California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 1869 — Criminal fees.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 92, Statutes of 2020.

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 07, 2020. 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 4 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 imposes various fees contingent upon a criminal arrest, prosecution, or conviction for the cost of administering the criminal justice system, including administering probation and mandatory supervision, processing arrests and citations, and administering home detention programs, continuous electronic monitoring programs, work furlough programs, and work release programs. This bill would repeal the authority to collect many of these fees, among others. The bill would make the unpaid balance of these court-imposed costs unenforceable and uncollectible and would require any portion of a judgment imposing those costs to be vacated. (2) Existing law allows the board of supervisors of any county to establish the office of the public defender and requires the public defender to defend, without expense to the defendant, any person who is not financially able to employ counsel and who is charged with the commission of a crime. Existing law allows the court to hold a hearing to determine whether a defendant owns an interest in real property or other assets and to impose a lien on the property. Upon conclusion of trial, existing law allows the court to make a determination of a defendant's present ability to pay all or a portion of the cost of the public defender. If the court finds that the defendant has the financial ability to pay, existing law requires the court to order the defendant to pay all or a part of the costs the court believes reasonable and compatible with the defendant's financial ability. This bill would delete the authority of the court to impose liens on the defendant's property and make a post-trial determination of the defendant's ability to pay and to order the defendant to pay the costs of the public defender. By requiring a county to provide a public defender without charge to a defendant who may have the ability to pay, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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 the statutory provisions noted above. (4) The bill would appropriate $50,000 from the General Fund to the Department of Finance to begin to implement the provisions of this bill, and would annually appropriate $65,000,000 from the General Fund to the Controller beginning in the 2021–22 fiscal year to the 2025–26 fiscal year, inclusive, for allocation to counties to backfill revenues lost from the repeal of fees specified in this bill, as provided, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to pursue legislation with the Budget Act of 2021 to finalize the funding allocation methodology for distribution to counties. (5) 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 92, Statutes of 2020.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 59. Noes 17. Page 5437.).

  5. Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Ayes 59. Noes 16. Page 5435.)

  6. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 30. Noes 7.).

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 4.) (August 29).

  10. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  11. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  12. Joint Rules 61 and 62(a) suspended. (Ayes 29. Noes 10. Page 4299.)

  13. Referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

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

  15. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 60. Noes 14. Page 4865.)

  16. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  17. Ordered to second reading.

  18. Withdrawn from committee.

  19. Assembly Rule 96 suspended. (Ayes 57. Noes 15. Page 4273.)

  20. Re-referred to Com. on BUDGET.

  21. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on BUDGET. Read second time and amended.

  22. Referred to Com. on BUDGET.

  23. From printer. May be heard in committee February 7.

  24. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Committee on Budget · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 8 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Committee on Budget

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

Passed 30 Yea · 7 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 20502
Democratic 10000
Republican 0201
Total 30703
% of votes cast 75%18%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Pan — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Monning — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Beall — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Allen — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Hill — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Chang — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Bates — Not Voting
Borgeas — Not Voting
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 59 Yea · 17 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 371103
Democratic 22000
Republican 0600
Total 591703
% of votes cast 75%22%0%4%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Daly — Yea
Salas — Yea
Gray — Yea
Ting — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Levine — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Wood — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Holden — Yea
Medina — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Burke — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Weber — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Smith — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Gloria — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Chu — Yea
Low — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Chau — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Cunningham — Nay
Diep — Nay
Fong — Nay
Brough — Nay
Obernolte — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Mathis — Nay
Kiley — Nay
Mayes — Nay
Frazier — Not Voting
Eggman — Not Voting
Voepel — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Choi, Steven S. Republican Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 14 Yea · 4 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 4000
Unaffiliated 10300
Republican 0100
Total 14400
% of votes cast 78%22%0%0%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Hertzberg — Yea
Pan — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Monning — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Beall — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 60 Yea · 14 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 22000
Unaffiliated 381003
Republican 0402
Total 601405
% of votes cast 76%18%0%6%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Weber — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Quirk — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Low — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Burke — Yea
Daly — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Salas — Yea
Levine — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Medina — Yea
Wood — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Ting — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Gray — Yea
Chau — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Fong — Nay
Cunningham — Nay
Voepel — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Kiley — Nay
Brough — Nay
Obernolte — Nay
Mayes — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Smith — Not Voting
Mathis — Not Voting
Diep — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

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 1869 do?
(1) Existing law imposes various fees contingent upon a criminal arrest, prosecution, or conviction for the cost of administering the criminal justice system, including administering probation and mandatory supervision, processing arrests and citations, and administering home detention programs, continuous electronic monitoring programs, work furlough programs, and work release programs. This bill would repeal the authority to collect many of these fees, among others. The bill would make the unpaid balance of these court-imposed costs unenforceable and uncollectible and would require any portion of a judgment imposing those costs to be vacated. (2) Existing law allows the board of supervisors of any county to establish the office of the public defender and requires the public defender to defend, without expense to the defendant, any person who is not financially able to employ counsel and who is charged with the commission of a crime. Existing law allows the court to hold a hearing to determine whether a defendant owns an interest in real property or other assets and to impose a lien on the property. Upon conclusion of trial, existing law allows the court to make a determination of a defendant's present ability to pay all or a portion of the cost of the public defender. If the court finds that the defendant has the financial ability to pay, existing law requires the court to order the defendant to pay all or a part of the costs the court believes reasonable and compatible with the defendant's financial ability. This bill would delete the authority of the court to impose liens on the defendant's property and make a post-trial determination of the defendant's ability to pay and to order the defendant to pay the costs of the public defender. By requiring a county to provide a public defender without charge to a defendant who may have the ability to pay, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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 the statutory provisions noted above. (4) The bill would appropriate $50,000 from the General Fund to the Department of Finance to begin to implement the provisions of this bill, and would annually appropriate $65,000,000 from the General Fund to the Controller beginning in the 2021–22 fiscal year to the 2025–26 fiscal year, inclusive, for allocation to counties to backfill revenues lost from the repeal of fees specified in this bill, as provided, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to pursue legislation with the Budget Act of 2021 to finalize the funding allocation methodology for distribution to counties. (5) 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 1869?
AB 1869 is sponsored by Committee on Budget.
What is the current status of AB 1869?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 07, 2020. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 1869?
Track AB 1869 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1869

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.

Stay ahead of AB 1869

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →