Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/03/2017 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB54 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 3, 2017
9:19 a.m.
9:19:10 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Anna MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:19 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Juli Lucky, Staff, Senator Anna MacKinnon; Senator John
Coghill, Sponsor; Jordan Shilling, Staff, Senator John
Coghill; John Skidmore, Criminal Division, Department of
Law.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender Agency, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SB 54 CRIME AND SENTENCING
CSSB 54(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
"no recommendation" and with one new
indeterminate fiscal note from the Department of
Corrections and four previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN1 (DPS), FN2 (LAW), FN3 (DHS),
and FN5 (AJS).
HB 57 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 57 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 59 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 59 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SENATE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to crime and criminal law; relating
to violation of condition of release; relating to sex
trafficking; relating to sentencing; relating to
probation; relating to the pretrial services program;
and providing for an effective date."
9:19:45 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the public hearing had been
taken on the legislation on March 28, 1017.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 54, Work Draft 30-LS0461\N (Martin,
3/31/17).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
9:20:30 AM
JULI LUCKY, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, explained that
the CS incorporated the amendments that were previously
adopted by the committee and could be found in Sections 18
and 19.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OJBEJCTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:21:50 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS0461\N.1
(Martin, 3/31/17)(copy on file).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Hoffman explained that the amendment offered a
compromise between the 90-day and 360-day sentencing
levels.
Co-Chair MacKinnon invited the sponsor to speak to the
amendment.
9:23:04 AM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, relayed that he supported
the amendment. He stated that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission (ACJC) had debated the issue hotly. He hoped
that a sentencing range could be found that held people
accountable for C felonies, and those who should be offered
other diversionary sentencing under a court order. He felt
that the amendment gave significant discretion to judges,
while staying true to the principle of diversion.
9:24:38 AM
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, agreed with
the sponsor and added that the amendment would address the
conflicts with the DUI statute raised by the Department of
Law.
Senator Dunleavy asked about sentencing ranges in other
states.
Mr. Coghill replied that he could not answer the question
at this time.
9:25:25 AM
JOHN SKIDMORE, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
testified that the amendment would address conflict with
the DUI statute in an appropriate manner. He said that the
department was concerned with the amount of discretion that
the amendment would provide to judges. He said that when
looking at the ranges of what other states do for low-level
felonies, Alaska was the lowest in the nation for the
sentencing discretion given to judges. He relayed that with
the amendment the state would still be one of the lowest in
the nation for sentencing discretion. He stressed that the
department respected that the issue was a policy decision
that the legislature had to make but asked that when
setting appropriate policy, the legislature consider the
issues surrounding rehabilitation for substance abuse and
violent crimes.
9:30:05 AM
Senator von Imhof wondered how "low-level offender" related
to "first time offender". She said that the conversation
was about first-time offenders and not low-level offenders.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that when he used the term "low
level" he was referring to the classification of the
offense. He continued that Class C felonies were the lowest
level felony that existed within the state. He explained
that the state's presumptive sentencing scheme began by
saying that a first-time felony offense had a certain
presumption, a second felony had another, and a third or
above had yet another. He reiterated that a first-time
felony offence meant that the person had not had a prior
felony within the past ten years; a first-time felony
offence did not mean that a person did not have a prior
criminal history.
9:32:01 AM
Senator von Imhof stated that second and third felonies had
significant sentencing in accordance with the bill. She
thought it was important to highlight that they discussion
was bout first-time offenders. She understood that most
low-level also meant first-time in most states.
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative. He shared that
when he had reviewed the practice of other states, there
had been 26 that had a range for first-time, low-level
felonies, from zero to 1 year all the way to zero to 20
years. He added that an additional 14 states that required
some jailtime, whether it was a year or six months, up to
14 years. He concluded that most other states provided a
wider discretion for their courts that Alaska currently
did.
9:33:21 AM
Senator von Imhof asked about active jail time and
rehabilitation programs. She wondered why a rehabilitation
program could not last beyond 190 days, especially it the
program was successful. She though that jailtime and rehab
programs should be one in the same.
Mr. Skidmore replied that the authority of the court to
order specific sentencing guidelines was the main question,
and how long the court could order someone to be in a
residential rehabilitation program. He said that if the
committee were to adopt a range of zero to 120 days the
courts would be limited in ordering a defendant to
residential treatment to 120 days. He recommended that the
committee consider the amount of residential treatment that
the court would be authorized to order. He said that if it
were decided to authorize more than 120 days, a presumptive
range for active jailtime of more than 120 days would be
necessary for authorization under Alaska case law.
9:35:18 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman understood that successful rehabilitation
occurred when individuals were willing participants, and
that those that were court ordered had lower success rates.
9:36:05 AM
Senator Dunleavy wondered about judge's sentencing
discretion for more serious violent crimes.
Mr. Skidmore stressed that the Department of Law was not in
support of the amendment. He said that the department
believed that zero to 1 year was the appropriate discretion
that ought to be provided to the courts. He reiterated that
the policy decision before the committee was whether or not
to adopt an active range of zero to 120 days, or zero to 1
year.
9:37:35 AM
Senator Dunleavy understood that under the amendment, 120
days would be the maximum sentence for even more serious
and violent crimes.
Mr. Skidmore replied in the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy understood that a judge would not be able
to go beyond the 120-day cap.
Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative.
9:38:30 AM
Senator Micciche understood that the amendment offered 18
months of potential imprisonment but 120 days of active
imprisonment.
Mr. Skidmore replied in the affirmative.
Senator Micciche clarified that there had been precedence
set that defined residential treatment as imprisonment.
Mr. Skidmore restated that the case was Nygren v. State of
Alaska (1980).
Senator Micciche said that he wanted to help with more
active intervention in drug related crimes.
Mr. Skidmore referred back to an earlier example case, in
which an individual was convicted of theft in the second
degree - a theft of over $1000. He said that there had not
been another conviction made and the original theft had
been determined to be the result of supporting a drug
habit. The offender had violated probation by continuing to
use controlled substances and he had recommended that the
court send them to residential treatment. He said that the
defense had argued that the original offense had been a
Class C felony, which meant that the judge did not have the
authority to impose jailtime or send the offender to
residential treatment.
9:41:14 AM
Senator Micciche wondered whether the Nygern case could
result in a statutory change.
Mr. Skidmore stated that Nygren was an older case and he
could not recall the exact premise upon which it was
decided. He was unsure whether a simple statute alteration
would be able to address the issue.
9:42:35 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop asked whether Mr. Skidmore had an idea of
how long it took an offender to get in to residential
treatment.
Mr. Skidmore relayed that the commission had identified a
need for more treatment programs in the state. He
understood that there was a waiting period to get into
residential treatment programs. He reiterated that the
issue at hand was whether judges should have the authority,
and the next issue would be whether the resources would be
available to serve that authority.
Vice-Chair Bishop pointed out that regardless of whether a
judge had the authority, if there were no resources to
carry out the terms of the sentence then the point was
moot.
9:44:11 AM
Senator von Imhof reiterated concern that there were enough
beds to accommodate court ordered rehab.
Mr. Skidmore could not speak to whether there were enough
beds or not, he shared that he had heard talk that there
were not enough within state. He shared that many
individuals left the state for residential treatment. He
felt that serving those people in-state would be a better
scenario. He stressed the importance of providing within
the law and appropriate framework for judges to act.
9:45:33 AM
Senator von Imhof categorized the 1-year cap as a
bargaining tool for the department and queried whether that
cap would improve recidivism numbers. She wondered whether
120 days was enough of a bargaining tool for the department
to get a fair suite of options to address certain crimes.
She asked where the presumptive range of zero to 18 month
would apply.
Mr. Skidmore responded that 90 to 95 percent of the cases
in the criminal justice system were resolved through plea
negotiations. He said that if the negotiations started with
only probation then that would be taken off the table
during negotiations. He stressed that some incentive had to
be offered in order to negotiate without reducing the
offence from a felony to a misdemeanor. He said that this
reduction would mean the difference between supervised and
unsupervised probation, which was related to offenders
following their terms of probation. He reiterated that it
was a question of what was appropriate for public safety.
9:48:27 AM
Mr. Skidmore said that under the proposed amendment 18
month was the amount of time that could be suspended; the
court could impose a sentence of 18 months with all but 120
days suspended. He furthered that the 120 days would be the
jailtime that a person would serve upfront and the
additional time suspended would be the potential sanctions
that would be imposed for violations of conditions of
probation. The court would not be authorized to impose
additional active jailtime absent a violation of probation
under the amendment.
9:49:26 AM
AT EASE
9:50:21 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Dunleavy queried whether the Office of Victim's
Rights supported the amendment.
Mr. Skidmore replied that he had not spoken to the office
since the amendment had been proposed. He said that in
previous conversations the office had supported the 1-year
cap that was currently found in the legislation.
9:50:55 AM
Senator Micciche assumed that every prosecutor in the state
would attempt to procure the maximum level of incarceration
and that every defense attorney would attempt the lowest
number of days of incarceration.
Mr. Skidmore stated that it would be a mistake to assume
that prosecutors would advocate for the highest amount of
incarceration. He provided two supporting stories. He
stressed that SB 54 was proposing half of the past cap,
when the data reflected that the average of the majority of
past cases was 120 days. He understood that this would seem
to suggest that 120 days was the right number to choose but
he highlighted the 120 days was an average and that the
courts needed to retain discretion to address cases on a
case by case basis.
9:53:44 AM
AT EASE
9:54:06 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon solicited comments on the amendment from
Quinlan Steiner, Director, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration.
QUINLAN STEINER, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), he believed that it was important that the
committee consider that over sentencing lower-level
offenders could cause them to fail at rehabilitation
attempts; the when confronted by the system some
individuals responded negatively. He noted that the
amendment would increase costs and undermine the
availability of treatment for individuals that were not
going to jail. He lamented that one of the biggest
challenged in the state was the availability of treatment
when a person was ready. He said that with the proposal of
120 days, with up to 18 months suspended, up to 18 months
in jail could be imposed for a violation and the more
modest approach in terms of rehabilitation could be taken
at the C Felony conviction, other alternatives could be
available including longer-term treatment. He stated that
the average sentences described by Mr. Skidmore had
resulted in very high recidivism rates. He believed that
the 120 days struck a balance between the community
condemnation angle and maximizing public safety.
9:57:48 AM
Senator Micciche suggested that a first time Class C
offender would be more likely to become a second time Class
C offender than a person who had never committed an
offense.
Mr. Quinlan replied that he did not recall any data that
suggested that the level of a person's first offense would
make a difference in the level of a second offense.
Senator Micciche asked whether the categories of C felonies
should be examined in the future. He wondered whether the
sentencing ranges for C felonies should be split between
crimes that involved weapons from the other C felony
crimes.
Mr. Quinlan stated that the commission had discussed the
concept but did not recall data to substantiate that
differentiating would have any benefit. He said that often
the driving force in most cases was drugs or alcohol. He
thought that further discussion of the issue could be of
interest to the commission.
10:00:54 AM
AT EASE
10:01:03 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Hoffman recapped the various opinions surrounding
the amendment.
Co-Chair Hoffman WITHDREW Amendment 1. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
10:02:35 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop thought that there was room for
improvement in the area of presumptive ranges and the
Nygren Rule. He emphasized the importance of rehabilitation
programs for Class C offenders. He believed that many of
the public safety issues in the state were drug and alcohol
related.
10:04:54 AM
Senator Dunleavy stressed that the issue was not an "exact
science." He expressed appreciation for the work that had
so far been done on the issues surrounding public safety.
10:05:54 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to report CSSB 54(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 54(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with one new indeterminate fiscal note
from the Department of Corrections and four previously
published zero fiscal notes: FN1 (DPS), FN2 (LAW), FN3
(DHS), and FN5 (AJS).
10:06:25 AM
AT EASE
10:09:30 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
10:10:19 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 54 SFC CS Work Draft version N.pdf |
SFIN 4/3/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Amendment 1 Hoffman.pdf |
SFIN 4/3/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| HB 57 Funding for University of Alaska, sustainable energy programs.pdf |
SFIN 4/3/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Public Testimony Muse.pdf |
SFIN 4/3/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 57 |
| SB 57 Carlson Spring Revenue Projections.pdf |
SFIN 4/3/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 57 |
| HB 57 Knudtson education funding.pdf |
SFIN 4/3/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Public Ed Admin Costs and holding classrooms harmless.pdf |
SFIN 4/3/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 57 |