California Assembly Bill AB194

California 2017-2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/19/17
• Refer: 1/30/17
• Report Pass: 2/21/17
• Refer: 2/22/17
• Report Pass: 3/1/17
• Refer: 3/6/17
• Report Pass: 4/5/17
• Engrossed: 4/24/17
• Refer: 4/25/17
• Refer: 5/10/17

Caption

Victim restitution: probation: jurisdiction.

Impact

The enactment of AB 194 would significantly alter the landscape of victim restitution in California. By requiring courts to maintain jurisdiction for restitution matters for a period extending beyond the typical limits associated with sentencing, the bill supports victims' rights and financial recovery in criminal cases. This change seeks to promote accountability among offenders by ensuring that restitution assessments can be revisited if necessary, protecting the financial interests of victims irrespective of the timing of loss determination during the judicial process.

Summary

Assembly Bill 194, introduced by Assembly Member Patterson, seeks to amend Section 1202.46 of the Penal Code related to victim restitution. The bill stipulates that if a victim's economic losses are not determined at the time of sentencing, the court must retain jurisdiction for up to five years after sentencing or until the defendant's supervision period ends. This aims to ensure victims receive restitution despite delays in establishing their losses. The bill explicitly overrules two appellate court decisions that limited the court's authority to modify restitution orders post-probation expiration.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding AB 194 appears to be supportive, particularly among advocates for victims' rights and legal reform. Proponents argue that it closes loopholes that have historically undermined victims’ ability to secure financial restitution from offenders. There may be concerns among some legal experts regarding the potential burden on the judicial system and the implications for defendants on probation, but the general trend reflects a positive outlook towards strengthening victim restitution rights.

Contention

Despite its overall supportive sentiment, some contention exists regarding the practical implementation of AB 194. Questions arise about the judicial and administrative resources needed to manage extended jurisdiction over restitution cases and the potential complexities that may emerge from re-evaluating cases post-probation. Critics might view this extension as an overreach of judicial authority, with implications for due process rights and the rights of defendants, particularly in cases where restitution amounts are unclear or contested.