California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 110 — Courts.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 193, Statutes of 2011.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 10, 2011. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to conduct an analysis of the cost incurred by trial courts related to the default prove up process and to report on the different methods trial courts use in processing filings related to the default prove up process, as well as the revenue generated by these filings. Existing law requires the report to be provided to the Assembly Committee on Budget, the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, and the Legislative Analyst's Office by September 30, 2011. Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst's Office to provide the Assembly Committee on Budget and the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review its recommendations pertaining to the report no later than June 30, 2012. Existing law provides that these provisions will become inoperative on July 1, 2013, and are repealed on January 1, 2014. This bill would require the report to be provided no later than September 30, 2013, and the recommendations to be provided no later than June 30, 2014. The bill would provide that the above-described provisions become inoperative on July 1, 2015, and are repealed on January 1, 2016. (2) Existing law provides that if the amount of the General Fund transfer to the Trial Court Trust Fund is decreased in excess of 10% from the amount appropriated in the 2010–11 fiscal year and is not offset by another source of noncourt fee revenue, then the amount of certain supplemental fees for filing first paper for specified civil matters shall be decreased proportionally, and that the Judicial Council shall adopt and publish a schedule setting the fees resulting from the decrease. This bill would repeal those provisions. (3) Existing law establishes fees for filing a notice of appeal in a civil case appealed to a court of appeal, for filing a petition for a writ within the original civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and for filing a petition for a writ within the original civil jurisdiction of a court of appeal. Existing law also establishes the fee for filing a petition for review in a civil case in the Supreme Court after a decision in a court of appeal. This bill would establish a fee of $325 for a party other than appellant filing its first document in a civil case appealed to a court of appeal, for a party other than petitioner filing its first document in a writ proceeding within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, or for a party other than petitioner filing its first document in a writ proceeding within the original jurisdiction of a court of appeal. This bill would also establish a fee of $325 for a party other than petitioner filing its first document in a civil case in the Supreme Court after a decision in a court of appeal. (4) Existing law provides that, within 60 days after judgment has been pronounced, the clerk of the court shall mail a copy of the charging documents, the transcript of the proceedings at the time of the defendant's guilty plea if the defendant pleaded guilty, and the transcript of the proceedings at the time of sentencing, with postage prepaid, to the prison or other institution to which the person convicted is delivered. This bill would limit the above provisions to cases in which the judgment imposed includes a sentence of death or an indeterminate term with or without the possibility of parole, and additionally require the clerk of the court to include a copy of any waiver or plea forms. The bill would provide similar provisions without the 60-day requirement for all other cases, except that a transcript of the proceedings would be included only upon written request by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or by an inmate, or by his or her counsel, for specified purposes, including an appeal. The bill would also make an appropriation of $1,000 to the Administrative Office of the Courts, for support of trial court operations, payable from the Trial Court Trust Fund. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 193, Statutes of 2011.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1:15 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 50. Noes 24. Page 2350.).

  5. Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Page 2349.)

  6. Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 2349.)

  7. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 12 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  8. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 23. Noes 16. Page 1846.).

  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 5.) (July 14).

  10. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.

  11. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.

  12. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  13. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  14. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  15. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  16. Ordered to third reading.

  17. Senate Rule 29.3 suspended. (Ayes 21. Noes 14. Page 1613.)

  18. Pursuant to Joint Rule 33.1, Joint Rule 10.5 suspended. (Page 1613.)

  19. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  20. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  21. Ordered to third reading.

  22. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 5.) (March 16).

  23. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.

  24. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  25. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  26. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  27. Ordered to second reading.

  28. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  29. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 49. Noes 0. Page 420.)

  30. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  31. Without reference to committee.

  32. From printer. May be heard in committee February 10.

  33. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Blumenfield · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Blumenfield

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass.

Passed 10 Yea · 5 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10501
Total 10501
% of votes cast 63%31%0%6%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Fuller — Nay
Rubio — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Anderson — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Huff — Nay
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Simitian — Not Voting
Wright — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
Evans — Yea
La Malfa — Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB110 Blumenfield By Leno

Passed 23 Yea · 16 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 211501
Democratic 2000
Republican 0100
Total 231601
% of votes cast 58%40%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Wyland — Nay
Yee — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Negrete McLeod — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Harman — Not Voting
Cannella — Nay
Runner — Nay
Hernandez — Yea
Huff — Nay
Blakeslee — Nay
Dutton — Nay
Kehoe — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Liu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Price — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Wright — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Leno — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Correa — Nay
Emmerson — Nay
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
La Malfa — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

AB 110 BLUMENFIELD Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 50 Yea · 24 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 492206
Republican 0200
Democratic 1000
Total 502406
% of votes cast 63%30%0%8%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gorell — Not Voting
Halderman — Nay
Feuer — Yea
Butler — Yea
Carter — Yea
Fong — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Allen — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Eng — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Campos — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Conway — Nay
Hill — Yea
Fletcher — Nay
Huber — Yea
Portantino — Not Voting
Mitchell — Not Voting
Ammiano — Yea
Block — Yea
Cook — Nay
Davis — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Huffman — Yea
Jeffries — Nay
Lara — Yea
Logue — Nay
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Nay
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Pan — Yea
Perea — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Not Voting
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Knight — Nay
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Silva — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Valadao — Nay
Williams — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Garrick — Not Voting
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11500
Total 11500
% of votes cast 69%31%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Huff — Nay
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Wright — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
La Malfa — Nay

Official roll call →

AB 110 BUDGET Assembly Third Reading By BLUMENFIELD

Passed 49 Yea · 0 Nay · 30 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 460028
Democratic 3000
Republican 0002
Total 490030
% of votes cast 62%0%0%38%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Halderman — Not Voting
Hall — Yea
Campos — Yea
Eng — Yea
Carter — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Block — Yea
Ma — Yea
Monning — Yea
Perea — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Williams — Yea
Butler — Not Voting
Yamada — Yea
Fletcher — Not Voting
Gorell — Not Voting
Hagman — Not Voting
Harkey — Not Voting
Jeffries — Not Voting
Conway — Not Voting
Cook — Not Voting
Knight — Not Voting
Logue — Not Voting
Miller — Not Voting
Nestande — Not Voting
Nielsen — Not Voting
Norby — Not Voting
Olsen — Not Voting
Silva — Not Voting
Smyth — Not Voting
Swanson — Not Voting
Valadao — Not Voting
Achadjian — Not Voting
Alejo — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mansoor — Not Voting
Mendoza — Yea
Morrell — Not Voting
Pan — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Wagner — Not Voting
Feuer — Yea
Davis — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Not Voting
Galgiani — Yea
Garrick — Not Voting
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Bonnie Lowenthal — Not Voting
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety finance
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 110 do?
(1) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to conduct an analysis of the cost incurred by trial courts related to the default prove up process and to report on the different methods trial courts use in processing filings related to the default prove up process, as well as the revenue generated by these filings. Existing law requires the report to be provided to the Assembly Committee on Budget, the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, and the Legislative Analyst's Office by September 30, 2011. Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst's Office to provide the Assembly Committee on Budget and the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review its recommendations pertaining to the report no later than June 30, 2012. Existing law provides that these provisions will become inoperative on July 1, 2013, and are repealed on January 1, 2014. This bill would require the report to be provided no later than September 30, 2013, and the recommendations to be provided no later than June 30, 2014. The bill would provide that the above-described provisions become inoperative on July 1, 2015, and are repealed on January 1, 2016. (2) Existing law provides that if the amount of the General Fund transfer to the Trial Court Trust Fund is decreased in excess of 10% from the amount appropriated in the 2010–11 fiscal year and is not offset by another source of noncourt fee revenue, then the amount of certain supplemental fees for filing first paper for specified civil matters shall be decreased proportionally, and that the Judicial Council shall adopt and publish a schedule setting the fees resulting from the decrease. This bill would repeal those provisions. (3) Existing law establishes fees for filing a notice of appeal in a civil case appealed to a court of appeal, for filing a petition for a writ within the original civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and for filing a petition for a writ within the original civil jurisdiction of a court of appeal. Existing law also establishes the fee for filing a petition for review in a civil case in the Supreme Court after a decision in a court of appeal. This bill would establish a fee of $325 for a party other than appellant filing its first document in a civil case appealed to a court of appeal, for a party other than petitioner filing its first document in a writ proceeding within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, or for a party other than petitioner filing its first document in a writ proceeding within the original jurisdiction of a court of appeal. This bill would also establish a fee of $325 for a party other than petitioner filing its first document in a civil case in the Supreme Court after a decision in a court of appeal. (4) Existing law provides that, within 60 days after judgment has been pronounced, the clerk of the court shall mail a copy of the charging documents, the transcript of the proceedings at the time of the defendant's guilty plea if the defendant pleaded guilty, and the transcript of the proceedings at the time of sentencing, with postage prepaid, to the prison or other institution to which the person convicted is delivered. This bill would limit the above provisions to cases in which the judgment imposed includes a sentence of death or an indeterminate term with or without the possibility of parole, and additionally require the clerk of the court to include a copy of any waiver or plea forms. The bill would provide similar provisions without the 60-day requirement for all other cases, except that a transcript of the proceedings would be included only upon written request by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or by an inmate, or by his or her counsel, for specified purposes, including an appeal. The bill would also make an appropriation of $1,000 to the Administrative Office of the Courts, for support of trial court operations, payable from the Trial Court Trust Fund. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Who sponsors AB 110?
AB 110 is sponsored by Blumenfield.
What is the current status of AB 110?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 10, 2011. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 110?
Track AB 110 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 110

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 110

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →