03/11/1996 01:12 PM House JUD

 HB 462 - DRUNK DRIVING:  EVIDENCE AND SENTENCING                            
                                                                               
 Number 2055                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the next item of business was HB462.               
 As sponsor of the bill, he explained that HB 462 did three things.            
 "One, when we passed, as you remember, the DWI felony provisions,             
 one thing that we put in and did not really mean was that we                  
 restricted the court ... to being required to institute the sum               
 total of the suspended sentence if a defendant had failed to take             
 any portion of his ... or her first treatment program,"  he said.             
 He indicated that in those cases, usually some portion of the                 
 suspended sentence was put into effect to get the offender's                  
 attention, with continued attempts made at treatment.  "This bill             
 would restore the court's ability to invoke a portion of the                  
 suspended sentence in that situation but still have the opportunity           
 to take another shot at treatment if it is indicated," he added.              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated the basis for getting into a felony-level           
 prosecution was prior convictions.  He said people frequently came            
 to Alaska with prior convictions elsewhere.  After being arrested             
 here, they were required to go to grand jury in a felony case                 
 within ten days, and it was extremely difficult to get a certified            
 copy of their record to the grand jury in time for that to be                 
 considered.  "What this bill would allow would be to use the print-           
 out, if you will, from the criminal history of that person's state            
 for that evidence at grand jury, which, of course, doesn't find               
 them guilty, it just binds them over for trial," he said, noting              
 that the best evidence of the hard copy certification would still             
 be required at trial.                                                         
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained the bill would also disallow the                    
 requirement for a pre-sentence investigation in some cases.  "This            
 would require that if this were the second felony, that there would           
 be a pre-sentence investigation, as is required under the other               
 statutes now," he said.  He noted that Jerry Shriner from the                 
 Department of Corrections was present to answer questions if                  
 needed.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 2323                                                                   
                                                                               
 ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office,                
 Criminal Division, Department of Law, testified that the department           
 supported HB 462.                                                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to Section 7, page 3, and asked if a            
 sentence had not already been given, whether this act would apply.            
                                                                               
 MS. CARPENETI replied, "I think what this means is that for your              
 third offense within five years, for the felony offense, it has to            
 occur after the effective date of the act."  However, prior                   
 convictions could have occurred before that, she indicated.                   
                                                                               
 Number 2395                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY pointed out there was an amendment in her               
 packet.                                                                       
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that amendments had been offered in other           
 committees, which he, as sponsor, had been asked to entertain.  He            
 had declined.  "I would speak against them when it gets to the                
 floor, as a matter of fact," he said, "because there's been any               
 number of second thoughts in this general area that have come                 
 about."                                                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion that HB 462 move from committee           
 with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.  There             
 being no objection, HB 462 moved from the House Judiciary                     
 Committee.