BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1156 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 1156 (Brown) As Amended September 1, 2015 Majority vote -------------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |54-24 |(June 2, 2015) |SENATE: | |(September 2, | | | | | |25-14 |2015) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: PUB. S. SUMMARY: Takes various provisions of law relating to persons convicted of a felony and sentenced to the state prison, and applies them to persons convicted of a felony and sentenced to a county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act. The Senate amendments delete a provision that required the Judicial Council to formulate rules regarding the determination of the incarcerating jurisdiction when the Court is imposing a sentence concurrent or consecutive to a sentence imposed in another county pursuant to the 2011 Realignment Act. EXISTING LAW: 1)Clarifies that in any case where the pre-imprisonment credit of a person sentenced to the county jail under the 2011 AB 1156 Page 2 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 the date of commitment on its own motion, or upon the recommendation of the county correctional administrator, recall the sentence previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if he or she had not previously been sentenced, provided 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, or upper term, and determine the county or jurisdictional territory when the court is imposing a concurrent or consecutive sentence under the 2011 Realignment Act upon a person previously sentenced to the county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act in another county or jurisdictional territory. 4)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. 5)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. 6)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. Makes additional non-substantive changes, conforming changes, and deletes obsolete provisions. AB 1156 Page 3 7)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), that is pending against him or her at the time of his or commitment to a county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act. AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill: 1)Clarified 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)Provided that when a defendant is sentenced to the county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act, the court may, within 120 days of the date of commitment on its own motion, or upon the recommendation of the county correctional administrator, recall the sentence previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if he or she had not previously been sentenced, provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the original sentence. 3)Required the Judicial Council to adopt rules providing criteria for the imposition of the lower, or upper term, and determine the county or jurisdictional territory when the court is imposing a concurrent or consecutive sentence under the 2011 Realignment Act upon a person previously sentenced to the county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act in another county or jurisdictional territory. 4)Extended 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. AB 1156 Page 4 5)Clarified 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. 6)Extended 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. Makes additional non-substantive changes, conforming changes, and deletes obsolete provisions. 7)Provided 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), that is pending against him or her at the time of his or commitment to a county jail under the 2011 Realignment Act. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 1)Minor one-time costs (General Fund) to the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court. 2)Minor to moderate ongoing local costs, potentially in excess of $50,000 to $100,000 (General Fund) 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 AB 1156 Page 5 safety services" under 2011 Realignment, local agencies could potentially claim reimbursement for these state-mandated costs. 3)Potential net cost savings (Local Fund/General Fund) 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. COMMENTS: According to the author, "AB 1156 eliminates discrepancies and inconsistencies in treatment between felons sent to prison and felons sent to county jail under Realignment that were not addressed in the original or subsequent legislation. These inconsistencies are unnecessary, unfair, and costly. Their elimination will enhance the fairness of the system and save the taxpayers money. " Analysis Prepared by: Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001971