Existing law prevents a person committed to the custody of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Rehabilitation, a juvenile facility, or a county jail for a felony conviction from being subject to prosecution for a nonfelony offense arising out of, among other things, the operation of a motor vehicle, that is pending against them at the time of commitment.

This bill would prohibit a person committed to the department, to a county facility as a ward of the juvenile court, or to a county jail for a felony conviction from being prosecuted for a nonfelony offense pending against them at the time of their commitment, except as specified.

Existing law set forth findings and declarations stating that improving outcomes among offenders reentering the community after serving time in a correctional facility will promote public safety and will reduce Californias prison and jail populations. Existing law further states that strategies supporting reentering offenders through practices and programs have been demonstrated to significantly reduce recidivism among offenders in other states.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2168

Author:(Kalra)

As Amended Ver:April 18, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires dismissal of specified misdemeanors and infractions pending against a person at the time the person is committed to imprisonment for a felony offense, as specified.

Major Provisions

1. Provides that a person shall not be subject to prosecution for a non-felony offense that is pending against them at the time of their commitment to state prison, a county facility as a ward of the juvenile court, or to a county jail for a felony offense subject to prison realignment.
2. Provides that this provision does not apply to any of the following:
   1. An offense in which the victim is a victim of domestic violence, as defined;
   2. An offense for which the victim is entitled to restitution;
   3. An offense that requires sex offender registration;
   4. An offense that can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony at the discretion of the prosecution (i.e., wobblers);
   5. Reckless driving;
   6. Driving under the influence of drugs; and,
   7. Driving under the influence of alcohol.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"Under existing law, the courts are permitted to dismiss certain Vehicle Code misdemeanors if the defendant is sentenced to state prison. However, because this dismissal process is limited to the Vehicle Code, thousands of other defendants already sentenced to prison remain in county jail and are still being transported for hearings on open misdemeanor cases that will not increase their sentence.

"AB 2168 addresses this inefficient process by allowing a court to dismiss victimless low-level misdemeanors against people waiting in county jail who are already sentenced to state prison. By extending this flexibility to the courts, this bill will reduce needless delays that result in unnecessary ongoing incarceration costs that do not ultimately improve public safety."

Arguments in Support

According to Californians for Safety and Justice, "under current law, courts are permitted to dismiss certain victimless Vehicle Code misdemeanors if a defendant has been sentenced to state prison. The idea behind the law is simple – it makes little sense to spend limited time and money prosecuting a victimless crime when the defendant is already going to prison. AB 2168 would extend the current dismissal requirement for Vehicle Code misdemeanors following a prison commitment to all victimless misdemeanors, regardless of whether that misdemeanor is located in the Vehicle Code, Penal Code, or elsewhere. This simple change could result in millions of dollars per year in cost savings."

Arguments in Opposition

According to California State Sheriff's Association (CSSA), "…the bill gives certain convicts a pass for liability for certain non-felony offenses simply by virtue of the fact that they have already been sentenced for a felony crime. This bill decreases accountability under the guise of easing logistical burdens regarding prosecution for additional offenses.

"As long as people choose to commit crimes, appropriate custodial sanctions must be available. Our state's correctional system is just that – a system – and prisons and jails serve similar but also unique purposes."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Revenue loss (General Fund, special funds, local funds) of an unknown but potentially significant amount. This bill authorizes automatic dismissal of infractions and misdemeanors in specified circumstances. Were these offenses adjudicated, many would likely result in conviction and collection of criminal fines, fees, and penalties. As described below, there are a number of state and local fines and fees that are assessed when a defendant is ordered to pay a fine. For example, Penal Code section 1465.7 imposes a 20% surcharge on every base fine that results from a criminal conviction. Revenue from this surcharge is allocated to the General Fund. The default misdemeanor punishment includes a maximum base fine of $1,000. If 750 people who would have been convicted and sentenced to pay the maximum misdemeanor base fine instead have their charges dismissed under this bill, the resulting loss of revenue to the General Fund would be $150,000 from that surcharge alone.
2. Cost savings (local funds) to district attorneys' offices and public defender offices due to reduced caseloads when qualifying misdemeanor cases are dismissed rather than prosecuted, and to counties in reduced incarceration.

