Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB32 | |
| HB54 | |
| HB182 | |
| HB169 | |
| HB54 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 32 | ||
| + | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to bail review."
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, sponsor, explained that the
bill does several things. Currently a defendant may be
granted a bail hearing every 24 hours. This has been taken
advantage of for a number of reasons. To help limit some of
the abuses, HB 54 proposes that the accused must submit, in
writing, that there exists new information for the court's
consideration that was not considered at prior hearings.
Second, the district attorney is given 48 hours notice in
which to notify the victim of the hearing. Finally, there
will be a 48-hour period between calendared bail hearings.
Without HB 54 the first bail is set high, then in court the
bail is reset at a reasonable level for the offense. Every
day the defendant could request a bail hearing, which the
victim has the right to attend.
Representative Samuels explained that the bill was amended
in Judiciary to add that a victim may be introduced to a
jury during the opening statement at a trial or during the
jury selection process. It also changed a minor defendant
law to allow introduction of the victim to the jury. He
opined that it is only fair to put a face on the victim of
the crime.
Co-Chair Chenault set aside HB 54.
1:53:09 PM
Representative Ralph Samuels returned to HB 54. He
explained that the bill would clarify whether the judge
could allow the victim to be introduced the to a jury.
TAMARA DE LUCIA, OFFICE OF VICTIMS RIGHTS, ANCHORAGE, (via
teleconference) reviewed new bail provisions in the bill,
which would include participation by the victim.
3:41:15 PM
Ms. De Lucia continued to explain the provision regarding
the introduction of the victim to the jury. She urged
passage of HB 54.
3:42:29 PM
LINDA WILSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, (via teleconference) spoke
about bail hearings. It takes a week to get a slot for bail
hearings for petitions to revoke probation. It is primarily
a problem with city cases. She wondered why a fix was being
created for such a small number of cases. She suggested
requiring a 48-hour notice. The system seems to be working
well right now. She suggested that defense lawyers get
together to solve the problem.
3:47:06 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 1, line 1, following "review;":
Insert "relating to petitions for review by crime
victims where the defendant has received a mitigated
sentence;"
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 12.55.120 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(e) The victim of the crime for which a defendant
has been convicted and sentenced may file a petition
for review in an appellate court of a sentence that has
been mitigated under AS 12.55.155(d)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "Section 4"
Insert "Section 5"
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
3:47:58 PM
Representative Samuels explained the he wanted to amend
Amendment 1 by eliminating the last word on line 9, through
line 10, and replacing that with "is below the sentencing
range for the crime." He clarified if there are three
aggravating sentences and one mitigating sentences, or five
aggravators and one mitigator, a review could not be asked
for at the appellate court level. If the sentence for a
particular crime is below the range, the victim would have a
right to petition for a review in an appellate court. If
the sentence is above the range, then there must be a jury
trial.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT
OF LAW, explained that the actual wording of the amendment
speaks about a petition for review in an appellate court.
He asked if it is the committee's intent that this is a
discretionary petition with the court of appeals, rather
than an absolute right to appeal to the court and require it
to issue an opinion.
3:52:45 PM
Mr. Guaneli described a particular case, which was reviewed
by the court of appeals. He questioned if this is the
direction that the amendment should go.
Representative Croft inquired if it would be different if an
appeal was filed. Mr. Guaneli said it would be different
and he would be opposed to that idea. He wondered about the
intent of the amendment to give victims the absolute right
to appeal. Representative Croft asked if anyone has the
right to file a petition for review. Mr. Guaneli responded
that an original application for relief was an unusual
procedure and a full briefing was ordered.
3:54:50 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if a precedent has been set.
3:55:47 PM
Representative Hawker asked if the intention is to change
the language to "file and appeal" to give victims a right
that they cannot currently enjoy. Representative Samuels
argued the point "that they cannot currently enjoy". He
emphasized that he does not want the bill to die because
appeals are too broad. He asked for clarification on the
wording if a period is used after "sentencing".
Mr. Guaneli agreed that change may satisfy his concern about
limiting what already exists under current court rule. He
noted that he would like to look at the standards and think
about it.
3:59:03 PM
Representative Croft inquired how much victims should be
involved in the criminal justice process. He opined that
they ought to be more involved, especially in the
sentencing. They have a right to have an appeal heard when
it is below the range. Representative Samuels concurred.
4:01:10 PM
Representative Weyhrauch referred to Mr. Guaneli's example
and asked if the victim had file a petition for review in
court of appeals. Mr. Guaneli said yes and related details
of the case. Representative Weyhrauch debated the
requirements of the court. Mr. Guaneli agreed with
Representative Weyhrauch' assessment. He acknowledged that
Representative Croft is right in that if the state appeals a
sentence, the sentence cannot be increased. He further
explained the procedure. He noted that victims' interests
may be different.
4:06:14 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze opined that this is may not be a bad
precedent.
Mr. Guaneli related his philosophy on the issue. He opined
that this amendment is not beneficial for the administration
of justice in Alaska.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION to adopt Amendment 1.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:09:55 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
Page 1, line 1, following "review;":
Insert "relating to the qualifications of certain
members of the Violent Crimes Compensation Board;"
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 18.67.020(a) is amended to read:
(a) There is the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board in the Department of Administration composed of
three members to be appointed by the governor. One of
the members shall be designated as chair [CHAIRMAN] by
the governor. At least one member must be a medical or
osteopathic physician licensed to practice in this
state or holding a retired status license in this state
and one member must be an attorney licensed to practice
in this state or retired from practice in this state."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "Section 4"
Insert "Section 5"
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 3, line 4:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 5"
Page 3, line 5:
Delete "sec. 6"
Insert "sec. 7"
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Croft explained that the amendment allows a
retired physician to be a member of the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board.
Representative Samuels said it makes sense to add this to
the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION to adopt Amendment 2.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:11:19 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to REPORT CSHB 54 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 54 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with three zero fiscal impact notes: #1
COR, #2 CRT, #3 LAW.
4:12:20 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|