Date of Hearing: April 24, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1077

Author:(Eggman) – As Amended Ver:March 27, 2019

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a court, when it deems a defendant eligible for a collaborative court program, to waive all penalties assessed over the base fine for current and prior violations, except for the DNA Identification Fund penalty assessment and victim restitution. Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows the court to suspend all remaining fines pending successful completion of the collaborative court program.
2. Permits a court to allow the defendant to satisfy any remaining suspended fines through an installment plan, community service, complete or partial waiver, or any other disposition the court deems fair under the circumstances.
3. States that a defendant is eligible for the fines reduction incentive if the defendant is both indigent and has unpaid fines related to non-felony Vehicle Code violations or related to any other misdemeanors or infractions.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Possible lost revenue (Trial Court Trust Fund/GF) in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on the frequency with which a defendant is referred to a collaborative court and any remaining penalties and assessments are waived.
   
   In fiscal year 2017-18, the trial courts collected approximately $91.7 million in revenue from the $30 and $35 criminal conviction assessment fees on misdemeanors, felonies and infractions and $108 million in revenue from the $40 court operations assessment fee for criminal offenses.
2. Lost revenue (Restitution Fund) potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually depending on how often a court waives imposition of the restitution fine based on a court’s determination of the defendant’s ability to pay. In fiscal year 2017-18, approximately $50 million was deposited into the Restitution Fund from amounts levied in restitution fines on criminal convictions.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

California has more than $10 billion in uncollected criminal fines and penalties. Removing fines assessed above the base fine, and giving defendants a real chance at discharging the remainder of their debt owed, will encourage successful participation and completion of collaborative court programs.

1. Background. California Constitution, article I, section 17 prohibits imposition of excessive fines on criminal defendants. The Court of Appeals for the Second District in People v. Duenas recently determined that failure to consider the defendant’s ability pay any imposed fines, fees and assessments violates due process. Court-imposed assessments for convictions of misdemeanors, felonies and infractions fund, in part, trial court administration and construction. Judicial Council estimated that, in 2018, it collected $1.5 billion from court-ordered fines, fees, forfeitures, penalties and assessments. Of the amount collected, $583.5 million was from delinquent court-ordered debt. A portion of this amount derives from imposition of the conviction assessment fee. However, hundreds of millions of dollars were never collected from defendants with significant, long-term consequences to defendants for their failure to pay. Courts have no discretion in imposing the criminal assessment and court operations fees pursuant to Government Code section 70373 and Penal Code 1465.8.
   
2. Related Legislation.
3. AB 227 (Jones-Sawyer) authorizes a court to waive imposition of a criminal conviction assessment fee, court operations assessment fee or restitution fine based on the court’s determination of the defendant’s ability to pay. AB 227 is pending on this Committee’s Suspense File.
   
4. AB 927 (Jones-Sawyer) requires a court imposing a fine, fee, or assessment related to an adult or juvenile criminal proceeding or conviction involving a misdemeanor or a felony to make a finding that the defendant has the ability to pay any fines, fees, or penalties. AB 927 is pending on this Committee’s Suspense File.

Analysis Prepared by: Kimberly Horiuchi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 2, 2019

Counsel: Sandy Uribe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1077

Author:(Eggman) – As Amended Ver:March 27, 2019

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Establishes a program incentive for collaborative courts whereby the court can suspend, reduce, and/or waive certain fines, as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the court, when it deems a defendant eligible for a collaborative courts program, to waive all penalties assessed over a base fine for current and prior violations, except for the DNA Identification Fund penalty assessment enacted under Proposition 69 of the 2004 general election.
   
2. Allows the court to suspend all remaining fines pending successful completion of the collaborative court program.
   
3. Permits the court to allow the defendant to satisfy remaining suspended fines by the following methods:
   
   1. Installment plan;
      
   2. Community service;
      
   3. Complete or partial waiver of the fine; or,
      
   4. Any other disposition the court deems fair under the circumstances.
      
4. States that a defendant is eligible for the fines reduction incentive if the defendant is both indigent and has unpaid fines related to non-felony Vehicle Code violations, or related to any other misdemeanors or infractions.
   
5. Defines “indigent” as a defendant who either:
   
   1. Is receiving one of more specified public benefits (such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Supplemental Security Income);
      
   2. An applicant whose monthly income is 125 percent or less of the current poverty guidelines; or,
      
   3. An applicant who, as individually determined by the court, cannot pay court fees without using moneys that normally would pay for the common necessaries of life for the applicant and the applicant’s family.
      
6. States that indigency can be established by:
   
   1. Proof of income from a paystub or another form or proof of earnings; or
      
   2. Proof of the receipt of specified public benefits.
      
7. Prohibits a waiver, reduction, or alternate discharge of a restitution order payable to a victim.
   
8. States that a defendant who is removed from a collaborative courts program before its completion is no longer eligible for the program incentives and all previously waived or suspended fines are to be reinstated, except for those monies discharged under the terms of these provisions.
   
9. Specifies that these provisions do not limit the discretion of a judicial officer to suspend or reduce fines and fees where appropriate or to dismiss actions in the interest of justice under section 1385 of the Penal Code, or under any other provisions of law.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires the Judicial Council to adopt guidelines for a comprehensive plan regarding collection of court-imposed fees, and for the superior courts and counties to implement those guidelines. (Pen. Code, § 1463.010.)
   
2. Requires the Judicial Council to establish a task force to evaluate criminal and traffic-related court-ordered debt imposed against adult and juvenile offenders. (Pen. Code, 1463.02.)
   
3. Prohibits the imposition of excessive fines. (Cal. Const., art. 1, § 17.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “California has more than $10 billion in uncollected criminal fines and penalties. Research shows most of this debt is uncollectable and, even with costly and aggressive collection efforts, typically goes unpaid. Defendants are often assessed a penalty amount that is much higher than the base fine associated with the underlying crime the defendant was convicted of. Many of these additional penalties have no real relation to the offense. Nevertheless, they can account for up to 95 percent of the total fine ultimately imposed on the defendant.
   
   “In recent years there has been a decline in collaborative court participation. Some jurisdictions have seen participation decline by 12 percent in recent years. This decline is unfortunate because collaborative courts have had major positive impacts on recidivism and costs to jurisdictions. For example, San Joaquin County has shown a 20 percent decline in recidivism rates through its use of collaborative court programs and a cost savings of $10,000 annually per collaborative court participant.
   
   “Choosing to enter into a collaborative court program is not always an easy choice—especially when the choice is between a short jail sentence and a 6-month intensive court program. It requires a defendant to commit themselves to a process that will occupy months of their time, and can be both emotionally and financially draining. Removing fines assessed above the base fine, and giving defendants a real chance at discharging the remainder of their debt owed, will encourage successful participation and completion of collaborative court programs.”
   
2. Collaborative Courts: According to the Judicial Council’s fact sheet discussing collaborative courts, “Collaborative justice courts, also known as problem-solving courts, promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation services and treatment in lieu of detention. Collaborative courts have a dedicated calendar and judge for specific types of offenders (e.g., mental health courts for offenders with mental illness, drug courts for offenders with substance abuse issues). Collaborative justice principles include a multidisciplinary, nonadversarial team approach with involvement from the court, attorneys, law enforcement, and community treatment and service agencies to address offenders’ complex social and behavioral problems. Collaborative courts follow a model based on the Ten Key Components of Drug Courts; however, each court operates in a slightly different way with varying eligibility criteria, requirements, length, types of sanctions and incentives, services provided, and graduation criteria. Collaborative courts focus on high risk/high needs cases and utilize evidence-based practices.” (https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CollaborativeCourts_factsheet.pdf)
   
   “California currently has more than 425 collaborative courts in all but three small jurisdictions, with many jurisdictions having four or more court types.” (Ibid.) As of July 2018, Alpine, Colusa, and Imperial counties are the only counties that do not have at least one type of collaborative courts. The most common type of collaborative court is drug court, followed by mental health court. Girls’ courts and courts for commercially sexually exploited children are newer forms of collaborative courts that are growing. (Ibid.)
   
   This bill would create a financial incentive for defendants to participate in collaborative courts. This bill would require the court to waive all penalty assessments, except the DNA Identification fund assessment, upon entering a collaborative courts program. This bill would also authorize the court to suspend remaining specified fines, or to reduce or waive them if the defendant is indigent. Lastly, this bill would require the court to reinstate suspended or waived fines if the defendant does not successfully complete the program.
3. Financial Implications of Court-Ordered Debt for Criminal Defendants: “As legislative and other policy makers are becoming increasingly aware, the growing use of … fees and similar forms of criminal justice debt creates a significant barrier for individuals seeking to rebuild their lives after a criminal conviction. Criminal justice debt and associated collection practices can damage credit, interfere with a defendant's commitments, such as child support obligations, restrict employment opportunities and otherwise impede reentry and rehabilitation. ‘What at first glance appears to be easy money for the state can carry significant hidden costs—both human and financial—for individuals, for the government, and for the community at large. … Debt-related mandatory court appearances and probation and parole conditions leave debtors vulnerable for violations that result in a new form of debtor's prison. … Aggressive collection tactics can disrupt employment, make it difficult to meet other obligations such as child support, and lead to financial insecurity—all of which can lead to recidivism.’ (Citation omitted.) These additional, potentially devastating consequences suffered only by indigent persons in effect transform a funding mechanism for the courts into additional punishment for a criminal conviction for those unable to pay.” (People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1168, quoting People v. Neal (2019) 29 Cal.App.5th 820, 827.)
4. Growth of Uncollected Debt:  While criminal fines, fees, and penalties have climbed steadily, government entities tasked with collecting these fines have realized diminishing returns from collection efforts.  Government resources can be wasted in futile collection attempts.  A San Francisco Daily Journal article from several years ago noted, "When it comes to collecting fines, superior court officials in several counties describe the process as 'very frustrating,' 'crazy complicated' and 'inefficient.'"  (See State Judges Bemoan Fee Collection Process, San Francisco Daily Journal, 1/5/2015 by Paul Jones and Saul Sugarman.)
   
   Simply put, criminal defendants can generally not produce a substantial flow of money for fines.  That well will quickly run dry.  In the same Daily Journal article, the Presiding Judge of San Bernardino County was quoted as saying "the whole concept is getting blood out of a turnip." (Daily Journal, supra.) The article noted in particular that "Felons convicted to prison time usually can't pay their debts at all.  The annual growth in delinquent debt partly reflects a supply of money that doesn't exist to be collected."  (Ibid.)

In March of 2017, when the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) analyzed the Governor’s criminal fines and fees proposal for the 2017-2018 budget, it noted, “Based on available data in Judicial Council reports, the total amount of criminal fines and fees collected has declined annually since 2013-14. … [T]otal collections decreased by nearly $200 million—from $1.8 billion in 2013-14 to $1.6 billion in 2015-16. The $1.6 billion consists of about $905 million (56 percent) in debt that was not delinquent and $720 million (44 percent) in delinquent debt.” (See 2017-2018 Budget: Governor’s Criminal Fines and Fees Proposal, pp. 7-8, http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3600/Criminal-Fine-Fee-030317.pdf)

As to the balance of outstanding debt, the LAO commented, “Every year, the courts estimate the total outstanding balance of debt owed by individuals. This balance may decrease when individuals make payments or debt is resolve in an alternative manner, such as when a portion of debt is dismissed because the individual performs community service in lieu of payment. However, this amount generally grows each year as some amount of newly imposed fines and fees goes unpaid and is added to the amount of unresolved debt from prior years. … [A]n estimated $12.3 billion in fines and fees remained outstanding at the end of 2015-16. We would note, however, that a large portion of this balance may not be collectable as the costs of collection could outweigh the amount that would actually be collected.” (Id. at p. 8.)

1. Argument in Support: According to the California Public Defenders Association, “Under existing law, Californians convicted of a variety of minor offenses are required to pay fines and court fees far in excess of what they can afford. A low-grade misdemeanor, for example, may carry costs ranging into the thousands of dollars. For indigent, often homeless defendants, particularly those suffering from mental illness, such fines are simply unpayable, and actively discourage attempts at rehabilitation.
   
   “AB 1077 addresses this issue by allowing but not requiring a court to grant relief from these fines where the defendant agrees to participate, and successfully completes, a mental health or drug treatment program. Because the removal of onerous court costs will encourage defendants to successfully complete rehabilitative programs, and is more likely to lead to the successful reintegration of defendants in society upon completion, AB 1077 is large step in the right direction.”
   
2. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 227 (Jones-Sawyer), would authorize a court to waive imposition of a criminal conviction assessment fee, court operations assessment fee or restitution fine based on the court’s determination of the defendant’s ability to pay. AB 227 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. AB 927 (Jones-Sawyer), would prohibit the court in criminal or juvenile proceeding or conviction involving a misdemeanor or felony from imposing fines, fees, and assessments without making a finding that the defendant has the ability to pay. AB 927 will be heard in this Committee today.
      
   3. AB 1348 (Gray), would repeal the 20% state surcharge on base fines. AB 1348 is pending hearing in this Committee.
      
   4. SB 144 (Mitchell) states intent to enact legislation to eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system, and to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the administrative fees. SB 144 is pending referral by the Senate Rules Committee.
      
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 185 (Hertzberg) would have required courts to determine a defendant’s ability to pay traffic fines; required courts to make accommodations if the defendant was indigent, and prohibited courts from suspending or holding an individual’s driver’s license for certain violations. SB 185 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. SB 85 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 26, Statutes of 2015 authorized an 18-month traffic amnesty program, by October 1, 2015, for delinquent debt. The program expired on March 31, 2017.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Public Defenders Association

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

McGeorge School of Law Community Legal Services' Homeless Advocacy Project

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Sister Warrior Freedom Coalition

One private individual

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by:

Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744