Crimes: bail: release on own recognizance.
Summary
Existing law requires a defendant who is in custody and is arraigned on a complaint alleging a misdemeanor, including a defendant arrested pursuant to an out-of-county warrant involving only misdemeanors, to be released on his or her own recognizance, unless the court makes a finding on the record that the release will compromise public safety or will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. This bill would require a court, in deciding consistent with specified constitutional provisions whether to make one of these findings, to also consider the defendant's record of appearance at past court hearings or of flight to avoid prosecution, the maximum potential sentence that could be imposed, and the ties of the defendant to the community. Existing law provides that before any person who has been arrested for a violent felony or certain other crimes is released on bail in an amount other than that specified in the schedule of bail for the offense, or is released on his or her own recognizance, a hearing shall be held at which the court shall consider certain enumerated factors including any evidence offered by the detained person regarding his or her ties to the community and his or her ability to post bond. This bill would also require the court, in determining consistent with specified constitutional provisions whether to change the bail or release the detained person, to consider what will reasonably assure the appearance of the detained person as required. Existing law requires a court to order release of a defendant on bail pending appeal if the defendant demonstrates certain matters, including, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant is not likely to flee. For purposes of determining whether the defendant is not likely to flee, existing law requires the court to consider specified criteria. This bill would also require the court to consider, consistent with specified constitutional provisions, whether bail would provide reasonable assurance of the appearance of the defendant as required. Existing law requires a judge or magistrate to take specified information, including the seriousness of the offense charged, into consideration when setting, reducing, or denying bail. This bill would require the court, consistent with specified constitutional provisions, to also consider the maximum potential sentence that could be imposed and the ties of the defendant to the community. Existing law provides that a defendant charged with a violent felony shall not be released on his or her own recognizance where it appears, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she previously has been charged with a felony offense and has willfully and without excuse from the court failed to appear in court as required while that charge was pending. In all other cases, in making a determination as to whether or not to grant release under these provisions, the court is required to consider specified information. This bill would also require the court to consider, consistent with specified constitutional provisions, whether the release would provide reasonable assurance of the appearance of the defendant as required, the defendant's record of appearance at past court hearings or of flight to avoid prosecution, the maximum potential sentence that could be imposed, and the ties of the defendant to the community. Because these provisions could result in more jail time for those awaiting trial or appeal, this 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
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
May 2009
Senate Passage
Jun 2009
Assembly Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 27, 2009
Last action Nov 30, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Jun 2, 2009
How they voted
38–0
Passed
Total votes 38
Jun 2, 2009
D
Democratic24
100% Yea
R
Republican14
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
23
Key actions
3
Committee
2
Amendments
1
Jun 2, 2009
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (38-0)
senate
May 27, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
May 5, 2009
Committee
Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
May 4, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 706.)
upper
Feb 27, 2009
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Roderick Wright
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 625
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 625. 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