BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                       AB 1156|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520    Fax: (916)      |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                                   THIRD READING 


          Bill No:  AB 1156
          Author:   Brown (D)
          Amended:  9/1/15 in Senate  
          Vote:     21  

           SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:  5-1, 7/7/15
           AYES:  Hancock, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning
           NOES:  Stone
           NO VOTE RECORDED:  Anderson

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:  5-2, 8/27/15
           AYES:  Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
           NOES:  Bates, Nielsen

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  54-24, 6/2/15 - See last page for vote

           SUBJECT:   Imprisonment in county jail


          SOURCE:    California Public Defenders Association
                     Conference of California Bar Associations
                     Judicial Council

          DIGEST:  This bill applies a wide range of sentencing statutes  
          and rules applicable to prison sentences to felony sentences  
          imposed under criminal justice realignment.

          ANALYSIS: 

          Existing law:

          1)Requires the court to choose the lower, middle or upper term  
            when imposing a prison sentence and to state reasons for the  








                                                                    AB 1156  
                                                                    Page  2


            sentencing choice.  The court shall impose the middle term  
            unless it finds factors in aggravation or mitigation  
            justifying imposition of the upper term or lower term,  
            respectively.  (Pen. Code § 1170 (b).)

          2)Requires the sentencing court to inform a defendant sentenced  
            to prison that he or she may be required to serve a period of  
            parole.  (Id.)

          3)Provides that when a defendant has been committed to state  
            prison, the court may, within 120 days of commitment on its  
            own motion, or at any time upon the recommendation of the  
            Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or the  
            Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), recall the sentence and  
            resentence the defendant.  Any new sentence may be no greater  
            than the initial sentence.  The court shall apply the  
            sentencing rules in the Rules of Court so as to eliminate  
            disparity and promote uniformity in sentencing.  (Pen. Code, §  
            1170, subd. (d)(1).)

          4)States that in any case in which the amount of pre-sentence  
            credit exceeds the sentence imposed, the sentence shall be  
            deemed to have been served.  The court shall advise the  
            defendant that he or she will serve a parole term, unless the  
            in-custody credits exceed both confinement time and parole.   
            (Pen. Code, § subd. (a)(3).)

          5)Provides that if CDCR or BPH determine both that the prisoner  
            has six months or fewer to live and would not pose a threat to  
            public safety if released, CDCR director BPH may recommend to  
            the court that the prisoner's sentence be recalled.  The court  
            may order the prisoner's release if it makes those same  
            findings.  (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (e)(1)-(2).)

          6)Requires the court to hold a hearing to consider whether a  
            prisoner's sentence should be recalled within 10 days of  
            receipt of a positive recommendation by the CDCR director or  
            BPH.  (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (e)(3).)

          7)States that the Judicial Council shall promote uniformity of  
            sentencing by adopting rules that set out criteria for the  
            consideration of trial judge in making decisions to:

             a)   Grant or deny probation;







                                                                    AB 1156  
                                                                    Page  3


             b)   Impose the lower or upper term;
             c)   Impose concurrent or consecutive sentences;
             d)   Determine whether or not to impose an enhancement when  
               an enhancement is permitted by law; or
             e)   Deny a period of mandatory supervision in the interests  
               of justice, or determine the appropriate period and  
               conditions of mandatory supervision. (Pen. Code, § 1170.3,  
               subd. (a)(1)-(5).)

          8)Provides that any person convicted of a felony who has been  
            released from any state penal institution, whether discharged  
            on completion of the total term or released on parole, who has  
            not been incarcerated in a state penal institution since his  
            or her release, and who has resided in California for three  
            years may file a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation  
            and pardon.  (Pen. Code, § 4852.01, subd. (a).)

          This bill:

          1)Clarifies that in any case where the pre-imprisonment credit  
            of a person sentenced to the county jail under the 2011  
            Realignment Act exceeds any sentence imposed, the entire  
            sentence shall be deemed to have been served, except for the  
            remaining portion of mandatory supervision, and the defendant  
            shall not be delivered to the custody of the county  
            correctional administrator.

          2)Provides that when a defendant is sentenced to the county jail  
            under the 2011 Realignment Act, the court may, within 120 days  
            of commitment on its own motion, or upon the recommendation of  
            the county correctional administrator, recall the sentence and  
            resentence the, provided that the new sentence, if any, is no  
            greater than the original sentence.

          3)Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules providing  
            criteria for the imposition of the lower, middle or upper  
            term.

          4)Specifically requires the court to choose the lower, middle or  
            upper term when imposing an executed felony jail term and to  
            state reasons for the sentencing choice.  The court shall  
            impose the middle term unless it finds factors in aggravation  
            or mitigation justifying imposition of the upper term or lower  
            term, respectively.  







                                                                    AB 1156  
                                                                    Page  4



          5)Requires the sentencing court to inform a defendant sentenced  
            to prison may be required to serve a period of postrelease  
            community supervision. 

          6)Clarifies that a person released from the state prison on post  
            release community supervision shall be supervised by the  
            probation department of the county to which the person is  
            released, and requires that the inmate be informed of his or  
            her duty to report to the county probation department upon  
            release.

          7)Extends the right to petition for a certificate of  
            rehabilitation and pardon to persons convicted of a felony and  
            sentenced to a county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act and  
            requires that the inmate be informed in writing by the  
            facility official of this right.

          8)Provides that a person shall not be subject to prosecution for  
            a non-felony offense arising out of a violation in the  
            California Vehicle Code, with the exception of Driving under  
            the Influence (DUI), pending against him or her at the time of  
            his or commitment to a county jail under the 2011 Realignment  
            Act.

          9)Extends provisions related to the compassionate release of a  
            state prison inmate, who is terminally ill, to an inmate  
            sentenced to a county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act. 

          Background
          
          Criminal justice realignment was a sea change in California  
          criminal law, arguably comparable in importance to enactment of  
          the Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL) in 1976.  For most crimes,  
          the DSL eliminated indeterminate sentences under which the time  
          a defendant served in prison was determined by the Adult [  
          parole] Authority within a statutory range.  Under the DSL, a  
          court chooses from a "triad" of possible set or determined terms  
          - lower, middle or upper.  The middle terms is imposed unless  
          there are factors in aggravation or mitigation justifying an  
          upper
          or lower term.  Over time, additional penalties - enhancements -  
          and new sentencing schemes, including the Three Strikes law,  
          were steadily enacted.  The new penalty provisions were often  







                                                                    AB 1156  
                                                                    Page  5


          enacted in response to particularly notorious crimes for which  
          it was argued the DSL provided insufficient punishment.    

          The DSL requires the sentencing court to make a number of  
          choices in imposing sentence.   These choices or decisions  
          include granting or denying probation and whether to impose the  
          lower, middle or upper term if probation is denied or  
          prohibited.   Where the defendant is convicted of more than one  
          felony offense, or if enhancements (e.g., use of a weapon or  
          prior convictions) apply, sentencing becomes more complicated.   
          The court chooses one offense to be the principal term and  
          builds the sentence around it, making decision about whether  
          sentences should be served consecutively (back-to-back) or  
          concurrently (at the same time).  Other sentencing decisions may  
          apply, such as whether to strike punishment in any part.  All of  
          the sentencing rules a court must follow and choices a court  
          must make have been considered in myriad appellate cases since  
          enactment of the DSL.  The published opinions of the courts  
          become another body of law, binding on the trial courts.  Where  
          the appellate courts are in conflict, the California Supreme  
          resolves the conflict and settles the issue.  

          Voters and the Legislature steadily approved prison construction  
          from 1982 through the 1990s, but construction programs largely  
          slowed or stopped with the opening of a new prison in Delano in  
          2005.  (  http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0620/p03s02-usju.html  .) 

          Recently, new prison medical facilities have been built through  
          the supervision of a receiver appointed by the federal courts in  
          response to a finding that California prisons were so crowded as  
          to deny adequate medical care, creating an unconstitutional  
          system of cruel and unusual punishment.   
          (http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/budget/three-judge-panel/thre 
          e-judge-panel-022814.aspx.) California spent heavily on medical  
          facilities and care, but the federal court continued to demand  
          that the prison population be reduced.

          The prison population was only substantially reduced through  
          implementation of criminal justice realignment after 2011.   
          Realignment essentially transferred responsibility for low-level  
          felony inmates from state prison to counties and county jail.   
          Certain offenders are excluded from county jail sentencing -  
          those with a prior or current serious or violent felony  
          conviction, or any person required to register as a sex  







                                                                    AB 1156  
                                                                    Page  6


          offender.  Excluded defendants continue to serve felony terms in  
          prison. 
            
          This bill applies the sentencing statutes and court rules  
          enacted and promulgated for the DSL to sentences imposed  
          pursuant to criminal justice realignment.  This bill should  
          provide clarity and guidance for trial courts in making  
          sentencing decisions under realignment.

          FISCAL EFFECT:   Appropriation:    No          Fiscal  
          Com.:YesLocal:   Yes

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

           Minor one-time costs (General Fund - Trial Court Trust Fund)  
            to the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court. 
           Minor to moderate ongoing local costs, potentially in excess  
            of $50,000 to $100,000 (General Fund - Proposition 30)  
            statewide for local law enforcement agencies to provide  
            written notification to persons released or discharged from  
            mandatory supervision or PRCS of the eligibility and  
            procedures for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon.  
            Workload to provide notification would vary by county and be  
            dependent on the method of implementation of the mandate. To  
            the extent the increased costs to local agencies are not  
            considered realigned "public safety services" under 2011  
            Realignment, local agencies could potentially claim  
            reimbursement for these state-mandated costs.   
           Potential net cost savings (Local Fund/General Fund -  
            Proposition 30) to the counties for other activities  
            authorized and prescribed. Potential cost savings will be  
            realized to the extent county jails terms are reduced under  
            the resentencing, compassionate release, and credit earning  
            provisions of this measure.


          SUPPORT:   (Verified9/1/15)


          California Public Defenders Association (co-source)
          Conference of California Bar Associations (co-source)
          Judicial Council (co-source)
          American Civil Liberties Union
          California Attorneys for Criminal Justice







                                                                    AB 1156  
                                                                    Page  7


          California Catholic Conference, Inc.
          Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
          National Association of Social Workers
          Sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco


          OPPOSITION:   (Verified9/1/15)


          None received

          ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  54-24, 6/2/15
          AYES:  Alejo, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon,  
            Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd,  
            Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto,  
            Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández,  
            Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low,  
            McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell,  
            Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas,  
            Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood,  
            Atkins
          NOES:  Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang,  
            Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones,  
            Kim, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Olsen, Patterson,  
            Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Chávez, Linder

          Prepared by:Jerome McGuire / PUB. S. / 
          9/1/15 20:29:38


                                   ****  END  ****