03/16/2016 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB112 | |
| SB91 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 112 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2016
1:42 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lesil McGuire, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Peter Micciche
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 112
"An Act establishing procedures related to a petition for
adoption of a child in state custody; adding a definition of
'proxy for a formal petition'; amending Rule 6(a), Alaska
Adoption Rules; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure; relating to
controlled substances; relating to probation; relating to
sentencing; establishing a pretrial services program with
pretrial services officers in the Department of Corrections;
relating to permanent fund dividends; relating to electronic
monitoring; relating to penalties for violations of municipal
ordinances; relating to parole; relating to correctional
restitution centers; relating to community work service;
relating to revocation, termination, suspension, cancellation,
or restoration of a driver's license; relating to the
disqualification of persons convicted of certain felony drug
offenses from participation in the food stamp and temporary
assistance programs; relating to the duties of the commissioner
of corrections; amending Rules 6, 32, 32.1, 38, 41, and 43,
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, and repealing Rules 41(d)
and (e), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 112
SHORT TITLE: ADOPTION OF CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
04/16/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/16/15 (S) HSS, JUD
01/25/16 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/25/16 (S) Heard & Held
01/25/16 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
02/22/16 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/22/16 (S) Moved CSSB 112(HSS) Out of Committee
02/22/16 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
02/24/16 (S) HSS RPT CS 1DP 2DNP 2NR NEW TITLE
02/24/16 (S) DP: ELLIS
02/24/16 (S) DNP: KELLY, STOLTZE
02/24/16 (S) NR: STEDMAN, GIESSEL
03/02/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/02/16 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/16/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 91
SHORT TITLE: OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): COGHILL
03/25/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/15 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
04/02/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/15 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/16 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/03/16 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
02/13/16 (S) STA AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/13/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/13/16 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/16 (S) STA AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/18/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/18/16 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/25/16 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/25/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/16 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/16 (S) STA AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/01/16 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/16 (S) STA AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/03/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/03/16 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/16 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/08/16 (S) Moved CSSSSB 91(STA) Out of Committee
03/08/16 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/16 (S) STA AT 5:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/08/16 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/09/16 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 1DNP 1NR 1AM NEW TITLE
03/09/16 (S) DP: COGHILL, MCGUIRE
03/09/16 (S) DNP: STOLTZE
03/09/16 (S) NR: HUGGINS
03/09/16 (S) AM: WIELECHOWSKI
03/09/16 (S) JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE
23
03/09/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/09/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/09/16 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/11/16 (S) JUD AT 2:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/11/16 (S) Heard & Held
03/11/16 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/16/16 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director
Office of Children's Services
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 112 on behalf of the
administration.
KATY LYBRAND, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 112.
RICHARD ALLEN, Director
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 112.
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the discussion of SB 91, presented
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission recommendations 5-11
related to sentencing.
JEFF EDWARDS, Executive Director
Alaska Board of Parole
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 91.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director
Criminal Division
Legal Services Section
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 91.
GREG RAZO, Chair
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the discussion of SB 91, discussed
the reasoning behind the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
sentencing recommendations.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:42:03 PM
VICE CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:42 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Costello, Wielechowski, and Vice Chair
Coghill. Senator McGuire arrived soon thereafter.
SB 112-ADOPTION OF CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY
1:42:42 PM
VICE CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 112. He
noted that this was the first hearing and version P was in the
packets. He listed the individuals who would present the bill
and provide information.
1:43:56 PM
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director, Office of Children's Services (OCS),
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), introduced SB
112 on behalf of the administration. She explained that cases
from the Alaska Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court were
the impetus for the bill. The Alaska Supreme Court cases were
Tununak I and Tununak II involving a non-Native, non-relative
foster family seeking to adopt a Native child and the child's
biological grandmother who was also trying to adopt her. At the
same time, the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a similar case
termed Baby Girl Veronica. It was a contested adoption from
South Carolina between a non-Native, non-family member foster
family and the biological father. The U.S. Supreme Court was
first to rule and said a formal petition had to be filed for an
individual to be recognized as a potential adoptive placement.
In the Tunanak case, the grandmother on more than one occasion
had voiced interest in adopting her grandchild, but she didn't
file a petition. It wasn't a requirement at the time. But the
foster family had filed a petition and the Alaska Supreme Court
decided in favor of the foster family. While that decision
followed the rule of the land, it virtually disregarded the
federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that lays out adoption
placement preferences starting with relatives, followed by other
tribal members.
To address the procedural impediment of filing a petition, the
notion of a proxy was created. A family member of a child
subject to ICWA could use the proxy to articulate, in any form
available, their interest in the immediate permanent placement
of the relative child. The proxy would serve as a placeholder to
preserve and apply the adoption preferences under ICWA. It does
not discount the ability of anyone else to also file a petition
for the court to consider. The Office of Children's Services
(OCS) would then move through the typical process for Child in
Need of Aid matters. OCS would make a recommendation about the
placement and the court eventually would make the ruling. If a
competing adoption petition were filed, both would be held in
abeyance until the CINA case was ripe for an adoption
determination.
MS. LAWTON highlighted the amendments to the bill that allow the
idea of one judge one family under one roof. These provisions
require that all the filings for an adoption proceeding, a
guardianship proceeding, or a civil custody proceeding that is
also connected to a Child in Need of Aid matter or a dependent
of the state matter, must occur under the CINA proceeding.
Typically, this is the same judge from the beginning to the end
of the case. These petitions currently are heard in different
courts and OCS believes this change would be beneficial for all
families in Alaska. It will streamline the workload, reduce
barriers for families, and create efficiencies so decisions
could be made more quickly and allow more children to exit
foster care in a more timely fashion. Under the current
procedure, a judge who is hearing a CINA matter is reluctant to
release custody until the civil custody matter is resolved, and
the civil custody judge often is reticent to make a ruling
without first knowing which parent is most appropriate in the
CINA case. She noted that provisions in the bill do allow a
departure from the one judge one court notion if all the parties
agree. This would accommodate parties that live in different
judicial districts and can agree on the jurisdiction in which
the adoption and final hearing would occur.
MS. LAWTON reported that OCS has worked with its partners at the
Public Defender Agency, the Office of Public Advocacy, the Court
System, and private adoption attorneys trying to make this
workable for everyone.
1:52:05 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if anyone could use a proxy, not just the
biological family or relative.
MS. LAWTON replied the proxy is available to those individuals,
Native or non-Native, who are related to the Indian or Alaska
Native child, a tribal member of the child's tribe or the tribe
to which the child is eligible to enroll, or a member of the
tribe to which the parent is enrolled. The proxy is not
available to someone who is a non-related entity such as a
family friend or foster family. Those individuals would need to
file a petition.
CHAIR COSTELLO asked how the proxy is documented, and if
preference is given to the party that first files the proxy or
petition.
MS. LAWTON acknowledged that OCS still has work to do on the
specifics, but when someone says they want to use a proxy for
immediate and permanent placement of the child, the caseworker
will need to create a report on permanency that is provided to
the court. OCS will be conveying in writing through that report
that the individual initiated the use of the proxy and stated
their intent. OCS then goes through its evaluation process and
reports that to the court. The department doesn't envision the
need to fill out a form initially, but that does not negate the
need to file a petition eventually if the individual or family
is selected. The petition is a legal document and is part of the
process.
She deferred to Ms. Lybrand to respond to the second question.
CHAIR COSTELLO restated the question asking if preference is
given to the person who files the first proxy or petition.
1:55:10 PM
KATY LYBRAND, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law, answered no, that is just a placeholder.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked if someone could articulate their proxy
if they live in a different jurisdiction than the CINA case.
MS. LAWSON said yes, provided they're related to the child.
Responding to a further question, she confirmed that the work
would then be done in the jurisdiction of the CINA matter.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked if any other state has used a proxy
like this.
MS. LAWTON said she wasn't aware of any.
MS. LYBRAND said she wasn't aware of any states that have
enacted similar legislation, but the Baby Girl Veronica ruling
only came out in 2013.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL offered his understanding of the way that
ICWA works in Alaska and commented that it makes Alaska very
unique.
1:58:18 PM
RICK ALLEN, Director, Office of Public Advocacy (OPA), said OPA
supports SB 112 as it will add efficiency to the system. He
expressed appreciation for the work that OCS and DOL did in
communicating and taking OPA's suggestions into account.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if he sees any opportunity for abuse. For
example, an OCS worker might assert a proxy was requested when
it wasn't.
MS. LAWTON said she doesn't envision that scenario. The proxy
request is for immediate placement so the caseworker would be
required to go evaluate the person, which includes a background
check. That information is compiled into the permanency report
that is given to the court.
2:01:12 PM
VICE CHAIR COGHILL stated he would hold SB 112 in committee for
future consideration.
2:01:21 PM
At ease
2:06:17 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE reconvened the meeting and asked for a motion to
adopt the work draft CS for SB 112.
2:06:31 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to adopt the CS for SB 112, labeled 29-
GS1262\P, as the working document.
CHAIR MCGUIRE found no objection and version P was adopted as
the working document. She held SB 112 in committee.
SB 91-OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS
2:07:01 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SSSB 91. She noted
the discussion today would relate to sentencing.
SENATOR COGHILL said that today his staff would present the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission recommendations 5-11 related
to sentencing for: misdemeanors, controlled substances, felony
theft threshold, presumptive ranges, discretionary
parole/administrative parole, geriatric parole, and sex offender
treatment. He committed Mr. Shilling to visit members' offices
to address any concerns or misunderstandings with the bill.
CHAIR MCGUIRE suggested interest groups contact Mr. Shilling and
her staff, Dianne Blumer, directly to express concerns or ask
clarifying questions about the bill.
2:09:32 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senator John Coghill, sponsor of SB 91,
presented the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission recommendations
5 - 11 related to sentencing.
Recommendation 5: Limit the use of prison for lower-level
misdemeanor offenders.
He highlighted that the vast majority of admissions to prison
are misdemeanants who have committed nonviolent crimes. To stem
this flow to prison, the commission recommended a variety of
changes to misdemeanor sentencing. He described a few
recommendations and noted that others are found in the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission report.
· Reduce low-level class B misdemeanors to violations.
· Change the way driving while license suspended ("DWLS")
offenses are addressed to differentiate between a
revocation for driving under the influence ("DUI") and a
revocation related to points or insurance.
· Reducing disorderly conduct to a maximum 24-hour hold.
· Mandatory electronic monitoring for first-time DUI
offenders.
· A new presumptive range of 0-30 days for class A
misdemeanors, but allowing the courts to go outside that
range upon proof of aggravators. These include very serious
conduct or past criminal convictions.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that the consideration of aggravators
would be a new concept for misdemeanor sentencing.
Recommendation 6: Revise drug penalties to focus the most severe
punishments on higher-level drug offenders.
MR. SHILLING said that post-conviction admissions to prison for
drug offenses have grown by 35 percent over the past 10 years.
Length of stay has also increased despite research that says
this does not reduce recidivism. Some of the research the
commission relied on shows that the chances of a typical street-
level drug transaction being detected are about 1 in 15,000.
This demonstrates the limited deterrent value in lengthier
sentences for these non-violent drug offenses. Research also
shows that severe punishment for drug offenders specifically can
have criminogenic effects.
The commission recommended revising drug penalties to focus the
most severe punishments on higher-level drug offenders. Existing
law does not differentiate between a low-level drug dealer and a
high-level drug trafficker. For several substances the penalty
is the same for drug dealing in any amount and any weight.
SB 91 creates a tiered commercial drug statute where offenses
involving more than 2.5 grams of heroin, methamphetamine, and
cocaine would be a more serious felony, whereas under 2.5 grams
would be a lower-level felony.
MR. SHILLING noted the growth in drug offenders entering prison
and suggested the state might consider redirecting some of the
money spent on prison beds to things that work like substance
abuse treatment.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if the bill provides for that.
MR. SHILLING replied the bill currently contains no reinvestment
language, but it's something the committee could consider before
it moves to Senate Finance.
SENATOR COGHILL related that he is working on reinvestment
language to bring to the committee.
2:15:12 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE expressed her desire for the bill to leave the
committee with reinvestment language.
Recommendation 7: Utilize inflation-adjusted property
thresholds.
MR. SHILLING said the felony property offense threshold, which
was originally set at $500 in 1978, was raised to $750 in 2014.
If inflation were factored in, the equivalent value would be
about $1800. In the last decade 23 states have raised their
felony thresholds and research shows that has not had a negative
impact on property crime rates. In fact, property crime and
larceny rates fell slightly more in the 23 states that adjusted
their thresholds compared to the 27 states that did not.
2:17:42 PM
Recommendation 8. Align non-sex felony presumptive ranges with
prior presumptive terms.
MR. SHILLING said the research demonstrates that increased
sentence lengths do not translate to reduced recidivism rates.
In response to the 2005 Blakely vs. Washington ruling, Alaska
moved from a presumptive term system to a presumptive range
system. In designing the new ranges, the legislature used the
former presumptive term as the floor of the new presumptive
range. Despite legislative intent to not increase sentence
lengths, they had nowhere to go but up. Class A felonies have
grown 80 percent, class B felonies 8 percent, and class C
felonies 17 percent. The research says this is not an effective
intervention and it clearly is not leading to the desired
outcomes.
SENATOR COGHILL highlighted that SB 91 provides that the current
floor would become the mid of the new range.
2:19:49 PM
Recommendation 9. Expand and streamline the use of discretionary
parole.
MR. SHILLING said the first part of this recommendation expands
the eligibility for discretionary parole to all offenders except
class A or unclassified sex offenders with prior felony
convictions. SB 91 makes eligible those mid-level felony
offenders who currently are not eligible for discretionary
parole. He noted that the bill also expands the eligibility for
discretionary parole to certain sex offenders that are not
repeat sex offenders.
2:20:32 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if the commission analyzed why only the high
and low felony categories were targeted for discretionary
parole, but not the midlevel.
MR. SHILLING said he didn't know the history.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if the bill addresses expanding the
Parole Board since their work would expand.
MR. SHILLING said he believes the Department of Corrections'
fiscal note allocates resources to the board to accommodate the
additional hearings.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that the commission recommended structural
changes to probation and parole, and that will change the
workload.
CHAIR MCGUIRE described a proposal she intends to offer to
implement a three judge panel to alleviate constitutional
concerns about expungement in certain categories. She
acknowledged this would add some work for the Parole Board.
SENATOR COGHILL said he's open to that discussion.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said there's been concern that only the elite have
access to the notion of pardoning when there may be other cases
that are more ripe for consideration of expungement.
2:23:54 PM
MR. SHILLING continued the discussion of Recommendation 9. The
commission discussed how to address sex offenders and decided to
leave it to the discretion of the Parole Board rather than shift
all sex offender sentences down.
CHAIR MCGUIRE commented that this is a category of offender that
is a real challenge in rehabilitation.
MR. SHILLING said the second aspect of the recommendation does
away with the application process for discretionary parole.
Instead, immediately upon reaching eligibility, the board will
have a hearing for the individual. This addresses the perplexing
problem of the many inmates who are eligible for a discretionary
parole hearing but don't apply.
The final piece of the recommendation is to establish an
administrative parole provision that presumptively grants parole
to first time class B and class C felons by restricting hearings
to those who have not complied with their case plan, haven't
obeyed the rules of the institution, or in cases where the
victim requests a hearing. Otherwise, the inmate would be
paroled at the earliest eligibility rate, which currently is at
the one-fourth point of the sentence. That was selected because
it's generally the same time someone becomes eligible for
discretionary parole.
2:26:43 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what percentage of inmates that apply
for parole are actually granted paroled.
MR. SHILLING offered to follow up with the information.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there will be a disparity in
treatment based on eligibility before and after the effective
date of the bill.
MR. SHILLING said the discretionary parole policy is not
retroactive; it will apply only to sentences that occur on or
after the effective date.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if someone who is arrested prior to
June 1 would go under the new parole guidelines.
MR. SHILLING said it's more about when the sentencing occurs.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if parole would be applied
differently for someone sentenced May 31 versus someone
sentenced June 2.
MR. SHILLING deferred to the executive director of the Parole
Board.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI restated the question.
2:30:08 PM
JEFF EDWARDS, Executive Director, Parole Board, said his
instinct is that those sentenced on or after the effective date
would be affected, but it should be explored with the Department
of Law.
SENATOR COGHILL said he's generally reluctant to make a law
retroactive.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the same question of potential
disparity could apply when some crimes change from a misdemeanor
to a violation.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Mr. Skidmore to comment.
2:31:57 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law,
said the question about parole is addressed on page 89, line 12.
Subsection (j) provides that it is the date the individual is
eligible for parole that will control whether the provisions of
this bill apply, not the time they committed the offense or were
sentenced. Addressing the second question, he said he didn't
believe the intent was to make those violations retroactive. He
noted that only class B misdemeanors are being decriminalized,
and between now and when the bill is enacted in July there would
be very few class B misdemeanants to which this would apply.
2:33:58 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked what the recidivism rate is for parolees.
MR. SHILLING offered to provide the information. He continued
the presentation.
2:34:22 PM
Recommendation 10: Implement a specialty parole option for long-
term, geriatric inmates.
MR. SHILLING said the commission recommended a special type of
discretionary parole for geriatric offenders who have served at
least 10 years of their sentence. This group of offenders is
growing faster than any other, largely because of the increased
sentence lengths. He noted that Alaska doesn't have special
parole options for this cohort even though the data shows they
are least likely to recidivate. Nationwide data shows they cost
2-3 times more than the average inmate, largely due to higher
health care costs. The commission recommended discretionary
geriatric parole for inmates 55 years of age who have served at
least 10 years of their sentence. The State Affairs Committee
increased the threshold to 60 years.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI requested information on the magnitude of
the crimes committed by geriatric inmates.
MR. SHILLING said the most recent statistics he'd seen indicate
that over the age of 60, the most common offense is DUI. He
agreed to provide the information.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked the dollar amount that Alaska pays for
health care for geriatric inmates.
MR. SHILLING said the commission looked at nationwide research,
but he would ask the Department of Corrections (DOC) if they can
measure those costs.
2:37:05 PM
Recommendation 11. Incentivize completion of treatment for sex
offenders with an earned time policy.
MR. SHILLING said the commission recommended implementing an
earned credit, whereby offenders would be able to earn up to
one-third off their sentence if they complete in-prison sex
offender treatment. He reviewed the program DOC currently offers
and noted that evidence demonstrates that sex offender treatment
is successful and the recidivism rate is the lowest of any
cohort of offender. Also, cost-benefit analyses from other
states show that there is a high return on money spend on sex
offender treatment.
SENATOR COGHILL indicated he was open to discussion about
whether or not one-third was the right number for earned credit.
He explained that part of the reinvestment is to ensure that
beds are available so that sex offender treatment can be moved
back inside DOC. The Parole Board will then be able to do a
fairly good risk assessment. Providing an incentive to complete
sex offender treatment was also discussed.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Mr. Skidmore if he had additional testimony.
2:40:46 PM
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the Department of Law is very
supportive of several of the recommendations of the commission
that are embodied in SB 91. He listed the carrot and stick
approach as it relates to probation and parole, rewards for
inmates who complete sex offender treatment, and the concept
that prisons should be reserved for those truly in need of
incarceration. He agreed that it's an appropriate policy to
suggest judges limit sentences imposed on certain misdemeanors,
and suggested that some technical adjustments are needed.
In Section 70, he discussed the unintended consequences of
requiring the term to be more than 30 days instead of 30 days or
more. He pointed out that subparagraph (B) is consistent with
the U.S. Supreme Court case, Blakely vs. Washington, but the
exception in subparagraph (C) doesn't fall within the
constraints of that case. He speculated that the exception in
subparagraph (D) was carved out because assault in the fourth
degree is likely to bring sentences of greater than 30 days,
even on a first offense.
MR. SKIDMORE noted that Section 71 amends the maximum sentence
for class B misdemeanors from 90 days to 10 days, which is
consistent with the commission recommendation to try to limit
incarceration to those cases where it is most needed.
2:52:40 PM
SENATOR COGHILL indicated his staff would work with Mr.
Skidmore.
MR. SKIDMORE pointed out a potential drafting error in Section
72, paragraph (l), page 45, lines 4-8. That subsection specifies
theft in the fourth degree which is appropriate, but subsections
(m) through (q) separate felonies and misdemeanors. As currently
drafted, it says that even if those various offenses are
felonies, the first and second offenses should result in no jail
time. If that's not what was intended, it's important to specify
the subsection within each of those statutes that specifically
addresses misdemeanors.
2:56:59 PM
MR. SKIDMORE discussed geriatric parole and pointed out that it
will only apply to class A felonies. It won't apply to
misdemeanors, class C felonies that don't have a maximum of more
than 10 years, and class B felonies that don't have a maximum of
more than 10 years. It also would not apply to unclassified
felonies and sex felonies.
He said the bill reduces simple possession of a controlled
substance to a misdemeanor, regardless of the schedule or amount
in possession. If it is found that there is an intent to
distribute, it could be a felony. The bill also combines
misconduct involving a controlled substance in the second degree
with misconduct involving a controlled substance in the third
degree. Schedule IA is grouped with Schedule II and Schedule III
A and there is a differentiation of the weight. Above 2.5 grams
is a class B felony and below that would be a class C felony.
Despite other considerations, that is what the commission
recommended.
MR. SKIDMORE concluded that the Department of Law is overall
supportive of the goals of SB 91.
3:04:35 PM
GREG RAZO, Chair, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, discussed
the commission's thought process for each of the sentencing
recommendations. He explained that the commission made a
conscious decision to put aside preconceived beliefs and focus
on the data and research. The debate on each issue was lengthy
and the commission ultimately came to a full consensus. The
transmittal letter for the report shows that every commissioner
signed off on every recommendations.
The first sentencing recommendation was to limit the use of
prison for lower-level misdemeanor offences. The commission was
stunned by the large number of misdemeanor offenders, mostly
nonviolent, that cycle in and out of prison. The first belief
the commission was forced to confront and set aside was the
notion that jail is always the best sanction. To address this,
the commission adopted a number of evidence-based strategies to
safely divert certain misdemeanor offenders to prison
alternatives. This included reclassifying certain low-level
misdemeanor offenses as violations, diverting first and second
time theft of under $250 from prison, requiring first time
misdemeanor DUI offenders to serve their sentences on electronic
monitoring in the community. Additionally, the commission
recommended placing a 0-day presumptive cap on all class A
misdemeanors. Prosecutors still have the option to sentence
someone outside that cap if they could prove an aggravating
circumstance.
The second sentencing recommendation was to revise drug
penalties to focus on the most severe punishments on higher-
level offenders. A growing body of research shows that prison
for low-level drug crimes may have a criminogenic effect.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if he knows why there's a criminogenic
effect.
MR. RAZO said he didn't know why but it is the case.
SENATOR MCGUIRE posited that there may be a criminogenic effect
on anyone who is incarcerated longer than 24 hours. She noted
that a disproportionate number of drug and alcohol offenders are
in Alaska prisons.
MR. RAZO offered his opinion that an addicted population is
going into a setting where their addiction isn't addressed, but
they do learn about crime.
He discussed the heroin epidemic in Alaska and pointed out that
existing long sentences for heroin sale and use is not working.
He highlighted that the bill reduces certain heroin penalties
and urged the committee to embrace this evidence-based drug
reform as a crucial part of reinvestment. The commission
recommended reclassifying simple possession of a drug as a
misdemeanor and limiting the maximum penalty for first and
second time offenses to one month and six months suspended
sentences. This ensures that low-level possession offenders are
not incarcerated alongside serious offenders. It also provides
judges needed tools to incentivize participation and treatment.
He noted that incorporating the notion of incentives is new in
the criminal justice system. The commission also recommended
differentiating high-level drug dealers from lower-level street
dealers who are often dealing to support their own drug
addiction. The commission also recommended aligning heroin
penalties with those for other serious controlled substances,
such as cocaine and methamphetamine.
3:15:04 PM
The third sentencing recommendation was to utilize inflation-
adjusted property thresholds. He noted that the concerns
articulated by business organizations that this will increase
theft aren't borne out by the research. Between 2001 and 2011,
23 states raised their felony theft thresholds and that had no
impact on the states' overall property crime rate. He requested
the committee keep in mind the cost of things in rural Alaska
when it considers the felony theft threshold. What would be a
misdemeanor theft in the city would be a felony theft in a rural
village because of the difference in cost.
The commission's fourth sentencing recommendation was to align
non-sex felony presumptive ranges with prior presumptive terms.
The commission believes that since 2005 the significant increase
in the length of stay for felony offenses must be related to the
legislation that passed as a result of Blakely. This
recommendation will have a significant effect on reducing the
prison population.
The commission's fifth sentencing recommendation was to expand
and streamline the use of discretionary parole. For certain
offenses, someone who has demonstrated they are a good candidate
for parole should it granted parole administratively without
having to go through the Parole Board.
The sixth sentencing recommendation was to implement a specialty
parole option for long-term, geriatric inmates. The commission
wanted a way for these offenders to present their case before
the Parole Board, no matter their underlying crime.
3:18:58 PM
The seventh sentencing recommendation was to incentivize
completion of treatment for sex offenders with an earned time
policy. The commission was forced to suspend the commonly held
belief that sex offenders always recidivate. Longer sentences
hasn't worked and research shows that treatment in prison is
effective.
MR. RAZO urged the committee to make sure the bill leaves the
committee with reinvestment measures. It is key to ending the
state's sexual assault epidemic and to providing greater support
for victim services and reentry services.
CHAIR MCGUIRE held SB 91 in committee.
3:22:54 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair McGuire adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:22 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 112 CS Version N.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 112 |
| SB 112 CS Version P.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 112 |
| SB112 CS ver N Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 112 |
| SB112 Governor Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 112 |
| SB112 Letters of Support S-Jud 030116.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 112 |
| SB112CS(HSS)-ACS-TRC-3-02-16.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB112CS(HSS)-DHSS-FLSW-2-26-16.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB112 CS version P Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 112 |
| SB 91 Letter from Petersburg Police Dept..pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Support Burke.msg |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 DOC Sentencing Patterson.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
91 SB 91 |
| SB 91 Opposition Reece.msg |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Opposition Deadmond.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Opposition Bostrom.msg |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 112 Letter of Support Nome Eskimo Community.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 112 |
| SB 91 Testemony from Butch Moore.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 DOC Sentencing Patterson.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 Sectional Analysis (Ver I).pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |