notice and
shows good cause for the failure to appear, or the failure to
pay a fine or bail installment. (Penal Code, � 1214.1 (b).)
This bill provides that ability to post bail or pay the civil
assessment shall not be a prerequisite to filing a request that
the court vacate the assessment. Imposition or collection of a
civil assessment shall not preclude a defendant from scheduling
a court hearing on the underlying charge.
Existing law provides that any person convicted of an infraction
may, upon a showing that payment of the total fine would pose a
hardship on the defendant, be sentenced to perform community
service in lieu of the total fine that would be otherwise
imposed. (Penal Code,
� 1209.5.)
Existing law provides that if any person has willfully failed to
pay a fine within the time authorized by the court to pay the
fine, the magistrate or clerk of the court may give notice of
the failure to pay to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for
any violation and requires the court to inform DMV if the fine
is later fully paid. (Vehicle Code, �� 40509 (b), and
(More)
AB 2724 (Bradford)
Page 4
40509.5(b).)
This bill provides that if an agreement to pay the fine in
installments or an agreement to perform community service is
signed, the court shall also issue and file with DMV a
certificate showing that the agreement has been made and request
the license hold be lifted.
This bill provides that the court shall not require the payment
of bail, the fine, or a civil assessment before the person
requests that the court vacate a civil assessment.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
(More)
AB 2724 (Bradford)
Page 5
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
(More)
AB 2724 (Bradford)
Page 6
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
(More)
AB 2724 (Bradford)
Page 7
1. Need for this Bill
According to the author:
Many low-income individuals cannot afford the spiraling
debt caused by unpaid traffic violations and court
assessments. Failure to pay the penalties can lead to
a suspended driver's license. Without a driver's
license, an individual may (1) lose their job because
they are unable to get to work; (2) find it difficult
to obtain a new job; and (3) be ineligible for certain
employment or job training programs. Without a job, an
individual cannot repay the fines to regain their
driver's license, and thus become trapped in a vicious
cycle of debt that is very difficult to escape. It is
estimated that the driver's licenses of about 600,000
individuals are suspended as a result of a failure to
appear or failure to pay.
Low-income individuals are easily trapped in a maze of
various fines and assessments.
Under existing law, an appearance before a judge can
only be scheduled once all civil assessments are fully
paid. If the individual cannot afford the assessments,
they cannot contest the assessment or original
violation. Furthermore, a judge cannot release a
driver's license hold until fines and penalties are
fully paid. Even if the individual agrees to a payment
plan, it can be years before their driver's license is
reinstated.
This bill helps low-income individuals keep their jobs
and repay assessments by two means. First, it allows
an individual, before penalties are paid, to appear in
front of a judge to contest the assessment or original
violation. Second, it allows a judge to ask the DMV to
reinstate a driver's license after the individual signs
an agreement to pay by installment plan or perform
(More)
AB 2724 (Bradford)
Page 8
community service. As courts have billions of dollars
in uncollected fines, this bill will help courts recoup
some of this money by providing individuals with the
means to repay penalties.
Overall, this bill will help low-income individuals
keep their jobs and repay assessments. By helping
individuals become employed and repay penalties, the
bill will also allow courts to recoup some of the
billions of dollars they have in uncollected fines.
(More)
2. Penalty Assessments
Until the budget year 2002-2003, there was 170% in penalty
assessments applied to every fine. The current penalty
assessments are approximately 310% plus a flat fee of $79. (See
Penal Code, � 1464; Penal Code, � 1465.7; Penal Code, � 1465.8
Government Code, � 70373; Government Code, � 7600.5; Government
Code, � 76000 et seq; Government Code, � 76000.10; Government
Code, � 76104.6; Government Code, � 76104.7.) This makes a $200
fine over $800. Failure to pay a fine on time or to appear in
court can add additional assessments.
3. Waiver of Civil Assessments
Under existing law, a person cannot appear before a judge to
request the waiver of an assessment that was imposed because a
person failed to appear until he or she has paid the full
assessment, even if the failure to appear was because he or she
did not receive the initial notice. If a person cannot afford
to pay the assessment, he or she cannot contest any additional
assessment or the original fine.
This bill would provide that that ability to pay the original
fine, plus a penalty assessment, or pay an additional civil
assessment is not a prerequisite to requesting the court vacate
the assessment or schedule a hearing on the underlying charge.
4. Reinstatement of Driver's License
If a person has not paid his or her fines, the court notifies
DMV and a person's license is suspended. The license remains
suspended until the fine is paid in full, even if the person
goes to court and starts a payment plan. This makes it
extremely difficult for a person to get to work to make the
payments or do the community service since he or she cannot
drive legally. For example, from the author's background:
(More)
AB 2724 (Bradford)
Page 10
[A] homeless father on General Assistance received
several tickets for lack of insurance. He failed to
appear at the hearings because he did not receive the
notices, and eventually incurred fines and assessments
exceeding $9,000. The court is allowing monthly
payments of $100, but at this rate, his license will
not be reinstated for 7 years.
This bill would provide that if there is an agreement to pay the
fine by installments or to perform community service to pay the
fine, the court shall ask DMV to lift the hold on the person's
license.
***************