Restitution: collection of fines.
Summary
Under existing law, in every case where a person is convicted of a crime and whose sentence includes parole, the court is required to assess a parole revocation fine, as specified, for deposit into the Restitution Fund in the State Treasury. This bill would require a person who is subject to postrelease community supervision or mandatory supervision, who violates the terms of his or her postrelease community supervision or mandatory supervision, and who is incarcerated in a county jail for that violation, to pay a fine, for deposit into the Restitution Fund in the State Treasury, a continuously appropriated fund. Because the bill creates a new source of revenue for deposit into the restitution fund, the bill would make an appropriation. Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to deduct and retain certain funds from the wages, trust account deposits, or settlement or trial awards of a prisoner for the payment of certain fees and fines, including restitution orders, restitution fines, and specified administrative fees, and also authorizes the department to collect funds from a parolee for the payment of restitution orders and fines, unless prohibited by federal law. Under existing law, these funds are required to be deposited in the Restitution Fund in the State Treasury. This bill would specify that, when a prisoner is punished by imprisonment in a county jail, an agency designated by the county board of supervisors is required to deduct and retain those funds, and would also authorize that agency to collect funds from a parolee. The bill would require these agencies to transfer these funds for deposit in the Restitution Fund. By imposing additional requirements on counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 these statutory provisions.
Bill status
in committee
1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 24, 2012
Last action Apr 17, 2012
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
7
Key actions
2
Committee
4
Apr 17, 2012
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Apr 9, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Mar 29, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Feb 26, 2012
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.
lower
Feb 24, 2012
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
MF
Mike Feuer
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2596
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2596. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline