AB 117- delays AB 109?


 AB117 which delays the implementation of AB109 and gives 
state
parole control over parolees until 2013, 
but that's not all it does.....
this post is very long and 
I dont pretend to comprehend all of it
....looking for feedback and opinions, please..... 

PASSED THE SENATE  JUNE 28, 2011
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY  JUNE 28, 2011
	AMENDED IN SENATE  JUNE 28, 2011
	AMENDED IN SENATE  APRIL 11, 2011
INTRODUCED BY   Committee on Budget (Blumenfield (Chair), 
Alejo,
Allen, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Cedillo, 
Chesbro, Dickinson,
Feuer, Gordon, Huffman, Mitchell, 
Monning, and Swanson)
AB 117 (Committee on Budget)
Criminal justice realignment.

Existing law provides that certain specified felonies are punishable by incarceration in state prison. If Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011 becomes operative, certain of those felonies shall instead be punishable by incarceration in a county jail.

This bill would provide that, if Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011 becomes operative, certain specified felonies would continue to be punishable by incarceration in state prison. The bill would make other technical changes.

Existing law provides that petty theft is a misdemeanor, except that every person who, having been convicted 3 or more times of petty theft, grand theft, auto theft, burglary, carjacking, robbery, or receiving stolen property and having served time in a penal institution therefor, is subsequently convicted of petty theft, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison. Existing law also provides that persons required to register as sex offenders, or with a prior serious or violent felony conviction who have been convicted and imprisoned for the commission of specified crimes, including, among others, petty theft, auto theft, burglary, carjacking, or robbery, are subject to imprisonment in the state prison with one prior qualifying offense, rather than 3. If Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011 becomes operative, those provisions subjecting persons to imprisonment in the state prison with one prior qualifying offense would be deleted.

This bill would, if Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011 becomes operative, restore those provisions subjecting persons to imprisonment in the state prison with one prior qualifying offense and thereby maintain existing law.

Existing law provides that, except as specified, when any person is convicted of 2 or more felonies, whether in the same proceeding or court or in different proceedings or courts, and whether by judgment rendered by the same or by a different court, and a consecutive term of imprisonment is imposed under specified provisions, the aggregate term of imprisonment for all these convictions shall be the sum of the principal term, the subordinate term, and any additional term imposed for applicable enhancements, as specified.

This bill would require that whenever a court imposes a term of imprisonment in the state prison, whether the term is a principal or subordinate term, the aggregate term shall be served in the state prison regardless as to whether or not one of the terms requires imprisonment in a county jail pursuant to specified provisions.

Existing law provides for the dismissal of criminal actions by the judge or magistrate on his or her own motion or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney, as specified. Existing law, if Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011 becomes operative, provides that certain felonies shall be punishable by incarceration in a county jail.

This bill would provide that any allegation that a defendant is eligible for state prison due to a prior or current conviction, sentence enhancement, or is required to register as a sex offender shall not be subject to dismissal pursuant to the above-referenced provision.

Existing law, amended by Proposition 83, as approval by the voters at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, provides for the enhancement of prison terms for new offenses because of prior prison terms. Existing law provides that, except as specified, where the new offense is any felony for which a prison sentence or a sentence of imprisonment in a county jail for more than one year is imposed, in addition and consecutive to any other prison terms therefor, the court shall impose a one-year term for each prior separate prison term or county jail term of more than one year served for any felony. The Legislature may amend the provisions of Proposition 83 by majority vote if the amendments expand the scope of the proposition’s application.

This bill would expand the scope of the application of Proposition 83 and provide that where the new offense is any felony for which a prison sentence or a sentence of imprisonment in a county jail for more than one year is imposed or is not suspended, in addition and consecutive to any other prison terms therefor, the court shall impose a one-year term for each prior separate prison term or county jail term of more than one year imposed or when sentence is not suspended for any felony.

Existing law, if Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011 becomes operative, provides that prisoners on parole shall remain under the legal custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation but shall not be returned to prison, except as specified.

This bill would instead provide that prisoners on parole shall remain under the supervision of the department. The bill would provide that, except as specified, upon revocation of parole, a parolee may be housed in a county jail for a maximum of 180 days. The bill would provide that when housed in county facilities, parolees shall be under the legal custody and jurisdiction of local county facilities and when released from custody, parolees will be returned to the parole supervision of the department for the duration of parole. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Additionally, the bill would authorize the superior court of any county to appoint as many hearing officers as deemed necessary to conduct parole revocation hearings and to determine violations of conditions of postrelease supervision, as specified.

Existing law, if Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011 becomes operative, provides that persons released from state prison on or after July 1, 2011, after serving a prison term for a serious or violent felony or specified sex crimes shall be subject to parole supervision by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the jurisdiction of the court in the county into which the parolee is released. Existing law, if Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011 becomes operative, provides specified parole procedures for parolees who are paroled from state prison prior to July 1, 2011.

This bill would provide, until July 1, 2013, that those persons who serve a prison term or whose sentence has been deemed served, as specified, for any of the above-referenced crimes, as well as any crime for which the person is required as a condition of parole to undergo treatment by the State Department of Mental Health, shall be subject to parole supervision and jurisdiction of the department. The bill would provide, as of July 1, 2013, the court in the county in which the parolee resides or commits a violation of the terms and conditions of parole shall have the limited jurisdiction to hear petitions to revoke parole and impose a term of custody. The bill would provide that parolees subject to these provisions who are being held for a parole violation in a county jail on October 1, 2011, may, upon revocation, be remanded to the state prison. The bill would make other related changes.

Existing law establishes the Parole Reentry Accountability Program for the purpose of promoting public safety, holding parolees accountable, and reducing recidivism. Existing law, pursuant to this program and subject to funding being made available, requires the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Administrative Office of the Courts for the establishment and operation of parolee reentry programs. Existing law provides that parolees subject to this program with a history of substance abuse or mental illness who violate their conditions of parole may be referred by the department to a parolee reentry program.

This bill would make offenders subject to postrelease supervision as established by the Postrelease Community Supervision Act of 2011 eligible to participate in reentry court programs, as specified. The bill would authorize counties to contract with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in order to obtain day treatment and crisis care services for inmates with mental health problems who are released on postrelease community supervision.

Existing law, if Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011 becomes operative, creates the Postrelease Community Supervision Act of 2011 to provide that any person released from prison, after serving a term in prison for certain felonies, shall be subject to community supervision provided by a county agency. The act requires the court to establish a process to determine violations of conditions of postrelease supervision.

This bill would instead provide that if the supervising county agency has determined that intermediate sanctions are not appropriate, the supervising county agency shall petition the revocation hearing officer to revoke and terminate postrelease supervision. Because the bill would impose additional duties on local agencies, it would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would make other related changes.

Existing law, if Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011 becomes operative, requires that for prisoners whose crimes are committed on or after July 1, 2011, except those who are limited to 15% credit against sentenced time, and who are confined to a county jail, city jail, industrial farm, or road camp, a term of 4 days be deemed to have been served for every 2 days spent in actual custody, as specified.

This bill would make these provisions applicable to prisoners whose crimes are committed on or after October 1, 2011, and would additionally make these provisions applicable to prisoners confined in a county jail, industrial farm, or road camp, or a city jail, industrial farm, or road camp as part of custodial sanction imposed following a violation of postrelease community supervision or parole.

Existing law provides that Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011 is to become operative no later than July 1, 2011, and only upon the creation of a community corrections grant program.

This bill would make that act operative no later than October 1, 2011, and only upon the creation of that grant program.

Existing law, notwithstanding any other provision of law, authorizes a county sheriff, police chief, or other public agency that contracts for emergency health services to contract with providers of emergency health care services for care to local law enforcement patients. Existing law provides that hospitals that do not contract with these entities shall provide emergency health care services to local law enforcement patients at a rate equal to 110% of the hospital’s actual costs, as provided. Existing law repeals these provisions as of January 1, 2014.

This bill would recast these provisions to apply to health care services generally, instead of emergency health care services. The bill would delete the provision making the bill inoperative as of January 1, 2014.

Existing law authorizes counties to contract with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for the commitment to the department of persons who have suffered a felony conviction.

This bill would provide that offenders sentenced to a county jail that serve their sentence in state prison pursuant to these provisions are required to comply with the rules and regulations of the department, as provided.

The bill would, until January 1, 2015, permit a county board of supervisors to enter into a contract with other public agencies to provide housing for inmates, as specified.

The bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 830.5 of the Penal Code, proposed by AB 116, to be operative as specified.

The bill would appropriate $27,000,000 from the General Fund to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for the purpose of state operations.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

The bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing appropriations related to the budget bill.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_117_bill_20110628_enrolled.html

Advertisements

One thought on “AB 117- delays AB 109?

  1. Calif. budget provides money for prison changes
    Jul 4, 2011 3:21pm

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California’s budget provides the framework for the state to comply with a federal court order to slice its prison population by more than 20 percent over the next two years but also acknowledges the state is not likely to meet its initial deadline.

    Plans for the change gained urgency this spring after the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-4 decision, upheld the authority of a federal judicial panel to order the release of inmates to relieve overcrowding and improve conditions.

    The centerpiece of the state’s response was funded in the budget that Gov. Jerry Brown signed last week. It will redirect $5 billion from state sales and vehicle taxes to local governments so they can accommodate some 40,000 lower-level offenders who otherwise would serve their sentences in a state prison.

    While they provided the money, lawmakers also delayed the program to give the state and counties time to coordinate. The change will begin Oct. 1 instead of in July, making it unlikely the state can meet the federal court’s Dec. 27 deadline to reduce its prison population by about 10,000 inmates.

    “We’re of the opinion that, based on the information that we have right now, that even if they started tomorrow they can’t meet the benchmark,” said Don Specter, director of the nonprofit Berkeley-based Prison Law Office, which has been a plaintiff against the state in several prison-related cases.

    Whether the delay matters will be up to the three-judge panel that has been overseeing the case.

    While the delay puts the state at risk of violating the court order, the fact that the new budget provides the money to accomplish it may buy the state more time. State Corrections Secretary Matthew Cate noted that the Supreme Court opinion also said the state could ask for more time if it needed it.

    “I think our last resort is to just flat release people early, and we would certainly ask the court for more time before we would do that,” he said.

    The state will file a report with the court on July 21 that will say whether it expects to meet its end-of-the-year goal.

    Under the change, no inmates will be physically transferred. Those currently serving time in state prison will remain there until they finish their sentences.

    Instead, anyone convicted of a lower-level offense starting Oct. 1 will be eligible to serve their time in a county jail rather than a state prison. Over time, the transfer of that responsibility to counties is expected to reduce the number of inmates in state prisons.

    Until the shift takes effect, the Brown administration will keep in place an emergency declaration imposed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger so the state can continue sending inmates to private prisons in other states.

    The Supreme Court decision in May upheld a lower court ruling that California must reduce the population of its 33 adult prisons by more than 33,000 inmates over two years to improve inmate medical and mental health care.

    The plan by the Brown administration will give local law enforcement jurisdiction, after Oct. 1, over low-level adult offenders convicted of crimes that are considered non-violent and non-serious, such as property, white collar and drug offenses. Those convicted of sexual offenses will not be eligible for transfers to county jails.

    The strategy is projected to reduce the state’s prison population by up to 40,000 inmates over three years, leaving about 120,000 inmates. Aside from the 33 adult prisons affected by the court orders, California also has about 18,000 inmates in firefighting camps and in private prisons in California and other states. The population reduction within the 33 adult prisons will leave them with about 110,000 inmates in space designed for about 80,000 inmates.

    Cate said the biggest drop is expected in the first year as parole violators and felons serving short sentences are diverted to local jails. Counties also will have jurisdiction for many parolees and rehabilitation programs.

    State Sen. Mark Leno, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, defended the Legislature’s decision to give corrections and county officials an extra three months to prepare.

    “We’re trying to negotiate with the court for a more reasonable timeframe,” said Leno, D-San Francisco.

    State organizations representing sheriffs, police chiefs and chief probation officers accepted the additional responsibility, now that the state budget includes the money to implement the inmate shift. Local governments plan to seek a state constitutional amendment to guarantee the funding continues indefinitely.

    The state district attorneys association, however, said the change could overwhelm county jails that in some cases already are overcrowded. But Chief Executive Officer Scott Thorpe said the bill ultimately signed by Brown was better than earlier proposals.

    The budget package was passed in the Assembly and Senate without support from Republicans, the minority party in both houses. Republicans said the plan could lead to the early release of criminals from county jails that can’t handle the number of inmates they will receive.

    Republican state Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, a former chairman of the state parole board and the GOP’s spokesman on the prison debate, said he thinks lawsuits might delay or derail the realignment.

    “We will be weeping in our hearts for the victims,” he said.

    http://www.necn.com/07/04/11/Calif-budget-provides-money-for-prison-c/landing.html?&blockID=3&apID=f1afe76b736d43b788755ef058312305

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s