BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session SB 666 (Stone) - Felons: coming upon prison property ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: April 15, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 6 - 0 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: April 27, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: SB 666 would expand the felony offense applicable to a previously convicted felon who has been confined in a California prison from coming upon the grounds of a prison or jail without consent, as specified, to a person who has served a term in federal prison, a prison in another state, or a felony jail term, as specified. This bill specifies a violation of this provision requires that the person knows or should know that he or she is required to obtain consent. Fiscal Impact: Potential increase in state costs (General Fund) to the extent expanding the existing felony offense to a larger population of previously convicted felons leads to additional state prison commitments. Data from the DOJ indicates 318 arrests and 51 convictions over the past three years under this SB 666 (Stone) Page 1 of ? provision of law, and the CDCR indicates less than 10 new admissions to state prison per year. Future annual cumulative costs for even two additional commitments per year would cost $68,000 at the current in-state contract bed cost per case. Potential increase in non-reimbursable local law enforcement costs (Local Fund) for enforcement to the extent the expansion of the felony offense results in additional arrests and convictions, offset to a degree by fine revenue. Background: Existing law specifically provides that a person who has been previously convicted of a felony and confined in a state prison is guilty of a felony if he or she "comes upon the grounds of" a prison, prison camp, prison forestry camp, jail, or county road camp without the consent of the warden or other officer in charge. Under existing law, a violation of this provision of law is punishable by a sentence of 16 months, two years, or three years in state prison. (Penal Code (PC) § 4571.) Under existing law, the provisions of PC § 4571 do not apply to a person previously convicted of a felony and confined in a county jail, in federal prison, or a prison in another state. This bill seeks to expand existing law to apply to this population. Proposed Law: This bill would expand the existing felony offense applicable to a previously convicted felon who has been confined in a California prison from coming upon the grounds of a prison or jail without consent, as follows: Specifies that every person previously convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, and confined in the state prison, a prison of any other state, a federal prison, or a county jail pursuant to PC § 1170(h), without the consent of the warden or other officer in charge of the prison, prison camp, jail, or county road camp, and who knows or should know that he or she is required to obtain consent, comes upon the grounds of any of those institutions, or lands belonging or adjacent thereto, is guilty of a felony. Specifies for purposes of this section, a person was confined in a county jail pursuant to PC § 1170(h) if he or SB 666 (Stone) Page 2 of ? she served an executed felony sentence, as specified. Related Legislation: None applicable. Staff Comments: By expanding the definition of the existing felony offense applicable to previously convicted felons "coming upon the grounds" of a prison or jail, as specified, this bill could result in additional arrests, convictions, and commitments to state prison. Over the past three years, 318 arrests and 51 convictions have been obtained under the existing provision of law, and the CDCR indicates less than 10 new admissions to state prison per year. While the number of prospective violations is unknown, future annual cumulative costs for even two additional commitments per year would cost $68,000 (General Fund), assuming an average length of stay of 12 months (under the middle term of two years and accounting for good time credits) at the current in-state contract bed cost per case of $34,000. This bill adds a knowing standard provision that is required in order to meet the threshold for a violation of the existing offense. The CDCR indicates that a PC § 4571 notice of required informed consent is currently posted at all prison entrances. As a result, it is not estimated that this added provision would have an impact on the number of admissions to state prison that otherwise would occur for individuals currently subject to this provision under current law. Under 2011 Realignment Legislation, the State provided funding to the counties to place offenders in county jail for specified 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 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. Proposition 30 specifies that legislation defining a new crime or changing the definition of an existing crime is not subject to this SB 666 (Stone) Page 3 of ? provision. As a result, any increase in local costs due to the change in the definition of the existing felony offense is not estimated to require the state to provide additional funding to local agencies. The Three-Judge Court has ordered the State to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of the prison system's design capacity by February 28, 2016. Pursuant to its February 10, 2014, order, the Court has ordered the CDCR to implement several population reduction measures, prohibited an increase in the population of inmates placed in out-of-state facilities, and indicated the Court will maintain jurisdiction over the State for as long as necessary to ensure the State's compliance with the 137.5 percent final benchmark is durable, and that such durability is firmly established. Any future increases to the State's prison population challenge the ability of the State to reach and maintain such a "durable solution," and could require the State to pursue one of several options, including contracting-out for additional bed space or releasing current inmates early onto parole. -- END --