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 5-2-1

YES: McCarty, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

NO: Alanis, Lackey

ABS, ABST OR NV: Stephanie Nguyen

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin

NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Villapudua

UPDATED

VERSION: April 18, 2024

CONSULTANT: Liah Burnley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003091

Date of Hearing: May 1, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2168

Author:(Kalra) – As Amended Ver:April 18, 2024

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

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits, subject to a number of exceptions, a person from being prosecuted for a non-felony offense pending against them at the time of their commitment to state prison, to a county facility as a ward of the juvenile court, or to county jail for a realigned felony.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Revenue loss (General Fund, special funds, local funds) of an unknown but potentially significant amount. This bill authorizes automatic dismissal of infractions and misdemeanors in specified circumstances. Were these offenses adjudicated, many would likely result in conviction and collection of criminal fines, fees, and penalties. As described below, there are a number of state and local fines and fees that are assessed when a defendant is ordered to pay a fine. For example, Penal Code section 1465.7 imposes a 20% surcharge on every base fine that results from a criminal conviction. Revenue from this surcharge is allocated to the General Fund. The default misdemeanor punishment includes a maximum base fine of $1,000. If 750 people who would have been convicted and sentenced to pay the maximum misdemeanor base fine instead have their charges dismissed under this bill, the resulting loss of revenue to the General Fund would be $150,000 from that surcharge alone.
2. Cost savings (local funds) to district attorneys’ offices and public defender offices due to reduced caseloads when qualifying misdemeanor cases are dismissed rather than prosecuted, and to counties in reduced incarceration.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years. 

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Under existing law, the courts are permitted to dismiss certain Vehicle Code misdemeanors if the defendant is sentenced to state prison. However, because this dismissal process is limited to the Vehicle Code, thousands of other defendants already sentenced to prison remain in county jail and are still being transported for hearings on open misdemeanor cases that will not increase their sentence.

AB 2168 addresses this inefficient process by allowing a court to dismiss victimless low-level misdemeanors against people waiting in county jail who are already sentenced to state prison. By extending this flexibility to the courts, this bill will reduce needless delays that result in unnecessary ongoing incarceration costs that do not ultimately improve public safety.

1. Background. Under existing law, non-felony offenses are automatically dismissed when a defendant is incarcerated for a felony offense. Originally, this provision applied only to a defendant who was incarcerated in state prison, but it has now been expanded to include a juvenile committed to youth detention facilities and a defendant committed to county jail for a realigned felony. A realigned felony is a felony offense that would have historically been punishable by a state prison term, but is now punishable by a term in county jail following 2011public safety realignment.

This bill expands automatic dismissal beyond Vehicle Code offenses – it would require automatic dismissal of a misdemeanor or infraction pending against a defendant when the defendant is incarcerated in state prison, in county jail for a specified felony, or in a juvenile detention facility. However, the bill contains numerous exceptions that would significantly limit its scope. For example, under the bill, specified offenses involving domestic violence, offenses for which the victim is entitled to restitution, offenses that requires sex offender registration, and DUI offenses may not be automatically dismissed, among others. In practice, this will significantly limit the application of automatic dismissal, especially for misdemeanors for which restitution is commonly ordered. However, as described above, the overall fiscal effect of this bill may be significant due to its impact on collection of criminal fine and fee revenue.

When a person is required to pay a criminal fine, the amount they actually owe is calculated by adding various fees and assessments to the base fine for their offense. Standard charges include a state penalty assessment, county penalty assessment, county construction penalty assessment, DNA Fund penalty assessment, and others. Together, these additional fees and assessments can more than triple the original base fine provided in statute. In recent years, the Legislature has passed a number of measures to reduce or eliminate criminal fines and fees. Although these efforts may alleviate debt for people convicted of low-level offenses, they have also resulted in diminishing fine and fee revenue that has historically been used to fund other programs.

1. Prior Legislation. SB 1105 (Skinner), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have allowed the dismissal of specified non-felony offenses pending against a person who completed a commitment in county jail or probation for a Vehicle Code offense. SB 1105 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 16, 2024

Counsel: Liah Burnley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

As Proposed To Be Amended In Committee

SUMMARY: Requires dismissal of specified misdemeanors and infractions pending against a person at the time the person is committed to imprisonment for a felony offense, as specified.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a person shall not be subject to prosecution for a non-felony offense that is pending against them at the time of their commitment to state prison, a county facility as a ward of the juvenile court, or to a county jail for a felony offense subject to prison realignment.
   
2. Provides that this provision does not apply to any of the following:
   
   1. An offense in which the victim is a victim of domestic violence, as defined;
      
   2. An offense for which the victim is entitled to restitution;
      
   3. An offense that requires sex offender registration;
      
   4. An offense that can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony at the discretion of the prosecution (i.e., wobblers);
      
   5. Reckless driving;
      
   6. Driving under the influence of drugs; and,
      
   7. Driving under the influence of alcohol.
      

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that a person shall not be subject to prosecution for a non-felony offense arising out of the a violation of the Vehicle that is pending against them at the time of their commitment to a state prison, juvenile facility, or to a county jail for a realigned felony, unless any of the following apply:
   1. The offense requires the Department Of Motor Vehicles to immediately revoke or suspend the person’s license upon receipt of a court record showing that the person has been convicted of that non-felony offense;
   2. The offense is committed by a person while that person is temporarily released from custody pursuant or while they are on parole or postrelease community supervision; and,
      
   3. If the pending offense is for reckless driving, driving under the influence of drugs, or driving while intoxicated. (Veh. Code. § 41500.)
      
2. States that a victim of crime who incurs an economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from a defendant convicted of that crime. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4.)
   
3. Provides that state prisoners who have other criminal charges pending against them at the commencement of their terms have a right to trial on the pending charges within 90 days after written notice to the district attorney, and to dismissal of the charges absent timely trial. (Pen. Code, § 1381.)
   
4. Allows a judge, either on motion of the court or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action to be dismissed. (Pen. Code, § 1385.)
   
5. States that the purpose of incarceration is rehabilitation and successful community reintegration achieved through education, treatment, and active participation in rehabilitative and restorative justice programs. This purpose is best served by terms that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in the sentences of people incarcerated for committing the same offense under similar circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (a)(1).)
   

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Under existing law, the courts are permitted to dismiss certain Vehicle Code misdemeanors if the defendant is sentenced to state prison. However, because this dismissal process is limited to the Vehicle Code, thousands of other defendants already sentenced to prison remain in county jail and are still being transported for hearings on open misdemeanor cases that will not increase their sentence.

“AB 2168 addresses this inefficient process by allowing a court to dismiss victimless low-level misdemeanors against people waiting in county jail who are already sentenced to state prison. By extending this flexibility to the courts, this bill will reduce needless delays that result in unnecessary ongoing incarceration costs that do not ultimately improve public safety.”

1. Dismissals: Under current law, Vehicle Code section 41500, non-felony traffic offenses are automatically dismissed when a defendant is incarcerated for a felony offense. (Veh. Code, § 41500.) The statute as originally enacted in 1970 only applied to defendants who were committed to state prison. However, the statute has since been expanded, and now applies to committed youths [Chapter 545, Statutes of 1975] and to defendants who are committed to county jail for a realignment felony [AB 1156 (Brown), Chapter 378, Statutes of 2015].
   
   This statute “is an exception to the rule that all criminal offenses are subject to prosecution.” (Joseph v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 498, 503, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 757.) The purpose of this statute is that a conviction for vehicle offenses would often run concurrent with and be subsumed by the felony level sentence. Hence, judicial economy is served by automatic dismissal—it would be a waste of time and resources to continue the trial on the lesser offense because the defendant has already served their time. As several courts have stated, it is in the public interest that courts not be burdened with the prosecution of minor cases where the defendant has already been sentenced to serve a long term in prison, and the additional prosecution will not substantially increase that term. (People v. Freeman (1987) 225 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 4.) Further, there is “strong public policy that allows felons sentenced to state institutions to obtain relief from detainers that might render their release date uncertain and thus adversely affect their eventual rehabilitation.” (People v. Lopez (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th Supp. 6, 11, 160.) “A prisoner serving time often faces other charges or proceedings when his term of imprisonment is completed. These are sometimes referred to as ‘detainers’ or ‘holds.’ They render the prisoner’s final date of release into the community uncertain, and often adversely affect his security classification thereby preventing his participation in various programs otherwise available to prisoners.” (Freeman, supra, at p. Supp. 4, fn. 2.)
   
   Proponents of this bill content that the statute is inadequate. Specifically, while the statute currently mandates dismissal of Vehicle Code offenses, it does not mandate dismissal of other misdemeanors listed outside the Vehicle Code. An example of these type of offenses are the drug misdemeanors listed in the Health and Safety Code (e.g. possession of a controlled substance).To illustrate by example: Under Section 41500, a defendant charged with felony robbery in one case and driving on a suspended license [Veh. Code, §14601.1] in another case. The defendant is convicted and sentenced to state prison for felony robbery. Because defendant is now serving a felony sentence on a more serious case, Section 41500 mandates dismissal of the Vehicle Code suspended license charge. However, under current law, if that same defendant was instead charged with felony robbery in one case and in another case with possession of drug paraphernalia [Health & Safe. Code, § 11364], the drug charge would not be dismissed under Section 41500 because it is not a “Vehicle Code” charge. This bill would treat all misdemeanors the same as those proscribed in the Vehicle Code. Thus, under either of the examples listed above, following a conviction and sentence to state prison on the defendant’s robbery charge, the non-violent misdemeanor would be dismissed.
   
   Further, the changes made by this bill are narrow. This bill would only apply to misdemeanor offenses and infractions. Further, a court would not be required to dismiss charges for domestic violence offenses; offenses in which the victim is owed restitution (given that victims of crime are constitutionally entitled to restitution, this exception encompasses the vast majority of criminal offenses); offenses that require sex offender registration (there are at least 15 misdemeanors that require registration); any offense that can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony at the discretion of the prosecution (which covers a wide-range of offenses, including many theft and drug related offenses); and, a court would not be required to dismiss a reckless driving charge, or a charge for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
   
   Also, it is likely that the dismissals required by this bill would not apply to charges brought in the same case as the felony. In a recent unpublished decision, the court of appeals affirmed a trial court’s refusal to dismiss the misdemeanor and infraction charges pursuant to Vehicle Code section 41500 after sentencing the defendant prison on felony counts. (People v. Escareno, 2021 WL 2069434, at *1–4.) The court reasoned that Section 41500 applies to charges “pending against [the defendant] at the time of [their] commitment” and does not apply to charges “filed concurrently” with a pending felony case. Like Vehicle Code section 41500, this bill would require dismissal only of charges “pending against that person at the time of that person’s commitment.” Thus, if a defendant were to be charged with both a misdemeanor and a felony as part of a single action, the misdemeanor could still be prosecuted.
   
2. Argument in Support: According to Californians for Safety and Justice, “under current law, courts are permitted to dismiss certain victimless Vehicle Code misdemeanors if a defendant has been sentenced to state prison. The idea behind the law is simple – it makes little sense to spend limited time and money prosecuting a victimless crime when the defendant is already going to prison. AB 2168 would extend the current dismissal requirement for Vehicle Code misdemeanors following a prison commitment to all victimless misdemeanors, regardless of whether that misdemeanor is located in the Vehicle Code, Penal Code, or elsewhere. This simple change could result in millions of dollars per year in cost savings.”
   
3. Argument in Opposition: According to California State Sheriff’s Association (CSSA), “…the bill gives certain convicts a pass for liability for certain non-felony offenses simply by virtue of the fact that they have already been sentenced for a felony crime. This bill decreases accountability under the guise of easing logistical burdens regarding prosecution for additional offenses.
   
   “As long as people choose to commit crimes, appropriate custodial sanctions must be available. Our state’s correctional system is just that – a system – and prisons and jails serve similar but also unique purposes.”
   
4. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 1105 (Skinner), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have extended the existing laws relating to the dismissal of Vehicle Code violations pending at the time of a defendant's commitment to state prison or county jail on a jail-eligible felony to persons sentenced to county jail or other alternatives to incarceration, as specified. SB 1105 was held in Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. AB 1156 (Brown), Chapter 378, Statutes of 2015, extended the existing laws relating to the dismissal of Vehicle Code violations pending at the time of a defendant's commitment to state prison committed to a county jail for conviction of a felony.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Public Defenders Association (Sponsor)

ACLU California Action

California for Safety and Justice

Californians for Safety and Justice

Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Initiate Justice

Initiate Justice Action

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of The San Francisco Bay Area

Legal Services for Prisoners With Children

San Francisco Public Defender

Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy

Young Women's Freedom Center

Opposition

California State Sheriffs' Association

Analysis Prepared by: