HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05151984 - 1.26 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �4
FROM: CHARLES E. DIXON Contra
Interim County Administrator Costa
VAI E: May 8, 1984 County
SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO SB 1657 (SENATOR MADDY) - MANDATING COSTS UPON
COUNTIES TO IMPLEMENT A "SHOCK.PROBATION." PROGRAM
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Recommendation
Oppose SB 1657 (Senator Maddy) as mandating costs upon counties to implement a "shock
probation" program.
Background
This bill would authorize the Director of the State Department of Corrections to file with
the sentencing court, within 150 days after commencement of a prisoner's term, a recommenda-
tion that the court suspend further execution of the prisoner's sentence and place him or
tier on "shock probation". The bill would authorize the court to suspend further execution
of sentence and place the prisoner on probation, following a hearing on the matter as
specified.
SB 1657 would create a state-mandated local program by imposing new duties on county agencies.
Although a judge would not be required to put a referred State prisoner on county probation,
the bill requires the court to hold a hearing on the matter based upon the State's recommenda-
tion. Such a hearing involves Superior Court personnel, District Attorney, defense attorney
and the Probation Department, which would generate county costs without State reimbursement.
In addition, when a judge would modify the sentence of convicted felons from State prison
to county probation, the Probation Department would have to absorb the costs. No State
funds are provided for the increased supervision load created by the program.
Besides added cost factors, the bill has other serious drawbacks. First of all, the bill
has the potential of placing convicted felons who are sentenced to State prison on county
probation, which raises a public safety issue. A further negative feature is that the bill
directs the State Director of Corrections to establish rules and regulations for "shock proba-
tion", in effect, setting criteria for county probation services. This constitutes an
unwarranted intrusion by the State into county operations.
The aim of this bill is to help the State deal with its prison overcrowding problem and is
an idea which came out of the Joint Committee for Revision of the Penal Code. While it is
recognized that prison overcrowding is a major problem, this Office does not believe that
imposing such a program upon County government without prior joint planning and State
funding is a sensible way to proceed. Similar programs in states such as Texas and Georgia
Yepresent a coordinated state/county approach with adequate prior planning and State funding.
Both the District Attorney and the Chief Probation Officer are opposed to the bill in its
present form.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
•X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIO4 OF BOARD COMMITTEE
.2L— APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 15, 1984 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
The Board adopted a position in opposition to SB 1657.
/O'fE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT -- ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. 00 0,5i
Criminal Justice Agency May 15 1984
CC: District Attorney ATTESTED y �
Probation Officer J.R. OLSSON. COUNTY CLERK
Public Defender AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
Sheriff-Coroner
Presiding Judge, Superior Court
M382/7 03 CSAC DEPUTY