California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 1004 — Young adults: deferred entry of judgment pilot program.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 865, Statutes of 2016.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 10, 2016. Enacted.

Prognosis

Advancing 54% · 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.

  • Mixed recorded votes

    9 passed, 1 failed in 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

Existing law provides that entry of judgment may be deferred with respect to a defendant who is charged with certain crimes involving possession of controlled substances, who pleads guilty to the charge or charges, and who meets certain criteria, including that he or she has no prior convictions for any offense involving controlled substances and has had no felony convictions within the 5 years prior, as specified. Existing law requires the criminal charge or charges to be dismissed if the defendant has performed satisfactorily in a specified program during the period in which deferred entry of judgment was granted. This bill would authorize specified counties to establish a pilot program to operate a deferred entry of judgment pilot program for eligible defendants. The bill would authorize a defendant to participate in the program within the county's juvenile hall if that person is charged with committing a felony offense, except as specified, he or she pleads guilty to the charge or charges, and the probation department determines that the person meets specified requirements, including that the defendant is 18 years of age or older, but under 21 years of age on the date the offense was committed, is suitable for the program, and shows the ability to benefit from services generally reserved for delinquents. The bill would require the probation department to develop a plan for reentry services. The bill would require the court to grant deferred entry of judgment if the eligible defendant consents to participate in the program, waives his or her right to a speedy trial or a speedy preliminary hearing, pleads guilty to the charge or charges, and waives time for the pronouncement of judgment. The bill would also require the court to render a finding of guilt to the charge or charges pleaded, enter judgment, and schedule a sentencing hearing, and would require the return of the defendant to custody in a county jail if the court finds that the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in the program or that the defendant is not benefiting from the services in the program. If the defendant has performed satisfactorily during the period in which deferred entry of judgment was granted, at the end of that period, the bill would require the court to dismiss the criminal charge or charges. The bill would require a county, prior to establishing a pilot program, to apply to the Board of State and Community Corrections for approval of a county institution as a suitable place for confinement for the purpose of the pilot program. The bill would require the board to review and approve or deny the application of the county within 30 days of receiving notice of this proposed use. The bill would also require each county to establish a multidisciplinary team consisting of representatives of specified local entities. The team would be required to meet periodically to review and discuss the implementation, practices, and impact of the program. The bill would require the probation department to submit data relating to the effectiveness of the program to the Division of Recidivism Reduction and Re-Entry, within the Department of Justice. The bill would prohibit a defendant participating in the program from coming into contact with minors within the juvenile hall, would prohibit a defendant from serving longer than one year in custody within a county's juvenile hall pursuant to the program, and would require the board to review a county's pilot program to ensure compliance with the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as specified. The bill would require a county that establishes a pilot program pursuant to these provisions to submit data regarding the pilot program to the board, and would require the board to conduct an evaluation of the pilot program's impact and effectiveness, as specified. The bill would require the evaluation to be combined into a comprehensive report and submitted to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety. The bill would also authorize the board to contract with an independent entity, including, but not limited to, the Regents of the University of California, to carry out these duties. The authority conferred by this bill would be repealed on January 1, 2020. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Alameda, Butte, Napa, Nevada, and Santa Clara.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 865, Statutes of 2016.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

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

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 28. Noes 10. Page 5423.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 58. Noes 18. Page 6015.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 5.) (August 3).

  11. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  13. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 28).

  14. June 21 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 3. Noes 3.) Reconsideration granted.

  15. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  16. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  17. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 29. Noes 8. Page 4140.) Ordered to the Assembly.

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

  19. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 4001.) (May 27).

  20. Set for hearing May 27.

  21. May 9 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  22. Set for hearing May 9.

  23. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  24. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 3521.) (April 12).

  25. Set for hearing April 12.

  26. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  27. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  28. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  29. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 12.

  30. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Hill · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 10 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Hill

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

Unfinished Business SB1004 Hill Concurrence

Passed 28 Yea · 10 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 26901
Democratic 2100
Total 281001
% of votes cast 72%26%0%3%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Block — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huff — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Pan — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Yea
Allen — Yea
Lara — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Leno — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Monning — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Hueso — Yea
Liu — Not Voting
Bates — Nay
Beall — Yea
Moorlach — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay

Official roll call →

SB 1004 Hill Senate Third Reading By GALLAGHER

Passed 58 Yea · 18 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 511504
Democratic 5000
Republican 2300
Total 581804
% of votes cast 73%23%0%5%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Brown — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Linder — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mathis — Nay
Mullin — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Steinorth — Nay
Wagner — Nay
Williams — Yea
Chang — Not Voting
Eggman — Yea
Daly — Yea
Burke — Yea
Salas — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gray — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Harper — Nay
Holden — Yea
Chau — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Levine — Yea
Low — Yea
Mayes — Nay
McCarty — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Cooley — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Medina — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Kim — Not Voting
Melendez — Not Voting
Cooper — Not Voting
Obernolte — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Frazier — Yea
Hadley — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 15 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 12400
Republican 1100
Democratic 2000
Total 15500
% of votes cast 75%25%0%0%
How each member voted (20)
Member Party Vote
Wood — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Chau — Yea
Daly — Yea
Holden — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Weber — Yea
Chang — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Obernolte — Nay
Wagner — Nay
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Reconsideration.

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Republican 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Low — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 29 Yea · 8 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 27703
Democratic 2100
Total 29803
% of votes cast 73%20%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Hill — Yea
Huff — Yea
Leyva — Not Voting
Mendoza — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Pan — Yea
Roth — Yea
Allen — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Runner — Not Voting
Hall — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Bates — Not Voting
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Glazer — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 5 Yea · 1 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4101
Democratic 1000
Total 5101
% of votes cast 71%14%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Not Voting
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Beall — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5001
Democratic 1000
Total 6001
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Not Voting
Beall — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety labor
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 SB 1004 do?
Existing law provides that entry of judgment may be deferred with respect to a defendant who is charged with certain crimes involving possession of controlled substances, who pleads guilty to the charge or charges, and who meets certain criteria, including that he or she has no prior convictions for any offense involving controlled substances and has had no felony convictions within the 5 years prior, as specified. Existing law requires the criminal charge or charges to be dismissed if the defendant has performed satisfactorily in a specified program during the period in which deferred entry of judgment was granted. This bill would authorize specified counties to establish a pilot program to operate a deferred entry of judgment pilot program for eligible defendants. The bill would authorize a defendant to participate in the program within the county's juvenile hall if that person is charged with committing a felony offense, except as specified, he or she pleads guilty to the charge or charges, and the probation department determines that the person meets specified requirements, including that the defendant is 18 years of age or older, but under 21 years of age on the date the offense was committed, is suitable for the program, and shows the ability to benefit from services generally reserved for delinquents. The bill would require the probation department to develop a plan for reentry services. The bill would require the court to grant deferred entry of judgment if the eligible defendant consents to participate in the program, waives his or her right to a speedy trial or a speedy preliminary hearing, pleads guilty to the charge or charges, and waives time for the pronouncement of judgment. The bill would also require the court to render a finding of guilt to the charge or charges pleaded, enter judgment, and schedule a sentencing hearing, and would require the return of the defendant to custody in a county jail if the court finds that the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in the program or that the defendant is not benefiting from the services in the program. If the defendant has performed satisfactorily during the period in which deferred entry of judgment was granted, at the end of that period, the bill would require the court to dismiss the criminal charge or charges. The bill would require a county, prior to establishing a pilot program, to apply to the Board of State and Community Corrections for approval of a county institution as a suitable place for confinement for the purpose of the pilot program. The bill would require the board to review and approve or deny the application of the county within 30 days of receiving notice of this proposed use. The bill would also require each county to establish a multidisciplinary team consisting of representatives of specified local entities. The team would be required to meet periodically to review and discuss the implementation, practices, and impact of the program. The bill would require the probation department to submit data relating to the effectiveness of the program to the Division of Recidivism Reduction and Re-Entry, within the Department of Justice. The bill would prohibit a defendant participating in the program from coming into contact with minors within the juvenile hall, would prohibit a defendant from serving longer than one year in custody within a county's juvenile hall pursuant to the program, and would require the board to review a county's pilot program to ensure compliance with the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as specified. The bill would require a county that establishes a pilot program pursuant to these provisions to submit data regarding the pilot program to the board, and would require the board to conduct an evaluation of the pilot program's impact and effectiveness, as specified. The bill would require the evaluation to be combined into a comprehensive report and submitted to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety. The bill would also authorize the board to contract with an independent entity, including, but not limited to, the Regents of the University of California, to carry out these duties. The authority conferred by this bill would be repealed on January 1, 2020. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Alameda, Butte, Napa, Nevada, and Santa Clara.
Who sponsors SB 1004?
SB 1004 is sponsored by Hill.
What is the current status of SB 1004?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 10, 2016. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 1004?
Track SB 1004 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1004

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 SB 1004

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →