Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120

02/04/2005 01:00 PM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:15:44 PM Start
01:16:23 PM SB56
03:02:01 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Rescheduled from Wed. 2/2/05 --
*+ HB 88 OFFENSES BY MINORS/AGAINST TEACHERS TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Postponed to 2/7>
+= HB 41 ASSAULT ON SCHOOL EMPLOYEES TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Postponed to 2/7>
Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled
+= SB 56 CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE/SENTENCING TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS CSSB 56(JUD) Out of Committee
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                        February 4, 2005                                                                                        
                           1:15 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair                                                                                             
Representative Tom Anderson                                                                                                     
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom                                                                                                  
Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                        
Representative Les Gara                                                                                                         
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 56(JUD)                                                                                                  
"An  Act  relating  to  criminal   law  and  procedure,  criminal                                                               
sentences,  and  probation  and  parole;  and  providing  for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 56(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 88                                                                                                               
"An Act  relating to certain  weapons offenses  involving minors;                                                               
to  aggravating  factors  in   sentencing  for  certain  offenses                                                               
committed  against  a  school  employee;  and  providing  for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 2/7/05                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 41                                                                                                               
"An  Act relating  to  minimum periods  of  imprisonment for  the                                                               
crime  of  assault in  the  fourth  degree committed  against  an                                                               
employee of an  elementary, junior high, or  secondary school who                                                               
was engaged  in the performance of  school duties at the  time of                                                               
the assault."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     - BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 2/7/05                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  56                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE/SENTENCING                                                                                  
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) THERRIAULT                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
01/14/05       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/14/05       (S)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/18/05       (S)       JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
01/18/05       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/18/05       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
01/19/05       (S)       JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
01/19/05       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/19/05       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
01/20/05       (S)       JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
01/20/05       (S)       Moved CSSB  56(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                   
01/20/05       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
01/21/05       (S)       JUD RPT CS  3DP 1NR  SAME TITLE                                                                        
01/21/05       (S)       LETTER OF INTENT WITH JUD REPORT                                                                       
01/21/05       (S)       DP: SEEKINS, HUGGINS, THERRIAULT                                                                       
01/21/05       (S)       NR: FRENCH                                                                                             
01/21/05       (S)       FIN REFERRAL WAIVED                                                                                    
01/26/05       (S)       TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                     
01/26/05       (S)       VERSION: CSSB 56(JUD)                                                                                  
01/28/05       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/28/05       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/28/05       (H)       LETTER OF INTENT                                                                                       
01/31/05       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
01/31/05       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/31/05       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/02/05       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
02/02/05       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/02/05       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/04/05       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
JOSHUA FINK, Public Advocate                                                                                                    
Anchorage Office                                                                                                                
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)                                                                                                 
Department of Administration (DOA)                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Responded to questions during discussion of                                                                
proposed amendments to SB 56.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director                                                                                                   
Central Office                                                                                                                  
Public Defender Agency (PDA)                                                                                                    
Department of Administration (DOA)                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Responded to  questions during discussion of                                                               
proposed amendments to SB 56.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner                                                                                              
Office of the Commissioner - Juneau                                                                                             
Department of Corrections (DOC)                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Responded to  questions during discussion of                                                               
proposed amendments to SB 56.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SUSAN PARKES, Deputy Attorney General                                                                                           
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Office of the Attorney General                                                                                                  
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Responded to  questions during discussion of                                                               
proposed amendments to SB 56.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  LESIL   McGUIRE  called   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                             
Committee  meeting  to  order at  1:15:44  PM.    Representatives                                                             
Dahlstrom,  Gara, Gruenberg,  Anderson,  Kott,  and McGuire  were                                                               
present  at  the  call  to order.    Representative  Coghill  was                                                               
excused.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SB 56 - CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE/SENTENCING                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:16:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the  only order of business would be                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 56(JUD),  "An Act relating to criminal law                                                               
and procedure, criminal sentences,  and probation and parole; and                                                               
providing  for  an  effective  date."   [CSSB  56(JUD)  had  been                                                               
amended twice on 1/31/05, and the  question of whether to adopt a                                                               
proposed Amendment 3 was left pending on 2/2/05.]                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Representative  Gara to withdraw Amendment 3,                                                               
labeled 24-LS0308\L.1, Luckhaupt, 1/28/05, which read:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, lines 10 - 17:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 24, line 4:                                                                                                           
          Delete "Sections 1, 4, 6, 26, and 29 - 31"                                                                            
          Insert "Sections 1, 4, 6, 25, and 28 - 30"                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 24, lines 5 - 6:                                                                                                      
         Delete "Sections 2, 3, 5, 7 - 25, and 27 - 28"                                                                         
         Insert "Sections 2, 3, 5, 7- 24, and 26 - 27"                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 24, line 7:                                                                                                           
          Delete "secs. 8 - 21"                                                                                                 
          Insert "secs. 7 - 20"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:17:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew Amendment 3.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:17:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  made a  motion to  adopt Amendment  4, which                                                               
read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Section 7  of the bill  should be deleted  and replaced                                                                  
     with the following:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                              
        * Sec. 7.   AS 12.55.120 is amended by  adding a new                                                                  
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
      (e) A  sentence within an applicable presumptive range                                                                    
     set out in AS 12.55.125,  or a consecutive or partially                                                                    
     consecutive  sentence imposed  in  accordance with  the                                                                    
     minimum sentences set  out in AS 12.55.127,  may not be                                                                    
     appealed to the court of  appeals under this section or                                                                    
     AS  22.07.020  on  the  ground  that  the  sentence  is                                                                    
     excessive.   However, such a  sentence may  be reviewed                                                                    
     by  the  supreme  court  on  the  grounds  that  it  is                                                                    
     excessive through a petition  filed under rules adopted                                                                    
     by the supreme court.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  explained that  Amendment 4 would  leave the                                                               
current findings provisions  of law as is, and  would provide the                                                               
supreme  court  the  discretion,   through  petition,  to  review                                                               
sentences on the  grounds that they are excessive.   He indicated                                                               
that  if  Amendment  4  is  adopted,  he  would  be  amenable  to                                                               
considering  alternative  language  that  accomplishes  the  same                                                               
things.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:18:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that she  and Representative Gara have been                                                               
working  together with  others on  Amendment 4  and arrived  at a                                                               
proactive approach,  to say that  the supreme court,  rather than                                                               
the court  of appeals, may accept  a petition based on  an appeal                                                               
of excessiveness.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE withdrew her objection.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he had questions.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:19:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  said  that  the  language  in  Amendment  4                                                               
appears to do what  he and Chair McGuire want it  to do, which is                                                               
to  leave the  discretionary  review authority  with the  supreme                                                               
court instead  of with the  court of appeals.   He added  that he                                                               
and Chair McGuire feel that  the Alaska Supreme Court already has                                                               
this  discretionary review  authority,  but if  that court  feels                                                               
that it does not currently  have that authority, Amendment 4 will                                                               
clarify that it does.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG said  he  objects to  Amendment 4,  and                                                               
offered his belief that it  will merely create an additional step                                                               
in the process without changing the outcome of any cases.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked for clarification.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:22:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  that  if what  is  wanted  is  a                                                               
prohibition  against  any  court  reversing  on  the  grounds  of                                                               
excessiveness, such  cannot be done,  because the  Alaska Supreme                                                               
Court, via  a petition  for review, always  has the  authority to                                                               
review sentences.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  pointed out, however, that  she and Representative                                                               
Gara want to ensure that the  Alaska Supreme Court does have that                                                               
authority, that they want what  Representative Gruenberg has just                                                               
described  to occur,  which is  for the  Alaska Supreme  Court to                                                               
accept petitions for  review of sentences that are  claimed to be                                                               
excessive.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  opined  that   Amendment  4  does  not                                                               
accomplish that goal, that it will have the opposite effect.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE disagreed.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:25:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered his  belief that Amendment 4 will                                                               
limit the number of appeals.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG,  after further  review of  Amendment 4,                                                               
concurred  that  it  will  force defendants  to  use  the  Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court petition process.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:27:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA pointed  out that  the Alaska  Supreme Court                                                               
has the  right to review what  the Alaska Court of  Appeals does,                                                               
but does so only  a few times a year.  He  said that ideally what                                                               
he wanted  to do was to  say that the discretionary  review would                                                               
be  done by  the  Alaska  Court of  Appeals  and  not the  Alaska                                                               
Supreme  Court.    However,  according   to  the  [Alaska  State]                                                               
Constitution, the  Alaska Supreme  Court still has  the authority                                                               
to conduct  an additional  review afterward,  and thus  he didn't                                                               
feel that  he could  get consensus from  the committee  to change                                                               
Section  7  as  he  would  prefer; Amendment  4  seeks  to  build                                                               
consensus.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG said  he'd be  more comfortable  having                                                               
the  language in  Section 7  reflect Representative  Gara's ideal                                                               
concept because  it would  be more  efficient, though  they might                                                               
have to amend a court rule.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  said that there  is a concern that  by instituting                                                               
the presumptive  ranges as proposed  via SB 56, the  Alaska Court                                                               
of  Appeals  will  be overrun  with  appeals  regarding  sentence                                                               
length.   She  characterized such  as transforming  the court  of                                                               
appeals into  a sentencing court.   In response to  comments, she                                                               
suggested  that   the  committee   conclude  its   discussion  of                                                               
Amendment 4.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered his  belief that Amendment 4 will                                                               
prevent excessive  appeals, will allow scrutiny  via the petition                                                               
process, and will afford due process.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:32:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote  was taken.   Representatives  Kott, Dahlstrom,                                                               
Gara,  Anderson,  and McGuire  voted  in  favor of  Amendment  4.                                                               
Representative Gruenberg voted against  it.  Therefore, Amendment                                                               
4 was adopted by a vote of 5-1.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:33:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  [made a  motion to adopt]  Amendment 5,                                                               
labeled 24-LS0308\L.5, Luckhaupt, 2/1/05, which read:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 17, line 1, following "behavior":                                                                                     
          Insert ";                                                                                                         
               (17)  the defendant, at the time of                                                                          
     sentencing,  is   actively  participating  in   or  has                                                                
     successfully  completed treatment  that is  relevant to                                                                
     the offense  and that was  begun after the  offense was                                                                
     committed"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that  the concept of Amendment 5                                                               
was suggested by the Office  of Public Advocacy (OPA), to provide                                                               
a mitigating  factor if a  defendant, at the time  of sentencing,                                                               
is  actively  participating  in  or  has  successfully  completed                                                               
treatment relevant to the offense  and that treatment began after                                                               
the offense was committed.   Amendment 5 will encourage people to                                                               
actively   and   in   good  faith   participate   in   treatment.                                                               
Consideration  of this  mitigating factor  will be  optional, not                                                               
mandatory.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON surmised that  the mitigator proposed via                                                               
Amendment  5  won't  ever  be applied  in  situations  where  the                                                               
defendant  is   indigent,  because   treatment  is   costly,  and                                                               
therefore this proposed  mitigator will only be  applied in cases                                                               
where  the  defendant can  afford  to  pay for  treatment  before                                                               
sentencing.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JOSHUA FINK, Public Advocate, Anchorage  Office, Office of Public                                                               
Advocacy (OPA), Department of  Administration (DOA), pointed out,                                                               
however,  that  there  are  a   lot  of  programs  that  indigent                                                               
defendants   can  participate   in   and   thereby  qualify   for                                                               
consideration of this proposed mitigator.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  said he agrees with  Representative Anderson                                                               
in concept, but  supports Amendment 5 nonetheless.   On the issue                                                               
of  treatment, he  offered his  belief that  not enough  is being                                                               
done in  that regard, that a  lot of programs have  suffered as a                                                               
result of  legislative budget cuts, and  characterized this trend                                                               
as  the wrong  way  to go;  if  a person  is  willing to  receive                                                               
treatment,  it shouldn't  matter whether  he/she has  money.   He                                                               
opined  that  [alcoholism/drug  abuse]  is  one  of  the  biggest                                                               
problems the state faces, that it's  one of the reasons there are                                                               
so many prisoners  in state facilities, and that it's  one of the                                                               
reasons for the state's high  incidence of family abuse; "to save                                                               
a couple of  bucks by rolling back treatment  programs for people                                                               
who can't afford them" is the wrong way to go, he reiterated.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:37:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representatives  Gara and Gruenberg                                                               
voted in favor of Amendment  5.  Representatives Kott, Dahlstrom,                                                               
Anderson, and McGuire  voted against it.   Therefore, Amendment 5                                                               
failed by a vote of 2-4.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:38:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  referred to  Amendment  6,  which read  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 17, line 1, following "behavior":                                                                                     
          Insert ";                                                                                                         
               (17) the defendant committed the offense                                                                     
     while suffering  from a mental disorder  or disability,                                                                
     including  fetal alcohol  spectrum  disorder, that  was                                                                
     insufficient  to  constitute  a complete  defense,  but                                                                
     that significantly affected the defendant's conduct"                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE noted  that Amendment 6 proposes  a mitigator based                                                               
on  the  fact that  the  defendant  committed the  offense  while                                                               
suffering from  a mental disorder or  disability, including fetal                                                               
alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD).                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 6.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that  the concept of Amendment                                                               
6 was suggested  by the OPA, and that the  term "mental disorder"                                                               
was  suggested  by  the  Alaska  Mental  Health  Trust  Authority                                                               
(AMHTA).   He remarked  that there  is a  constitutional question                                                               
regarding whether  people suffering from the  conditions referred                                                               
to  in  Amendment  6  can,  constitutionally,  receive  the  same                                                               
punishment  as those  who  do not  suffer  from such  conditions.                                                               
Amendment 6 will  allow the court to consider  such conditions as                                                               
a mitigating factor when determining a sentence.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
LINDA WILSON,  Deputy Director,  Central Office,  Public Defender                                                               
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration  (DOA), in response to                                                               
questions, explained that fetal  alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD)                                                               
is the  term currently used  to describe  what was once  known as                                                               
fetal  alcohol syndrome  (FAS) and  includes a  range of  similar                                                               
diagnoses.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON  used examples  to  point  out that  the                                                               
victim  won't  care  if  the defendant  has  a  mental  disorder.                                                               
Therefore, the question  becomes one of how  much latitude should                                                               
be afforded  to those  who commit  crimes against  a person.   He                                                               
said he would reject amendment 6 for that reason.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:41:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Representative  Gruenberg whether he would be                                                               
amenable  to amending  Amendment  6 to  say,  "the defendant  has                                                               
committed an offense other than an offense under [AS] 11.41".                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said yes.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said, "Or arson."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to  amend to Amendment 6 such that it                                                               
would  contain  the language,  "the  defendant  has committed  an                                                               
offense other than an offense under [AS] 11.41 or arson".                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  suggested   making  the  amendment  to                                                               
Amendment 6 a conceptual amendment.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  indicated that  the question  of whether  to adopt                                                               
Amendment 6, as amended, was before the committee.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his  objection to Amendment 6, as                                                               
amended.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  asked whether there  were any  further objections.                                                               
There being none, Amendment 6, as amended, was adopted.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:42:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  7,                                                               
labeled 24-LS0308\L.4, Luckhaupt, 2/1/04, which read:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, lines 5 - 6:                                                                                                       
          Delete "an employment obligation of the defendant                                                                 
     preexisted sentencing"                                                                                                 
          Insert   "the   defendant    has   an   employment                                                                
     obligation"                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG recalled  that  Sidney K.  Billingslea,                                                               
Alaska  Academy  Of  Trial Lawyers  (AATL),  suggested  that  the                                                               
current  language  should  be   changed  because  the  employment                                                               
obligation  could be  periodic  or  could occur  at  the time  of                                                               
sentencing or afterward, so the  court should have the discretion                                                               
to  allow  periodic sentencing  if  it  determines that  such  is                                                               
necessary.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON objected.   He  opined that  Amendment 7                                                               
will  lead to  uncertainty,  that the  Department of  Corrections                                                               
(DOC) won't  approve of  it, and  that the  legislature shouldn't                                                               
give defendants that much latitude.   He suggested that they keep                                                               
the language in the bill as is.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:45:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posited  that the provision on  page 2, lines                                                               
5-7,  is only  there because  people assume  that the  courts are                                                               
doing something that they're not.   He said that he has a problem                                                               
with the  provision Amendment 7  would change, because  it's very                                                               
rare for the court to allow someone  to leave jail in order to go                                                               
to work.  He  offered his belief that the only  time it's used is                                                               
in situations  where not using it  could cause a family  to go on                                                               
public assistance or become homeless,  and so the courts will let                                                               
someone out  only on very  stringent conditions and with  a third                                                               
party  custodian.   The current  language in  the bill  will take                                                               
away the  court's discretion to  help keep families  together, he                                                               
opined, and  said he would  prefer to just delete  that provision                                                               
of the bill entirely.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:47:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner,  Office of the Commissioner -                                                               
Juneau, Department  of Corrections  (DOC), relayed  that periodic                                                               
sentencing was a  serious problem for the DOC,  but was partially                                                               
fixed via  the 2002 Alaska Court  of Appeals' ruling in  State v.                                                             
Felix.  She  offered an example of an offender  who was booked in                                                             
and out  of jail every weekend  so that he could  work during the                                                               
week.  Periodic sentencing is  very time intensive and requires a                                                               
lot of manpower,  and the court realized this and  so limited its                                                               
use  quite a  bit.    However, there  are  still instances  where                                                               
judges are ignoring  the Felix decision, and the  people they are                                                             
releasing are not being supervised  at all, either by third party                                                               
custodians  or  otherwise.    This  results  in  offenders  being                                                               
treated differently,  and creates  a serious  management problem.                                                               
So even  though periodic  sentences are  only being  imposed 2-10                                                               
times a  year now,  it still creates  public safety  problems and                                                               
puts a burden on the DOC.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:50:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered  his belief that the  language in the                                                               
bill  only affects  those that  are to  be incarcerated  for more                                                               
than  two  years.    He  indicated a  reluctance  to  accept  the                                                               
language  in the  bill just  because  the DOC  is experiencing  a                                                               
management problem;  rather, a determining  factor for  him would                                                               
be whether the  discretion to impose periodic  sentences is being                                                               
significantly abused.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  said she  thought that the  language in  bill that                                                               
Amendment  7 proposes  to change  is merely  codifying the  Felix                                                             
decision.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
1:51:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SUSAN PARKES, Deputy Attorney  General, Criminal Division, Office                                                               
of the  Attorney General,  Department of  Law (DOL),  offered her                                                               
belief that [Section  2] does codify the Felix  decision, but the                                                             
stipulation  that periodic  sentencing be  imposed only  on those                                                               
who've been  sentenced for not more  than two years was  added in                                                               
the Senate.   She  said there  are instances  of [abuse  of] this                                                               
court-ordered  furlough; for  example,  one of  the reasons  used                                                               
recently  was  for  a dental  appointment  because  the  prisoner                                                               
didn't  feel she  was getting  adequate  dental care  in the  DOC                                                               
facility.   Having  the  Felix decision  codified  in statute  as                                                             
currently proposed in  the bill will be very helpful  to both the                                                               
DOC  and the  DOL, she  opined, particularly  given that  it will                                                               
most  likely only  be  applied  to those  convicted  of a  lesser                                                               
crime.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:54:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG argued  that  Amendment  7 attempts  to                                                               
make the  language in the bill  more reasonable in the  few cases                                                               
that periodic sentencing is granted.   He offered his belief that                                                               
the  language   being  added  via   page  2,  lines   5-7,  could                                                               
potentially   create  significant   equal  protection   problems,                                                               
particularly in Bush  areas of the state, because  it will create                                                               
two classes of citizens.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:56:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representatives  Gruenberg and Gara                                                               
voted in favor  of Amendment 7.   Representatives Anderson, Kott,                                                               
Dahlstrom, and McGuire voted against  it.  Therefore, Amendment 7                                                               
failed by a vote of 2-4.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:57:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  [made a  motion to adopt]  Amendment 8,                                                               
labeled 24-LS0308\L.2,  Luckhaupt, 2/1/05,  which, along  with an                                                               
attached reasoning  statement from the PDA  [original punctuation                                                               
provided], read:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 4 - 7:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 24, line 4:                                                                                                           
          Delete "Sections 1, 4, 6, 26, and 29 - 31"                                                                            
          Insert "Sections 3, 5, 25, and 28 - 30"                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Page 24, lines 5 - 6:                                                                                                      
          Delete "Sections 2, 3, 5, 7 - 25, and 27-28"                                                                          
         Insert "Sections 1, 2, 4, 6 - 24, 26, and 27"                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 24, line 7:                                                                                                           
          Delete "secs. 8 - 21"                                                                                                 
          Insert "secs. 7 - 20"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     REASONING:                                                                                                                 
               Section 1 of the bill is unconstitutional                                                                      
     because it  seeks to eliminate the  right to indictment                                                                    
     by  the  grand  jury  of  an  aggravating  factor  that                                                                    
     essentially becomes  an element  of the  crime charged.                                                                    
     Article I,  Section 8 of  the Alaska Constitution:   No                                                                    
     person  shall  be held  to  answer  for a  capital,  or                                                                    
     otherwise infamous  crime, unless  on a  presentment or                                                                    
     indictment of a grand jury.                                                                                                
               In  Blakely  the U.S. Supreme Court required                                                                   
     that its ruling  in Apprendi be applied,  that any fact                                                                  
     that  increases  the penalty  for  a  crime beyond  the                                                                    
     prescribed  statutory maximum  must be  submitted to  a                                                                    
     jury  and  proved  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.    The                                                                    
     prescribed  statutory maximum  is the  maximum a  judge                                                                    
     may impose based  solely on the facts  reflected in the                                                                    
     jury  verdict or  admitted by  the defendant.   Justice                                                                    
     Scalia  in  his  majority opinion  reminded  that  "the                                                                    
     Constitution  limits  States' authority  to  reclassify                                                                    
     elements  as sentencing  factors.."    124 S.Ct.  2531,                                                                    
     2537, fn. 6.   He also reiterated the point  made by J.                                                                    
     Bishop  in  a  treatise  that   "every  fact  which  is                                                                    
     legally essential  to the  punishment" must  be charged                                                                  
     in the  indictment and proved  to the jury.   124 S.Ct.                                                                  
     at  2536,  fn.  5.     Justice  Scalia  criticized  the                                                                    
     challenged practice of  labeling elements as sentencing                                                                    
     factors as  a regime "in  which the defendant,  with no                                                                  
     warning  in  either  his   indictment  or  plea,  would                                                              
     routinely  see his  maximum potential  sentence balloon                                                                    
     from  as  little as  five  years  to  as much  as  life                                                                    
     imprisonment."  124 S.Ct. at 2542.                                                                                         
               In Alaska our Supreme Court in State v.                                                                        
     Malloy, 46 P.3d  949 (Alaska 2002) upheld  the Court of                                                                  
     Appeals' pre-Apprendi  view in  its earlier  opinion in                                                                  
     the  case,  based on  Donlun  v.  State, 527  P.2d  472                                                                  
     (Alaska 1974), that general  principles of fairness and                                                                    
     notice,  grounded in  our constitutional  guarantees of                                                                    
     due process, right to trial  by jury, and the guarantee                                                                  
     of  grand  jury  indictment,  require  that  aggravated                                                                
     circumstances that provide  for increased punishment be                                                                  
     set forth  in the  indictment and  proven at  trial. 46                                                                  
     P.3d  at  952.   The  Supreme  Court stated:    "Donlun                                                                  
     accurately    presaged    Apprendi's    holding    that                                                                  
     aggravating facts  must be charged [in  the indictment]                                                                
     and proved beyond  a reasonable doubt to  the jury when                                                                    
     their  existence would  allow or  require the  court to                                                                    
     impose  a  sentence  exceeding  the  maximum  otherwise                                                                    
     authorized."  46 P.3d at 954.                                                                                              
               Eliminating   the   need    to   present   an                                                                    
     aggravating factor to a  grand jury is unconstitutional                                                                    
     because it violates  a defendant's constitutional right                                                                    
     to  grand jury  indictment for  what is  essentially an                                                                    
     element of the charged offense.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that  Amendment 8 would delete                                                               
Section 1  of the bill  and make conforming changes;  offered his                                                               
belief that Amendment 8 is  constitutionally based; and read from                                                               
two  handouts he  said were  from  the U.S.  Supreme Court  case,                                                               
Blakely v. Washington, and the  Alaska Supreme Court case, Malloy                                                           
v.  State,  to  illustrate  that  every  fact  which  is  legally                                                             
essential to  the punishment  must be  charged in  the indictment                                                               
and proved to a jury, and that  there must be a warning in either                                                               
the indictment or  the plea regarding what  the ultimate sentence                                                               
will be.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG went  on  to note  that  in the  Malloy                                                             
case,  the  Alaska  Supreme  Court case,  Donlun  v.  State,  was                                                             
discussed  and interpreted  to mean  that  Alaska's guarantee  of                                                               
grand jury indictment  derives from Article I, Section  8, of the                                                               
Alaska  State   Constitution  and  requires  that   the  charging                                                               
document specify  the pertinent aggravating factors.   He pointed                                                               
out that  the Malloy  decision recognized,  via the  Donlun case,                                                           
that the  U.S. Supreme Court  case, Apprendi v. New  Jersey, also                                                             
holds that facts  must be charged and proved  beyond a reasonable                                                               
doubt to  the jury  when their existence  would allow  or require                                                               
the court  to impose a  sentence exceeding the  maximum otherwise                                                               
authorized.   In  conclusion, he  offered his  belief that  it is                                                               
constitutionally required  that if [the prosecution]  is going to                                                               
seek an  aggravating factor, that  fact must be presented  to the                                                               
grand jury and be contained in the indictment.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:00:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   ANDERSON   offered    his   understanding   that                                                               
currently,  the   state  gives   the  defense   attorney  notice,                                                               
pretrial, of  aggravating factors.   He  opined that  Amendment 8                                                               
will change things  such that aggravating factors must  go to the                                                               
grand jury, and predicted that the  DOL won't be in favor of such                                                               
a change.   He  offered an example  using AS  12.55.155(d)(22) as                                                               
illustrative of how  Amendment 8 would "harm  the current system"                                                               
because the  prosecution would have  to go before a  second grand                                                               
jury  if  additional  aggravating  factors  are  discovered,  for                                                               
example, 10 days after the  original grand jury indictment.  With                                                               
regard  to the  purpose of  grand  jury indictments,  he read  as                                                               
follows from  the "Notes to Decisions"  - located in Volume  1 of                                                             
the Alaska  Statutes published by the  Alaska Legislative Counsel                                                             
and annotated  and printed by  LexisNexis - regarding  Article I,                                                               
Section 8, of the Alaska State Constitution:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     The purpose served by grand  jury indictment is to give                                                                    
     one accused of a serious  offense the benefit of having                                                                    
     private  citizens judge  whether  there  is a  probable                                                                    
     cause to hold the accused for trial.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON said  he interpreted  this note  to mean                                                               
that if Amendment  8 passes, it would be giving  the grand jury a                                                               
responsibility it was never intended to have.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKES remarked that Representative  Anderson has pointed out                                                               
the  practical problem  with Amendment  8, that  of having  to go                                                               
back  to the  grand  jury every  time  an additional  aggravating                                                               
factor is discovered;  such a requirement would not  result in an                                                               
efficient  use  of  resources.    She  said  she  disagrees  with                                                               
Representative  Gruenberg  that  going  before a  grand  jury  is                                                               
clearly required.   This  is a question  that will  ultimately be                                                               
decided by  the Alaska  Court of Appeals  and the  Alaska Supreme                                                               
Court, she predicted,  and clarified that the  state is currently                                                               
taking aggravators  to grand jury  simply out of an  abundance of                                                               
caution because it  is not clear what judges would  do during the                                                               
interim.   The DOL  does not  believe that  going before  a grand                                                               
jury is  constitutionally required, she relayed,  and pointed out                                                               
that Donlun was  decided before the current  statutory scheme was                                                             
put  into  place.    At  the time  of  Donlun,  crimes  were  not                                                             
differentiated by degrees; there were  only the basic crimes, and                                                               
then  aggravating  factors  were  used to  determine  what  range                                                               
sentences could be.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  PARKES  opined that  Donlun  doesn't  apply to  the  current                                                             
statutory  scheme, and  that Malloy  doesn't  support [the  claim                                                             
that   going    before   the    grand   jury]    is   necessarily                                                               
constitutionally  required.   She pointed  out that  Malloy dealt                                                             
with  aggravating factors  that increased  the mandatory  minimum                                                               
sentences,  and noted  that  the state  prevailed  in that  case,                                                               
which held  that if there is  a range of sentences  and there's a                                                               
minimum sentence, then  the judge has the discretion  to make the                                                               
findings;  thus  Malloy  is distinguishable  from  the  situation                                                             
being discussed.  She said that  it is important to first look at                                                               
the fact  that many states  don't have  a grand jury,  and opined                                                               
that Blakely  won't require such  states to create a  grand jury;                                                               
therefore,  just because  a  state  does have  a  grand jury,  it                                                               
doesn't   logically    follow   that   that   state    would   be                                                               
constitutionally  required   to  indict  on  aggravators.     She                                                               
surmised that each state will be  allowed to make the decision of                                                               
how it wants to use a grand jury if it has one.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKES  said that  the important issue  is whether  notice is                                                               
being  given to  the defendant,  and  the bill  does provide  for                                                               
that.   She offered her belief  that the notice provision  in the                                                               
bill  will  be  found  to  be  constitutional,  and  relayed  her                                                               
preference for having  that issue decided by the courts.   From a                                                               
public policy  point of view,  she opined, having  aggravators go                                                               
to the grand jury doesn't make sense.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:10:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA   asked  where  that  notice   provision  is                                                               
located.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKES  indicated that the  notice provision is  contained in                                                               
Section 21, subsection (f)(2), and says in part:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     written notice of  the intent to establish  a factor in                                                                
     aggravation must  be served on the  defendant and filed                                                                
     with the court                                                                                                         
               (A)  10 days before trial, or at another                                                                     
     time specified by the court;                                                                                           
               (B)  within 48 hours, or at a time specified                                                                 
     by the  court, if  the court  instructs the  jury about                                                                
     the option  to return a  verdict for a  lesser included                                                                
     offense; or                                                                                                            
               (C)  five days before entering a plea that                                                                   
     results  in a  finding  of guilt,  or  at another  time                                                                
     specified by the court.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  offered his belief  that it is  incumbent on                                                               
those  who  are  changing  the  law to  come  up  with  a  proper                                                               
proposal; that to spring an  aggravator on someone 10 days before                                                               
trial is unfair; and that if  the language provides for either 10                                                               
days or  another period of time  specified by the court,  it will                                                               
effectively result in notice being given 10 days prior to trial.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:12:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that  it may always happen that                                                               
a fact becomes  known after the initial indictment  and thus lead                                                               
to another  charge.  This is  not a big deal,  he opined, because                                                               
the grand  jury is already  sitting, and  it is not  uncommon for                                                               
the state  to bring that other  charge to the grand  jury so that                                                               
it can be melded in for the  trial, and the case then proceeds to                                                               
trial.   Such additions  are not much  of a  burden, particularly                                                               
given that the  prosecution has the discretion  to decide whether                                                               
pursuing additional  charges will be  worth the effort.   He then                                                               
referred to a recent memorandum  from the Alaska Judicial Council                                                               
(AJC) -  dated February 3,  2005 - and offered  his understanding                                                               
that  it indicates  that only  2.5 percent  of all  cases involve                                                               
aggravators.  He opined that  Donlun and Blakely are secondary to                                                           
Malloy.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:15:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  read  the following  from  the  Malloy                                                               
decision:                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     This  holding, directly  binding  on  states under  the                                                                    
     Fourteenth  Amendment,  lays  to rest  any  controversy                                                                    
     over the accuracy  of the court of  appeals's view that                                                                    
     Donlun is  grounded on constitutional principles.   The                                                                  
     court  of  appeals's   explanation  of  Donlun's  state                                                                  
     constitutional  roots accords  with Apprendi.   And  as                                                                  
     the  state now  recognizes, Donlun  accurately presaged                                                                  
     Apprendi's  holding  that  aggravating  facts  must  be                                                                  
     charged  and proved  beyond a  reasonable doubt  to the                                                                    
     jury when  their existence would  allow or  require the                                                                    
     court  to  impose  a  sentence  exceeding  the  maximum                                                                    
     otherwise authorized.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  offered his belief that  Section 1 says                                                               
that  an indictment  need not  specify aggravating  factors.   He                                                               
asked Ms.  Parkes whether  the issue  of indictment  is currently                                                               
being appealed by the state.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  PARKES relayed  that  the state  has  petitioned the  Alaska                                                               
Court of Appeals for a ruling on that issue.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he  would be amenable  to altering                                                               
Section 1 of  the bill such that  it is effective if  and only if                                                               
the Alaska  Court of  Appeals or the  Alaska Supreme  Court holds                                                               
that the  indictment is not  constitutionally required;  in other                                                               
words, to put a conditional effective  date on Section 1.  Such a                                                               
change would  deal with both  his concern and  the constitutional                                                               
issue, he opined.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKES  said that her concern  with such a change  is that it                                                               
could be  years before a  ruling comes  forth or that  the Alaska                                                               
Court  of Appeals  could  decide not  to make  a  ruling in  this                                                               
particular case;  therefore, the legislature should  go ahead and                                                               
make the call on this issue.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG, in  conclusion, reiterated  his belief                                                               
that the language in Malloy on this issue is quite clear.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:19:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representatives  Gara and Gruenberg                                                               
voted in favor  of Amendment 8.   Representatives Anderson, Kott,                                                               
Dahlstrom, and McGuire voted against  it.  Therefore, Amendment 8                                                               
failed by a vote of 2-4.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA made  a  motion to  adopt  Amendment 8A,  to                                                               
change, on page 17, line 26, "10"  to "30".  This would result in                                                               
written notice of  aggravating factors being given  30 days prior                                                               
to trial.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:21:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  PARKES   asked  for  clarification  regarding   whether  the                                                               
language  "or  at another  time  specified  by the  court"  would                                                               
remain in  Section 21.   She  said the DOL's  concern is  that it                                                               
doesn't want  to be precluded from  being able to give  notice of                                                               
facts that are  discovered late.  Noting that the  DOL had picked                                                               
10 days because "that's currently  how it is prior to sentencing,                                                               
she offered  her belief that  giving notice 30 days  before trial                                                               
would not be an  unreasonable requirement; however, she remarked,                                                               
20 days would probably be a good middle point.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  asked Representative Gara whether  he would accept                                                               
that as friendly amendment to Amendment 8A.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said  he would not, adding  that he considers                                                               
30 days to be fair amount of notice.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA,  in response to questions,  pointed out that                                                               
in any trial,  the prosecution is allowed to charge  a person, in                                                               
good  faith,   with  a  crime  without   necessarily  having  any                                                               
objective  evidence  that  the  person  actually  committed  that                                                               
crime; the  prosecutor might  believe that  he/she can  prove the                                                               
person  committed the  crime or  that the  person did  commit the                                                               
crime, but  may not have  any documentary evidence  or testimony.                                                               
So a  person being  charged with a  crime won't  necessarily know                                                               
that an aggravating factor will be brought forth.  He remarked:                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     We  often  approach  these   criminal  bills  from  the                                                                    
     perspective  of the  defendants who  are trying  to get                                                                    
     away with  things that they did  that are bad.   And my                                                                    
     experience as a  criminal attorney is that  most of the                                                                    
     cases  where I  defended people  - and  I didn't  do it                                                                    
     very long,  I did  it for three  months at  the [Public                                                                    
     Defender  Agency] -  was that  most of  the people  who                                                                    
     were charged did  do something wrong, and  [so] ... the                                                                    
     charges made  sense.  I will  also say that in  many of                                                                    
     the cases,  people were charged well  beyond the things                                                                    
     that they did.  ... I remember a woman  who was charged                                                                    
     with kidnapping  who didn't engage in  kidnapping - she                                                                    
     was providing a safe home  for troubled kids. ... There                                                                    
     are  times where  the prosecution  issues charges  that                                                                    
     are overcharges or wrong charges,  and I often ... look                                                                    
     at these  bills with  those cases in  mind. ...  And so                                                                    
     it's  the overcharge  situation  that  ... I'm  worried                                                                    
     about.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:29:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representatives Kott,  Gara, and                                                               
Gruenberg  voted  in  favor of  Amendment  8A.    Representatives                                                               
Dahlstrom, Anderson,  and McGuire  voted against it.   Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 8A failed by a vote of 3-3.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:29:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion  to adopt Amendment 8B, to                                                               
change, on page 17, line 26, "10" to "20".                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  asked Ms.  Parkes  to  elaborate on  her  earlier                                                               
comment  regarding why  the DOL  originally decided  on a  10-day                                                               
notice provision.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  PARKES said  that currently  under the  system that  Blakely                                                             
says is  unconstitutional, notice  of either  aggravating factors                                                               
or mitigating factors must be given 10 days prior to sentencing.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA   offered  his   belief,  however,   that  a                                                               
sentencing hearing  is much easier  to prepare for than  a trial,                                                               
and that  judges are  more lenient  with regard  to the  kinds of                                                               
evidence that  can be presented  at a sentencing hearing;  thus a                                                               
10-day notice provision would not be suitable for a trial.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:32:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote  was taken.   Representatives  Kott, Dahlstrom,                                                               
Gara,  Gruenberg, and  McGuire voted  in favor  of Amendment  8B.                                                               
Representative Anderson  voted against it.   Therefore, Amendment                                                               
8B was adopted by a vote of 5-1.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE  said she  supports Amendment  8B because  the PDA,                                                               
much like  the DOL, is  overburdened and understaffed, and  it is                                                               
incumbent upon [the state] to give people a fair trial.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:33:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 9, labeled 24-                                                                   
LS0308\L.3, Luckhaupt, 2/1/05, which, along with an attached                                                                    
reasoning statement from the PDA [original punctuation                                                                          
provided], read:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 19, lines 11 - 30:                                                                                                    
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 23, lines 19 - 31:                                                                                                    
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 24, line 4:                                                                                                           
          Delete "Sections 1, 4, 6, 26, and 29 - 31"                                                                            
          Insert "Sections 1, 4, 6, and 28"                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 24, lines 5 - 6:                                                                                                      
         Delete "Sections 2, 3, 5, 7 - 25, and 27 - 28"                                                                         
         Insert "Sections 2, 3, 5, 7 - 25, 26, and 27"                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     REASONING:                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
               These sections of the bill seek to allow                                                                         
     police officers  to detain and arrest  probationers and                                                                    
     parolees,  without  being  directed  to do  so  by  the                                                                    
     supervising  probation or  parole  officer, based  upon                                                                    
     their  reasonable   suspicion  or  probable   cause  to                                                                    
     believe that  they have recently violated  or are about                                                                    
     to  violate a  condition  of probation  or parole  even                                                                    
     though the believed violation is  not a crime in and of                                                                    
     itself, or  one that creates an  imminent public danger                                                                    
     or threatens serious harm to persons or property.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
               Article I, Section 14 of our state                                                                               
     constitution  protects  against  unreasonable  searches                                                                    
     and  seizures.   Article  I,  Section  22 protects  our                                                                    
     right to  privacy.   In Roman v.  State, 570  P.2d 1235                                                                  
     (Alaska 1977)  our Supreme  Court held  as a  matter of                                                                    
     Alaska  Constitutional law  that prisoners  released on                                                                    
     parole  have the  same  protections against  government                                                                    
     searches and  seizures as  other citizens,  except when                                                                    
     reasonably   conducted   searches  and   seizures   are                                                                    
     performed  by  probation/parole   officers,  or  police                                                                    
     officers   acting   under    the   direction   of   the                                                                    
     probation/parole officer.   This  constitutional ruling                                                                    
     was  codified in  AS  33.16.150(b)(3)  that requires  a                                                                    
     parolee to  submit to reasonable searches  and seizures                                                                    
     by a  parole officer or  a police officer  acting under                                                                    
     the direction of a parole officer.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
               It would therefore be unconstitutional to                                                                        
     allow  a   police  officer  to   detain  or   arrest  a                                                                    
     parolee/probationer for  a believed violation  that did                                                                    
     not constitute  an independent crime or  if the officer                                                                    
     is not acting at  the direction of the probation/parole                                                                    
     officer.   That is exactly  what these sections  of the                                                                    
     bill seek to do, rendering them unconstitutional.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that  Amendment 9 would delete                                                               
Sections  26  and 30-31,  and  make  conforming changes.    These                                                               
sections   would   allow   a   police   officer   to   arrest   a                                                               
probationer/parolee  on  the  basis  of   probable  cause  -  for                                                               
violating  a  condition  of   probation/parole  -  without  first                                                               
getting   authorization   from  the   person's   probation/parole                                                               
officer.  He recalled testimony  from the PDA indicating that the                                                               
1977 Alaska Supreme  Court case, Roman v. State, says  that it is                                                             
constitutionally    required   that    prisoners   released    on                                                               
probation/parole have the  same protection against [unreasonable]                                                               
searches and seizures as other citizens.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 9.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:36:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  WILSON,  responding to  a  question,  reminded members  that                                                               
Sections 26 and 30-31  were included in SB 56 as  a result of the                                                               
2004 Alaska Court of Appeals case, Reichel v. State.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA sought  clarification that  Sections 26  and                                                               
30-31 propose to  give police officers the  same authority, using                                                               
the  same  standards,  to   detain  probationers/parolees  as  is                                                               
currently held only by probation/parole officers.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  concurred, reiterating that there  is a                                                               
constitutionally based argument  regarding whether such authority                                                               
can be given to police officers.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:37:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. WILSON concurred  as well, noting that an  exception has been                                                               
carved out  for probation/parole officers,  but opined  that that                                                               
exception  does not  extend to  police  officers; instead  police                                                               
officers  can only  detain and  arrest  a probationer/parolee  if                                                               
they  do it  at the  direction of  the person's  probation/parole                                                               
officer.   Thus  the argument  is that  granting police  officers                                                               
such authority runs afoul of the constitution.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:38:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE recalled that there  has been substantial debate on                                                               
Sections 26 and 30-31 during prior hearings.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT   asked  Ms.   Parkes  to  comment   on  the                                                               
constitutionality issue being raised.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKES relayed  that she has read both the  Roman and Reichel                                                           
cases and recognizes that they  do raise constitutional concerns.                                                               
She also  acknowledged that  there has  been an  exception carved                                                               
out  for   probation/parole  officers  to  be   able  to  enforce                                                               
conditions of  probation/parole that  are not normally  crimes in                                                               
and of  themselves.  Sections  26 and  30-31 would give  a police                                                               
officer  the right  to  detain  a person  based  on a  reasonable                                                               
suspicion  that he/she  is violating  an enumerated  condition of                                                               
probation/parole;  also,  after  detaining  the  person,  if  the                                                               
police officer has  probable cause to suspect that  the person is                                                               
in fact violating a condition,  the police officer can arrest the                                                               
person.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  PARKES  opined that  this  is  not  giving police  the  same                                                               
authority  as probation/parole  officers, since  probation/parole                                                               
officers  can  perform unannounced  searches  and  seizures in  a                                                               
person's home.   She said that the DOL believes  that as a matter                                                               
of  public policy,  the legislature  can, via  statute, create  a                                                               
special relationship,  so to speak,  between police  officers and                                                               
probation/parole  officers,  thus   giving  police  officers  the                                                               
ability  to   assist  in  the  enforcement   of  probation/parole                                                               
conditions, which are presumably in  place to protect the public.                                                               
This  relationship  would not  come  from  the constitution,  she                                                               
remarked,  noting  that  it  doesn't   provide  for  the  current                                                               
exception  regarding   unreasonable  searches  and   seizures  by                                                               
probation/parole officers  either.  She opined  that the adoption                                                               
of Sections 26 and 30-31 would constitute good public policy.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered his  understanding of the Reichel                                                             
case, and opined  that it shouldn't matter that  the defendant in                                                               
that  case  was arrested  by  a  police  officer instead  of  his                                                               
probation  officer.   The language  in the  bill will  set it  in                                                               
stone  that  violations  of probation/parole  conditions  can  be                                                               
dealt  with by  police officers  as well  as by  probation/parole                                                               
officers.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:44:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  relayed  that there  are  concerns  that  certain                                                               
situations  might involve  police harassment,  and remarked  that                                                               
such  situations  should be  avoided.    She indicated  that  the                                                               
legislature wants to give people  the opportunity to succeed, and                                                               
so a  balance must be struck.   She said she  is swayed, however,                                                               
by the  fact that an  exception has  already been carved  out for                                                               
probation/parole  officers,   and  so  she   supports  [retaining                                                               
Sections  26 and  30-31] with  the caveat  that they  stipulate a                                                               
standard of reasonable suspicion.   In other words, she remarked,                                                               
she  does not  want  to  give police  officers  carte blanche  to                                                               
harass probationers/parolees.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:46:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken.  Representative Gruenberg  voted in                                                               
favor  of   Amendment  9.     Representatives   Dahlstrom,  Gara,                                                               
Anderson,  Kott,  and  McGuire  voted  against  it.    Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 9 failed by a vote of 1-5.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:46:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  relayed that  he has possession  of two                                                               
other  amendments  suggested  by  the  PDA,  one  of  which  read                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
       Page 4, line 24 delete "five to eight" and insert                                                                        
     "four to six".                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 2 delete "seven to 11" and insert "six to                                                                     
     eight".                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 10 delete "ten to 14" and insert "nine to                                                                     
     eleven".                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
      Page 5, line 12 delete " 15 to 20" and insert "14 to                                                                      
     16".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 19 delete "one to three" and insert "six                                                                      
     months to two".                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5,  line 21 delete  "two to four" and  insert "one                                                                    
     to three".                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page  5, line  22  delete "four  to  seven" and  insert                                                                    
     "three to five".                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5,  line 24 delete "  six to 10" and  insert "five                                                                    
     to seven".                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6,  line 1 delete  "zero to two" and  insert "zero                                                                    
     to one".                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 2 delete "two  to four" and insert "one to                                                                    
     three".                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line  4 delete "three to five"  and insert "two                                                                    
     to four".                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 7 delete "one  to two" and insert "zero to                                                                    
     two".                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 22 delete  "eight to 12" and insert "seven                                                                    
     to nine".                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line  26 delete "12 to 16" and  insert "nine to                                                                    
     11".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6,  line 28 delete  "15 to  20" and insert  "14 to                                                                    
     16".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6,  line 30 delete  "20 to  30" and insert  "19 to                                                                    
     21".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, lines 1 and 2  delete "25 to 35" and insert "24                                                                    
     to 26".                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7,  line 5  delete "30  to 40"  and insert  "29 to                                                                    
     31".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page  7, line  12  delete "five  to  eight" and  insert                                                                    
     "four to six".                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 16 delete "  10 to 14" and insert "nine to                                                                    
     11".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line  18 delete "12 to 16" and  insert "nine to                                                                    
     11".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7,  line 20 delete  "15 to  20" and insert  "14 to                                                                    
     16".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7,  line 23 delete  "15 to  25" and insert  "14 to                                                                    
     16".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7,  line 26 delete  "20 to  30" and insert  "19 to                                                                    
     21".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, line 1 delete "two  to four" and insert "one to                                                                    
     three".                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, line 4 delete  "five to eight" and insert "four                                                                    
     to six".                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, line  7 delete " 10 to 14"  and insert "nine to                                                                    
     11".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8,  line 9 delete "10  to 14" and insert  "nine to                                                                    
     11".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8,  line 12 delete  "15 to  20" and insert  "14 to                                                                    
     16".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8,  line 20 delete  "one to two" and  insert "zero                                                                    
     to two".                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, line  23 delete " two to five"  and insert "one                                                                    
     to three".                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, line 26 delete "three  to six " and insert "two                                                                    
     to four".                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 8, line  29 delete "three to six"  and insert "two                                                                    
     to four".                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 9, line  1 delete "six to 10" and  insert "five to                                                                    
     seven".                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[First amendment ends.]                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
and the other of which would make the following changes:                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
[Second amendment begins.]                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 24, delete "eight" and insert "seven"                                                                         
     Page 5, line 2, delete "11" and insert "10"                                                                                
     Page 5, line 10, delete "14" and insert "13"                                                                               
     Page 5, line 12, delete "20" and insert "19"                                                                               
     Page 5, line 19, delete "three" and insert "two"                                                                           
     Page 5, line 21, delete "four" and insert "three"                                                                          
     Page 5, line 22, delete "seven" and insert "six"                                                                           
     Page 5, line 24, delete "10" and insert "nine"                                                                             
     Page 6, line 1, delete "two" and insert "one"                                                                              
     Page 6, line 2, delete "four" and insert "three"                                                                           
     Page 6, line 4, delete "five" and insert "four"                                                                            
       Page 6, line 7, delete "two" and insert "one and a                                                                       
     half"                                                                                                                      
     Page 6, line 22, delete "12" and insert "11"                                                                               
     Page 6, line 26, delete "16" and insert "15"                                                                               
     Page 6, line 28, delete "20" and insert "19"                                                                               
     Page 6, line 30, delete "30" and insert "25"                                                                               
     Page 7, line 2, delete "35" and insert "30"                                                                                
     Page 7, line 5, delete "40" and insert "35"                                                                                
     Page 7, line 12, delete "eight" and insert "seven"                                                                         
     Page 7, line 16, delete "14" and insert "13"                                                                               
     Page 7, line 18, delete "16" and insert "15"                                                                               
     Page 7, line 20, delete "20" and insert "19"                                                                               
     Page 7, line 23, delete "25" and insert "20"                                                                               
     Page 7, line 26, delete "30" and insert "25"                                                                               
     Page 8, line 1, delete "four" and insert "three"                                                                           
     Page 8, line 4, delete "eight" and insert "seven"                                                                          
     Page 8, line 7, delete "14" and insert "13"                                                                                
     Page 8, line 9, delete "14" and insert "13"                                                                                
     Page 8, line 12, delete "20" and insert "19"                                                                               
      Page 8, line 20, delete "two" and insert "one and a                                                                       
     half"                                                                                                                      
     Page 8, line 23, delete "five" and insert "four"                                                                           
     Page 8, line 26, delete "six" and insert "five"                                                                            
     Page 8, line 29, delete "six" and insert "five"                                                                            
     Page 9, line 1, delete "10" and insert "nine"                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  the committee  to first  look at                                                               
the aforementioned AJC memorandum,  and offered his understanding                                                               
that  it indicates  that passage  of SB  56 as  currently written                                                               
will result in  those convicted of class  B felonies individually                                                               
receiving  121 more  days of  incarceration, and  will result  in                                                               
those convicted  of class C  felonies individually  receiving 202                                                               
more days  of incarceration.  He  then noted that an  e-mail he's                                                               
received  from Ms.  Parker indicates  that the  average prisoner-                                                               
per-day cost amounts to approximately  $113 per day in 2004-2005,                                                               
and approximately $110  per day in 2005-2006.   Referring back to                                                               
the AJC memorandum,  specifically a chart on page  3, he surmised                                                               
that approximately  287 cases  out of  11,271 cases  will involve                                                               
aggravating  factors,  and  that  the  remaining  cases  will  be                                                               
subject to  the ranges proposed  in SB  56.  This  could possibly                                                               
result in each  of the defendants in those  remaining cases being                                                               
subject   to   the   aforementioned    increases   in   days   of                                                               
incarceration,  thereby incurring  the  aforementioned costs  per                                                               
day for those extended periods of time.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:50:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  gave an  example of how  each amendment                                                               
would alter the proposed sentencing  ranges, and said he would be                                                               
willing to offer  either amendment as Amendment 10  if there were                                                               
support.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON  said  he  objects  to  both  amendments                                                               
because he  thinks they  would be better  addressed in  the House                                                               
Finance  Committee  and because  he  agrees  with the  ranges  as                                                               
currently proposed in the bill.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:54:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  distributed  an   amendment  -  created  by                                                               
Representative  Berkowitz -  that he  said might  allow SB  56 to                                                               
address  a problem  with the  current ethics  law, and  said that                                                               
although he would not be offering  the amendment at this time, he                                                               
wanted members to  consider the language contained in  it so that                                                               
they might discuss it when the  bill is heard on the House floor;                                                               
the amendment read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     AS 11.56.850 is amended to read:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          (a)   A public servant commits the crime of                                                                           
          official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a                                                                       
          benefit or to injure or deprive another person of                                                                     
          a benefit, the public servant                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
               (1)  performs an act relating to the public                                                                      
               servant's office but constituting an                                                                             
               unauthorized exercise of the public                                                                              
               servant's official functions, knowing that                                                                       
               that act is unauthorized; [OR]                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
               (2)  knowingly refrains from performing a                                                                        
               duty which is imposed upon the public                                                                            
          servant by law or is clearly inherent in the                                                                          
               nature of the public servant's office; or                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
               (3)  knowingly takes or withholds official                                                                       
               action in order to affect a matter in which                                                                      
               the public servant has a substantial                                                                             
               interest.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
          (b)  Official misconduct is a class A                                                                                 
          misdemeanor.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     AS 11.81.900 is amended by adding the following:                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          "official action" means a recommendation, decision,                                                                 
          approval, disapproval, vote, or other similar action,                                                               
          including inaction, by a public servant;                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          "substantial    interest"     means    any    sole                                                                    
          proprietorship, partnership, firm, corporation,                                                                       
          trust or other entity through which business for                                                                      
          profit or not for profit is conducted in which                                                                        
          the public servant or the public servant's spouse                                                                     
          is                                                                                                                    
               (1) an officer, director, trustee, partner,                                                                    
          employee, or holds a position of management;                                                                        
               or                                                                                                             
          (2) a holder of stock exceeding $5,000 or 1%                                                                        
               of any business, whichever is less;                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT, turning  the committee's  attention to  the                                                               
letter of intent that the Senate  sent over with SB 56, asked Ms.                                                               
Parkes if  the DOL  has a position  regarding whether  to include                                                               
the language contained in the letter as a section of the bill.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKES said that the DOL  supports the language in the letter                                                               
of intent, and  suggested that the House may wish  to adopt it as                                                               
well.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT  offered his understanding that  the language                                                               
in the letter of intent was going  to be inserted as a section of                                                               
the bill.  He  said he would rather see that  language as part of                                                               
the SB 56.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. PARKES,  noting that the  Senate decided  to use a  letter of                                                               
intent,  acknowledged   that  the   House  might  choose   to  do                                                               
otherwise.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:57:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON opined  that a letter of  intent would be                                                               
sufficient to guide the judicial branch.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that  judges don't see letters of                                                               
intent, and  so having the intent  language in the bill  would at                                                               
least make it part of the uncodified law of the state.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  made a motion to  adopt Amendment [11],                                                               
to put  the language  contained in  the letter  of intent  in the                                                               
bill  as  an  intent  section;   Amendment  [11]  read  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1 line 4 insert a new section 1                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Section1.  Legislative Intent                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     It is  the intent  of the  legislature in  passing this                                                                    
     bill  to  preserve  the  basic  structure  of  Alaska's                                                                    
     presumptive  sentencing system,  which  is designed  to                                                                    
     avoid  disparate   sentences.    With  this   bill  the                                                                    
     legislature  sets out  a sentencing  framework, subject                                                                    
     to  judicial adjustment  for  statutory aggravating  or                                                                    
     mitigating  factors that  are  determined  in a  manner                                                                    
     that is  constitutional under the decision  of the U.S.                                                                    
     Supreme Court  in Blakely v.  Washington.   The single,                                                                    
     definite presumptive  terms set out in  current law can                                                                    
     unduly constrain  the sentencing  process, particularly                                                                    
     under the mandates of Blakely  v. Washington.  Although                                                                    
     the   presumptive   terms   are   being   replaced   by                                                                    
     presumptive ranges, it  is not the intent  of this bill                                                                    
     in doing so  to bring about an overall  increase in the                                                                    
     amount  of active  imprisonment  for felony  sentences.                                                                    
     Rather,  the  bill  is  intended  to  give  judges  the                                                                    
     authority to  impose an  appropriate sentence,  with an                                                                    
     appropriate amount of  probation supervision, by taking                                                                    
     into  account   the  considerations   set  out   in  AS                                                                    
     12.55.005 and 12.55.015.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:58:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  asked whether  the language  is the  same in                                                               
both Amendment [11] and the letter of intent.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it is.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:59:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON  said he  is hesitant to  enshrine intent                                                               
language in statute, and prefers the letter-of-intent format.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out,  however, that letters of intent                                                               
end up  in microphiche files,  and so often  are never seen.   By                                                               
placing  the language  in the  bill  as part  of uncodified  law,                                                               
there is  more likelihood that it  will be noticed and  be easier                                                               
to find.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE removed  her objection,  and  asked whether  there                                                               
were any further  objections to Amendment 11.   There being none,                                                               
Amendment 11 was adopted.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in conclusion, asked  the PDA and the OPA to                                                               
review the  language of Amendment 4  to ensure that it  does what                                                               
the committee intends it to do.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOTT moved  to report  CSSB 56(JUD),  as amended,                                                               
out  of   committee  with  individual  recommendations   and  the                                                               
accompanying fiscal  notes.  There  being no objection,  HCS CSSB                                                               
56(JUD)   was  reported   from  the   House  Judiciary   Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE noted  that Representative  Kott would  be excused                                                               
from the next House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:02:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects