Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/13/2012 08:00 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB343 | |
| SB198 | |
| HB234 | |
| HB255 | |
| HB50 | |
| HB296 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 198 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 343 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 296-ESCAPE/SERVICE ON PRISONERS/MONITORING
10:24:07 AM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 296, "An Act
relating to service of process on prisoners; relating to the
crime of escape; deleting the repeal of a provision relating to
electronic monitoring as a special condition of probation and
parole for offenders whose offense was related to a criminal
street gang; amending Rule 4, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure;
and providing for an effective date." He asked for a motion to
bring the bill before the committee.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI motioned to bring CS for HB 296(JUD) before
the committee.
10:25:13 AM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General representing the
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), introduced HB 296 on
behalf of the sponsor, the House Judiciary Committee. She
explained that the bill addresses an issue that arose in the
court case Bridge v. State. Mr. Bridge walked away from the
unsecured halfway house, Northstar Center, while awaiting trial
on a class B misdemeanor charge. The Alaska Court of Appeals
held that Northstar Center did not qualify as a correctional
center and that the class B felony offense of escape in the
second degree should not apply in that circumstance. HB 296
reflects that decision and provides that a person charged with a
misdemeanor who walks away from a non-secure facility be subject
to prosecution of a misdemeanor offense.
She said the bill defines "secure correctional facility" only
for purposes of the escape law. She noted two other changes.
Section 1 cross references the definition of correctional
facility in Title 33 and clarifies that the superintendent can
deliver process to a person who is incarcerated. Section 4
deletes the repeal of a provision relating to electronic
monitoring of gang members under certain circumstances.
10:29:17 AM
CHAIR FRENCH asked what the bill does to tie the definition of
"correctional facility" under AS 09.05.050 to the definition
under AS 33.30.901.
MS. CARPENETTI replied it's strictly for civil process; it
clarifies that a superintendent of a jail can accept service and
deliver it to an inmate.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if prisoners in Alaska are housed in
facilities other than prisons, jails, halfway houses, and by
electronic monitoring.
MS. CARPENETI deferred to Ms. Gutierrez.
10:31:17 AM
CARMEN GUTIERREZ, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), confirmed that those were the forms of detention and that
the bill addresses prisons and jails.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that the bill clarifies that it's a class
B felony to escape from a prison or jail while under official
detention for a misdemeanor.
MS. GUTIERREZ confirmed that under this provision a misdemeanant
escaping from a secure correctional facility would be prosecuted
for a class B felony offense. A felon residing in a community
residential center who walks away will be prosecuted for a class
C felony offense. She explained that the bill intends to align
the statutory language with Bridge v. State; a misdemeanant
offender who walks away from a community residential center will
be prosecuted as a class A misdemeanor.
10:33:36 AM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Carpeneti to repeat the explanation of
repealing the repealer in Section 4.
MS. CARPENETTI explained that legislation was enacted in 2007 to
allow electronic monitoring of gang members under certain
circumstances. That bill had a self-enforcing repealer section
dated 12/31/2012. The assumption is that the repealer is being
repealed because that method of control has been helpful.
10:35:07 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reported that that was his bill and the
repealer was added to provide an opportunity to test the method.
He said he was pleased that it was being put back in.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what the Department of Correction's
experience has been with electronic monitoring of gang members.
MS. GUTIERREZ replied it has been a beneficial tool.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the committee should be aware of any
particular instance of a gang member on electronic monitoring.
MS. GUTIERREZ said no; DOC uses electronic monitoring as an
added control method of monitoring gang members who have been
released on probation after having served their sentence.
10:36:18 AM
DOUGLAS MOODY, Attorney, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration (DOA), offered to answer questions.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if HB 296 fixes the problems that arose in
Bridge v. State.
MR. MOODY said yes; it aligns the current statutory scheme with
the decision.
10:37:16 AM
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and asked the will of the
committee.
10:37:20 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report CS for HB 296 from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, CSHB 296(JUD)
moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|