Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
04/08/2016 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB205 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 205-CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
1:38:44 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to conditions of release;
relating to community work service; relating to credit toward a
sentence of imprisonment for certain persons under electronic
monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain
circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a
reduction of penalties for offenders successfully completing
court- ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of
driving under the influence; relating to termination of a
revocation of a driver's license; relating to restoration of a
driver's license; relating to credits toward a sentence of
imprisonment, to good time deductions, and to providing for
earned good time deductions for prisoners; relating to early
termination of probation and reduction of probation for good
conduct; relating to the rights of crime victims; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of certain felony drug
offenses from participation in the food stamp and temporary
assistance programs; relating to probation; relating to
mitigating factors; relating to treatment programs for
prisoners; relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the House Judiciary Standing Committee was CSHB 205,
labeled 29-LS0896\H, adopted 3/14/16.]
[Due to their length, some amendments discussed or adopted
during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes of HB
205. Shorter amendments are included in the main test.]
1:38:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX reminded the committee that Amendments 10 and 19
were previously set aside, and advised they will be brought
forward at this time.
1:39:35 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Representative Claman to explain Amendment
10, [Version 29-LS0896\H.69, Gardner, 4/6/16] for the record.
[The text of Amendment 10 is listed at the end of the 4/7/16
minutes of HB 205.]
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN related that the amendment offers the
court more discretion in approving treatment programs eligible
for jail credit for pretrial release, provided the person
complies with all of the requirements of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that he was on the commission
made up of judges, public safety people, victims' rights
advocates, and the whole spectrum wherein many hours were spent
on every one of these decisions. Frankly, he said, there are
nuances he is struggling with here, but Representative Claman
makes an interestingly good point. He offered that he is
putting this on the record because if there are any problems or
concerns it offers the commission an opportunity to review it
again. He pointed out that the review and the ongoing role of
the commission will include the changes of this year.
1:41:43 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no objection,
Amendment 10 was adopted.
1:42:01 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that Amendment 19 [Version 29-LS0896/H.66,
Martin/Gardner, 4/1/16] is before the committee. [The text of
Amendment 19 is listed at the end of the 4/7/16 minutes of HB
205.]
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT stated she supports the threshold of
$1,000 in Amendment 19. She described it as palatable, and it
does "sway the concerns of retailers and folks out in the public
that we have to strike a balance with, those folks in addition
to taking some of the recommendations from the commission."
There may be a time to revisit this issue further down the road,
she opined, and not do it all in one fell swoop.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he supports the amendment but
"squirms" because he knows the commission spent a lot of time on
this one and it was a good faith effort. He remarked he is
aware [the recommendation] is tied to evidence and economic
returns, but this is a compromise and it is one that he
supports. He also said he wanted to make it clear that he did
not make any promises to the commission in the process that he
was very careful.
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 19 was adopted.
1:43:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 24, Version 29-
LS0896\H.11, Martin/Gardner, 3/24/16, as follows: [Amendment 24
is provided at the end of the minutes of HB 205.]
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
1:44:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN advised this amendment is a product of the
a witness testifying on behalf of the National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB) wherein the witness objected to the
felony theft threshold increase and suggested raising the fine
for misdemeanors from $10,000 to $25,000. Representative Claman
noted that this allows retailers the opportunity to put signs in
their windows indicating that theft will be prosecuted to the
maximum amount authorized by law, and the amendment allows those
signs to read $25,000. The retailers believe this will have a
positive deterrent on people thinking of shoplifting, he
related.
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no objection,
Amendment 24 was adopted.
1:45:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 25,
Version 29-LS0896\H.10, Gardener, 3/24/16, as follows:
[Amendment 25 is provided at the end of the minutes of HB 205.]
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
1:45:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered that the amendment relates
to off-highway driver's licenses and citations issued in certain
communities that have inadvertently been excluded from this
program. He said the subject was vetted with unanimous positive
reaction by the [House] Transportation Standing Committee, and
he is looking to fix this inadvertent exclusion in this
legislation.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins to restate his
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS restated that the amendment
relates to off-highway driver's licenses and the separate
category of driver's license in Alaska that allows a person to
drive in the non-road system communities, such as Kwethluk, Sand
Point, Angoon or wherever, and a person is not required to take
a road test for these driver's licenses. The idea being that
the special off-highway driver's licenses can only be used in
rural communities and not any community on the road system. He
explained Angoon, Hoonah, Kake, and Seldovia, and possibly other
communities have been inadvertently excluded from being able to
use off-highway driver's licenses due to the criteria in statute
and some of the ambiguities surrounding the criteria.
Consequently, he explained, many of the people are driving
without a driver's license period because they don't want to
spend $300-$500 to travel into the big city to take their road
test just for the ability to drive in their village.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how the exclusion came about.
1:48:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS advised that the exclusion is two-
fold, such that the DMV interprets the ferry system as part of
the highway system; therefore, communities that are ferry
connected, yet are villages with no DMV office, are excluded
from being eligible for these off-highway driver's licenses.
Secondly, any community that has a DOT traffic count that
registers more than 500 vehicles passing over the traffic strip
per day is excluded. He found in reviewing the traffic count
data is that any community that is over 350-400 residents likely
is to exclude that threshold and that community gets excluded.
The Department of Transportation rarely performs traffic counts
but any community that might be so unfortunate to have a traffic
count conducted would be excluded if the count exceeds 500, he
related.
1:49:13 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the amendment specifically mentions
communities, or simply solves the problem for any community that
may not have been mentioned. She related that Ouzinkie is
located in the Kodiak area and is serviced by the ferry system
with probably only has 200-300 people.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said that Ouzinkie and Sand Point
are a perfect examples, and perhaps the letter of the law is not
universally uniform. For example, in a community such as Sand
Point, which is ferry system connected, has still been made
eligible to have these licenses even though, basically, the DMV
doesn't want to take them off the list because it recognizes
there is not a problem. He pointed out that this amendment
would not only solve the problem for the communities presently
excluded, but it would prevent communities in the future from
being excluded.
CHAIR LEDOUX stated she had no idea there was such a thing and
removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that he heard this in the [House]
Transportation Standing Committee and he believes it is
reasonable to add the amendment to the bill.
CHAIR LEDOUX clarified that this is not held up in the [House]
Transportation Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS agreed, and he said it passed out
with all "do pass" recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, in response to Representative
Millett, advised the bill is in the House State Affairs Standing
Committee which had its last meeting for house bills two days
ago.
1:51:14 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
1:51:48 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no objection,
Amendment 25 was adopted.
1:51:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 26,
Version 29-LS0896\H.43, Martin/Gardner, 3/31/16, as follows:
Page 98, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 157. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
REPORT OF THE ALASKA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
REGARDING SOCIAL IMPACT BONDS. The Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission established in AS 44.19.641 shall
submit to the governor and the legislature not later
than December 15, 2016, a report regarding the
potential of using social impact bonds to reduce
recidivism rates. The commission shall deliver the
report to the senate secretary and the chief clerk of
the house of representatives and notify the
legislature that the report is available. The report
shall cover the following topics:
(1) identification and evaluation of grant
programs, contracts, and services of the Department of
Corrections and the Department of Health and Social
Services that may be suitable for social impact
financing;
(2) the possibility of private sector
investors providing social impact financing;
(3) programs operated by nonprofit
corporations that could be funded through a social
impact financing mechanism;
(4) independent evaluators that could
determine whether performance targets for a nonprofit
corporation funded by social impact financing are met
at the end of an agreed-on time frame; and
(5) whether federal funding is available for
independent evaluators participating in social impact
funding."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
1:52:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS advised that the amendment tasks
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission to review and examine the
applicability of social impact bonds in Alaska and whether they
may have promise to improve the efficacy of different treatment
or anti-recidivism programs available. He described it as a
relatively new public policy financing tool being attempted in a
few places around the United States and around the world. Ideas
where there are evidence outcomes and results oriented programs
being rewarded for being effective and creating a financial
alignment, he explained. Basically, he said, he wanted to flag
it as something the legislature should review to determine
whether there is the potential to use social impact bonds.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the idea of the social impact bonds
would be to obtain a grant from the Rasmuson Foundation, PEW
Charitable Trust, or something of that nature.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered correct, wherein a third
party entity would finance the bond, such as a for-profit
entity, and the idea is that it invests in a program or finance
a program. In the event that program produces results such as,
reduces recidivism, or achieves a certain threshold of success
of sobriety of individuals working through a program, the
financing entity is then paid back with a return on the initial
bond, he explained.
1:54:10 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked where the payment to the investor would come
from.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained it would come from the
State of Alaska with the idea that the state is already paying
for many social related programs and the social impact bond
creates a free market lens that evaluates the efficacy of
programs. The idea is that a third party entity invests in the
program and if that program is successful, the state pays back
that investor with interest with a return on investment. In the
event the program is not successful, the investor loses its
money and is not repaid by the State of Alaska because it did
not accomplish the goals of the program. Basically, he noted,
the investor has a financial interest to invest only in programs
that produce results that work.
CHAIR LEDOUX remarked that it is fascinating.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that possibly it should be
reviewed and examined.
1:55:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that an example would be the
Nugen Ranch wherein people are being rehabilitated and also work
on the farm. The state may believe a similar program would be
too risky, yet a private investor might believe in the program
and loan money to get the program started. Subsequently, after
working the program it may be discovered that it works better
than expected, the state pays the loan back over time, and the
state is not at risk for the experimental program. He offered
that this is a way the state can explore new ways to reduce
recidivism without actually making the investment up front.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS opined that he was correct, but
qualified that he does not claim to be an expert and is rather a
curious onlooker. He added they are something referred to as
"Pay for Success Bonds" because the idea is that it creates a
strong market incentive to search out the effective programs.
Also, it creates an elegant alignment that a short term
investment will to lead to a long term positive outcome and the
connection can be financially justified. In the event the
connection cannot be financially justified, he noted, then the
bonds fail and no one would invest in the program. He referred
to the area of recidivism and alcohol treatment and said there
is a close cause and effect that is easy to evaluate and it
creates that alignment for programs that work.
1:58:08 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:58 to 1:59 p.m.
1:59:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related that the [Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission] is a great place to put the amendment and it will
provide a thorough report.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT noted that the theory is the same as a
performance contract in that a contract is entered into with
someone who says they can save [the state] a certain amount of
money, and if they do, a certain portion of that savings is
passed on to them. She described it as an incentive to make the
program work well or whatever service they are providing, she
noted there was a TED talk on this issue and that she is in
favor of the amendment.
1:59:53 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no objection,
Amendment 26 was adopted.
2:00:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 27,
Version 29-LS0896/H.29, Gardner, 3/29/16, as follows:
Page 84, lines 10 - 12:
Delete "the written reentry plan must be
completed upon release on furlough or probation or
parole and must include
(A) information on the prisoner's proposed"
Insert "the reentry program must include
(A) a written reentry plan for each prisoner
completed upon release on furlough or probation or
parole that includes information on the prisoner's
proposed"
Page 84, line 20:
Delete "and"
Page 84, following line 20:
Insert a new subparagraph to read:
"(C) coordination with the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development to provide access,
after release, to job training and employment
assistance; and"
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
2:00:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS advised the amendment relates to
Section 137, and the prisoner reentry plan established within HB
205. Currently, the prisoner reentry plan prescribes a few
components the Department of Corrections (DOC), in consultation
with other agencies, should create to assist people who have
served their time to have the best possible chance of reentering
society and becoming productive members of society. He said
medical coverage was addressed within the committee substitute,
and such issues as the prisoners receiving identification cards.
He advised this amendment adds language asking DOC to coordinate
with the Department of Labor and Workforce Development to
identify job training programs and employment assistance to help
people have the best possible chance of obtaining a job, or
training for a job, so they can become self-sufficient members
of society.
CHAIR LEDOUX removed her objection. There being no objection,
Amendment 27 was adopted.
2:01:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt Amendment 28, Version 29-
LS0896\H.38, Martin/Gardner, 3/31/16, as follows: [Amendment 28
is provided at the end of the minutes of HB 205.]
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
2:01:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT acknowledged she intends to withdraw this
amendment and referred to spirited conversations she has had in
committee regarding restitution for victims. She expressed,
"Unfortunately, when it comes to the victim, child support goes
forward before restitution to a victim" and at some point there
must be a faster and better way for victims to become whole.
These victims need to receive some monetary value to possibly
use it for counseling or moving out of state. She said, she
will continue to work toward finding a better way to get
restitution to folks when the incarcerated defendant has a PFD
coming to them. She said she knows the downside of it and there
might be some cross-state information when discussing child
support and child support attachment to the PFD. She related
she was bothered when "Kaci Schroeder spoke about victims and
restitution that they are so far down on the list that sometimes
they never get monetary restitution," and is looking for a
solution where restitution rises to a higher level for victims.
She related she will continue to work over interim to figure out
a way a portion of the PFD can go to victims.
2:04:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT withdrew Amendment 28.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN commented that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission currently has the topic of restitution on its agenda
to review during the next year and a report will be received by
the time the legislature convenes in January, 2017. Also, he
said he contacted Stacy Steinberg, Supervisor, Collections and
Support Section, Department of Law in order to understand the
interplay between federal law and the laws of other states. Ms.
Steinberg advised with regard to wages, the federal law has a
specific priority for child support. In the event someone
places a lien on someone's wages for back child support, every
state has to have child support first on the list of a wage
lien. There is not that same federal law that would require the
PFD put child support before restitution. Apparently, he
offered, there is not a requirement amongst the other states on
a reciprocity theory that they would have to have the same
priority to collect. The PFD would be an option to try equal
footing, which is a significant policy call, and he would like
more research from the commission before making a decision.
2:06:15 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that when the Child Support Enforcement
Division gets into child support cases it is because the person
who is owed the child support is receiving public assistance
benefits. Therefore, she pointed out, in actuality most of the
restitution is going back to the State of Alaska, and the person
owed child support isn't actually receiving the restitution
payment. The state, who paid the public assistance benefits,
receives that restitution payment. She related it is not
necessarily a policy call between the children and the victim,
it's a policy call between the state coffers and the victim.
Chair LeDoux remarked that this issue is an item for next year.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT noted it is a worthy discussion to
continue to have.
2:07:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt Amendment 29, Version 29-
LS0896\H.64, Martin/Gardner, 3/31/16, as follows:
Page 14, line 30, through page 15, line 3:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) [UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PROSCRIBED
UNDER AS 11.71.020(a)(2) - (6),] manufactures or
delivers, [ANY AMOUNT OF A SCHEDULE IIA OR IIIA
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE] or possesses [ANY AMOUNT OF A
SCHEDULE IIA OR IIIA CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE] with intent
to manufacture or deliver,
(A) one or more preparations, compounds,
mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of one
gram or more containing a schedule IA controlled
substance;
(B) 25 or more tablets, ampules, or
syrettes containing a schedule IA controlled
substance;
(C) one or more preparations, compounds,
mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of 2.5
grams or more containing a schedule IIA or IIIA
controlled substance; or
(D) 50 or more tablets, ampules, or
syrettes containing a schedule IIA or IIIA controlled
substance;"
Page 19, line 20:
Delete "or"
Page 19, lines 21 - 23:
Delete all material and insert:
"(11) manufactures or delivers, or
possesses with the intent to manufacture or deliver,
(A) one or more preparations, compounds,
mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of less
than one gram containing a schedule IA controlled
substance;
(B) less than 25 tablets, ampules, or
syrettes containing a schedule IA controlled
substance;
(C) one or more preparations, compounds,
mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of less
than 2.5 grams containing a schedule IIA or IIIA
controlled substance; or
(D) less than 50 tablets, ampules, or
syrettes containing a schedule IIA or IIIA controlled
substance; or
(12) violates AS 11.71.050(a)(4) and has
been previously convicted two or more times in the
preceding 10 years under AS 11.71.050(a)(4) or for an
offense in another jurisdiction with similar
elements."
Page 48, line 21, through page 49, line 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"(n) A court sentencing a person convicted of
misconduct involving a controlled substance in the
fourth degree under AS 11.71.050(a)(4) or a person
convicted of misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the fifth degree under AS 11.71.060(a)(2)
may impose
(1) a sentence of suspended imprisonment of
not more than 30 days if the person has not been
previously convicted within the preceding 10 years of
an offense under AS 11.71 or a law of this or another
jurisdiction with elements substantially similar to an
offense under AS 11.71; or
(2) a sentence of active imprisonment of not
more than 180 days if the person has been previously
convicted within the preceding 10 years of an offense
under AS 11.71 or a law of this or another
jurisdiction with elements substantially similar to an
offense under AS 11.71."
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
2:07:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT acknowledged that she intends to withdraw
this amendment and noted it involves a conversation with the
Anchorage Police Department regarding drug quantities, how drugs
are measured, and the use of the misdemeanor felony system. She
deferred to Ms. Abbott to explain the evolving drugs, delivery
system, and potency.
2:08:38 PM
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff, Charisse Millett, Alaska State Legislature,
said the amendment addresses a problem of subjectivity. The
current drug statutes are complicated in that there are multiple
amounts of different schedules of drugs carved out based upon
what have been different presumptions about dosages and potency
of drugs. The commission took into account that there is a
convoluted structure to Alaska's drug statutes and the intent is
to simplify and acknowledge the inherent subjectivity in the use
of drugs, and possession of different types of drugs. The
commission addressed the issue by changing Alaska's drug statute
based upon the certain weight of each drug, it put the dividing
line at 2.5 grams as the differentiation between misdemeanor
possession and felony possession of drugs. She explained that
the 2.5 gram amount was used to distinguish IA, IIA, and IIIA
drugs from felony and misdemeanor levels, and noted there is no
perfect way to write drug statutes when considering the dosages
that different people use for different drugs. The dosage
varies widely, especially drugs that are often cut with other
materials to extend them for commercial value and, also,
habitual drug user's dosages vary widely from someone who has
never used that drug before and for whom it would be incredibly
potent. She said the Municipality of Anchorage and the
Anchorage Police Department worked with colleagues in the [other
body] and different agencies to come up with a way to
acknowledge that sometimes dosages do not fit the 2.5 gram level
perfectly.
MS. ABBOTT noted this is the first draft of what they came up
with, and in the other body there were different changes that
addressed this same goal. She reiterated for some people this
would not address the dosage limitation, and this would not
necessarily address every problem that could arise as a result
of the possession of drugs. She opined that trust was put into
the state's experienced law enforcement and judicial system to
try to assess, and it is understandable that a lot of people are
still working to determine a perfect system.
2:12:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT described this as a difficult part of law
in trying to keep up with what is too much, drug trafficking,
intent to sell, and what amounts constitute distribution. She
said she will continue to work with the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission and the Public Defender's Office.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT withdrew Amendment 29.
CHAIR LEDOUX related that she understands the frustration of law
enforcement because in reviewing the amendment she is looking at
what was deleted, and is trying to figure out whether this makes
it easier or harder.
2:13:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt Amendment 30, Version 29-
LS0896\H.64, Martin/Gardner, 3/31/16, as follows: [Amendment 30
is provided at the end of the minutes of HB 205.]
CHAIR LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
2:14:20 PM
MS. ABBOTT explained the amendment seeks to right the state's
murder statutes with the state's sexual assault and rape
statutes by raising the mandatory minimums for first and second
degree murder to 10 years above current statute. She offered
that the mandatory minimum for first degree murder is currently
20 years and this amendment raises it to 30 years; second degree
murder is currently at 10 years and the amendment raises it to
20 years. The Public Defender's Office rectified a potential
unintended consequence with regard to second degree murder in
which there were multiple victims. She explained, in the case
of multiple victims for each sentence of second degree murder,
they would have to have 20 years stacked on top of each other.
She offered that Amendment 30 rectifies it by allowing a judge
discretion to set a sentence with multiple victims at least one-
fourth of that mandatory minimum. For example, she said, in the
case of a second degree murder DUI accident where multiple
people were killed in a car, a person could receive up to 100
years in jail for a single crime if the stackability clause was
not in the amendment and, the judge would still have the
discretion to sentence far above that if they so deemed.
2:16:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the motivation for
this amendment is that currently the mandatory minimums for
sexual assault versus murder are not what common sense would
dictate. He offered that he thinks of murder as the most
heinous crime one could commit and currently the mandatory
minimums for sexual assault are more stringent than those of
murder. He questioned whether he understood the testimony
correctly.
MS. ABBOTT replied that, conceptually, he was correct in that
the sentencing statute for sexual assault and rape is a higher
level than murder. She noted it is a bit different in some
cases because there may be the issue of a presumptive range as
opposed to a mandatory minimum. Although, she remarked, if one
were to reason through the two statutes, a person could see a
disparity in the way Alaska sentences murder as well as sexual
assault and rape.
2:18:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many convictions of
murder in the first and second degree are there in Alaska every
year.
MS. ABBOTT answered she does not have the numbers off the top of
her head, but offered that there are few, especially in the
first degree murder category, not sentenced at the mandatory
minimum. This amendment adds a layer of protection and comfort
for victims, she said.
2:19:00 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), opined
that with murder and unclassified felonies there have been
roughly fewer than 16 per year for the last couple of years.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that the amendment
appeared intelligent and he appreciated the context.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said it was through public testimony and
recommendations from the public that this amendment was born in
honoring people that have gone through sentencing and such a
difference in range.
2:20:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated the bill elicits a positive
response and he wanted to put on the record that he is uneasy.
Making data based decisions about these things in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee that does not have a broad spectrum
of expertise, makes him uncomfortable. He related that he will
not stand in the way of the amendment, but stated he is
"squirming a bit" because the committee does not know that the
extra 10 years will increase public safety, which is the bottom
line issue, and surely there is data out there. Also, he
commented, the committee does not know the impact on recidivism,
and he is uneasy.
2:22:08 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the constitutional prohibition against
ex post facto laws, and asked Mr. Skidmore whether that applies
to increases in the sentencing if the substance of the crime is
not being changed.
2:22:39 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Legal Services Section, Criminal
Division, Department of Law (DOL), responded that ex post facto
is not implicated when the sentence is raised, and ex post facto
is implicated when the elements of the crime are changed and the
intent is to prosecute someone for an event or incident
committed at the time that it wasn't actually illegal. There
are several instances within HB 205 in which it changes the way
the sentencing structure works either with probation, parole, or
sentencing itself. Such as, saying that sentencing will be
different at the time the person comes up to the sentencing. He
opined he does not believe ex post facto implicates that, but he
does believe there are concerns people have about raising
penalties, which is something to be cautious of. He reiterated
he does not believe the law prohibits the changing of the
sentence in that manner.
2:23:51 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the concerns and asked whether they
would be policy concerns rather than constitutional or legal
concerns.
MR. SKIDMORE noted it would be a policy and not a legal concern,
although, he commented, he is thinking he hasn't actually read a
Supreme Court case that would answer that question for him.
Therefore, he said, he wants to be careful about giving that
definitive answer, but he believes it would be policy and not
legal.
2:24:51 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), said he is the
Director of the Public Defender Agency and also a commissioner
on the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, and wanted to further
explain concerns and cautions about raising the penalties when
they were not vetted. He described concern especially with
second degree murder, which has a broad range of conduct, in
that it can go from very violent crimes just short of
intentional murder, down to DUI accidents for a first time
individual who may have never committed a crime. The 20 year
mandatory minimum will generally put the sentencing range above
what some people are receiving in sentences for this conduct.
That's what also raised the concern about stacking and the
suggested change with regard to making sure they don't stack
completely, which would ultimately end up in disparities
potentially from comparison to the sex assault cases versus
murder cases, he said. He explained that mandatory minimums are
very different from presumptive ranges, and he would be happy to
answer any questions regarding the commission's work on this
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS thanked Representative Keller and
Mr. Steiner's for their testimony which gave him cause to
consider this issue more. He opined that Ms. Meade provided
ballpark data of approximately 16 first degree murder
convictions yearly, and that Mr. Steiner spoke to how second
degree murder is a more broad crime which presumably includes a
greater number of people. When discussing mandatory minimum
sentencing, presumptive sentences, and the recalibration the
commission performed with evidence based analysis, there are
multiple bottom lines. He indicated that one of the bottom
lines is how many people this will affect in future years, how
many people will be convicted of such crimes, and what would a
change in presumptive sentencing or mandatory minimums do in
terms of the number of people in jail for a certain number of
years, and beyond what the (indisc.) provides. He referred to
the number of years Mr. Steiner has performed criminal law in
Alaska and asked his sense of the impact this would have.
2:27:46 PM
MR. STEINER explained with respect to first degree murder, of
which there are a small number of cases, those sentences tend to
be long and, he opined, the data provided to the commission was
that the average sentence was 90 years. As a practical matter,
he said, the mandatory minimum for that would likely have little
impact, although some impact because it affects parole
eligibility, but likely limited actual impact. Murder in the
second degree would have more of an impact because there is such
a broad range and, he opined, there are more murder in the first
degree convictions than murder in the second degree. Plus, he
explained, intentional murder is a narrower actual set of
scenarios, wherein second degree murder is a broader category
and can cover conduct which would likely result in a lengthy
sentence just short of intentional murder that results in
sentences of 60, 70, 80 years. Second degree murder can have
much shorter sentences due to the circumstances involved, and he
expects this to have some impact, but he does not have the data
on which cases.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Steiner to describe a
scenario of a second degree murder conviction that would be on
the lower end of sentencing possibilities.
MR. STEINER responded that an actual scenario might be someone
driving while intoxicated at a little over .08, driving too fast
and runs a red light, or speeding or texting while intoxicated
and possibly results in someone's death, would be on the lower
end of the range of conduct. The upper range of the conduct
would be a more violent, intentional act that fell just short of
intentional murder that possibly the state was unable to prove,
or there just wasn't evidence of someone's intent but it was a
more directed violent physical act at a person. As opposed to
hyper-recklessness around the theory of DUI accidents being
second degree murder, that's range of conduct at issue, he said.
2:30:41 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX related she is uncomfortable as Representative
Keller stated, about this. She extended she is not at all
uncomfortable with first degree murder whether it is evidence
based or not because she believes sometimes retribution is
appropriate. Whereas, she pointed out, she is uncomfortable
with respect to second degree murder and would like to consider
a way to bifurcate this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered that she talked with Mr. Steiner
regarding the stacking, but the discussion is still about
murder. She opined the data is out there but when a person
drinks, drives, and kills two girls in one fell swoop, with a
sentence less than someone committing rape, she has a problem
with that. She reiterated that the discussion is murder and
describing someone as a little drunk, they are still drunk, such
as texting drunk while driving. She said a teen-age daughter
was murdered by someone a little drunk and texting that could
possibly receive a sentence less than someone raped, the
daughter is gone, and the end result is still murder.
2:32:55 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX related she understands, and pointed out she does
have experience along those lines, and still feels uncomfortable
including second degree murder. She expressed that she
maintains her objection towards the second degree murder, and
would remove her objection to the first degree murder. She
stated, in the event there is only one amendment she maintains
her objection to Amendment 30.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that the amendment not
move today and perhaps there could be further deliberation.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said that is acceptable because this
committee has great minds, and she is happy to work on this
amendment. She stated she feels strongly and if she is voted
down then so be it, but she must try.
2:35:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN suggested withdrawing the amendment and
submitting a conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he does not have a problem with the
first degree murder portion because the statistics are that the
average first degree murder sentences are 80 to 90 years, and on
the rare occasion they are released they will be old, infirmed,
and supervised. He stated that a typical second degree murder
sentence is over 20 years, with the average at 35 years to 45
years. He said he is a fan of a reasonable degree of judicial
discretion and agrees with pondering the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS reiterated his suggestion of
spending a day to possibly bifurcate the amendment or deliberate
further.
2:37:43 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX suggested the committee vote on a conceptual
amendment for first degree murder now, and another amendment
could be provided tomorrow or the next day with respect to
second degree murder, she remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT suggested withdrawing Amendment 30, and
tomorrow Chair LeDoux provide an amendment with regard to first
degree murder, and she will provide an amendment with regard to
second degree murder and the committee can further debate.
2:38:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT withdrew Amendment 30, with the note that
it will be revisited tomorrow.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Steiner whether second
degree murder would include incidental events such as a hunting
accident where someone is shot or a gun accidentally discharges
at a shooting range.
MR. STEINER responded that the two scenarios would not be second
degree murder, accidents are in the negligence or reckless
range, and second degree murder is hyper-recklessness and acting
with extreme indifference to the value of human life. He
explained that is what distinguishes it from manslaughter, if a
person was reckless and with criminal negligence it would be
something less.
2:39:36 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether second degree murder could be when
many people attend a party, everyone is smashed, and one person
drives with the others knowing that the driver is intoxicated
and still got into the car.
CHAIR LEDOUX, in response to Mr. Steiner, advised she was
speaking about the driver ending up in an accident where his/her
passengers had gotten into the car.
MR. STEINER opined that it could, but the distinguishing factors
in case law are someone's history, their knowledge of the risks,
being warned, and the level of recklessness of their conduct
such as speeding, running red lights, driving in a reckless
manner. He explained those are the factors that distinguish
second degree murder from manslaughter, acting with indifference
to the value of human life. Certainly a warning would be
evidence of that, but that alone would ultimately be a jury
question because there is not case law that defines the
boundaries between second degree murder and manslaughter, he
said.
2:40:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that the classic example of
distinguishing second degree murder and manslaughter is that a
hunting accident would typically be manslaughter, depending upon
how the weapons were being managed, but Russian roulette would
be the classic example of second degree murder because it
reflects the gross indifference to the value of human life. He
asked Mr. Steiner if he was correct in his statement of the
average sentence for second degree murder.
2:41:41 PM
MR. STEINER said he could not answer that question.
MR. SKIDMORE commented that he found a U.S. Supreme Court case
that raised an ex post facto issue when sentencing guidelines
were changed and the way in which the change was enacted after
the person had committed the offense. The U.S. Supreme Court
said that the older guidelines should be used. He offered that
he gave the committee that information in the event the
committee were to pursue changing mandatory minimums. It does
appear that the safest approach would be for the committee to
make it for any offense that is committed after the effective
date of the law that would be passed, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that part of the reason
the discussion is murder is the relativity of the severity of
sentencing for murder versus various sexual crimes. He reminded
the committee there have been discussions throughout the
building about that, and especially the so-called "Romeo and
Juliet" situation, and what sort of mandatory minimums are
there. He said he found it worth noting that part of the reason
the committee is thinking about ratcheting up the murder minimum
is because sexual assault minimums have been ratcheted up so
much over the years. He acknowledged this amendment does not
touch on that, nor should it for the sake of political and other
kinds of simplicity, but the comment might be worth stating. He
opined that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission may be
reviewing that issue in the future.
AMENDMENTS
The following amendments to HB 205 were either discussed or
adopted during the hearing. [Shorter amendments are provided in
the main text only.]
AMENDMENT 24 [29-LS0896\H.11, Martin/Gardner, 3/24/16]
Page 36, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 62. AS 12.55.035(b) is amended to read:
(b) Upon conviction of an offense, a defendant
who is not an organization may be sentenced to pay,
unless otherwise specified in the provision of law
defining the offense, a fine of not more than
(1) $500,000 for murder in the first or
second degree, attempted murder in the first degree,
murder of an unborn child, sexual assault in the first
degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree,
kidnapping, sex trafficking in the first degree under
AS 11.66.110(a)(2), or misconduct involving a
controlled substance in the first degree;
(2) $250,000 for a class A felony;
(3) $100,000 for a class B felony;
(4) $50,000 for a class C felony;
(5) $25,000 [$10,000] for a class A
misdemeanor;
(6) $2,000 for a class B misdemeanor;
(7) $500 for a violation."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 97, line 29:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Page 98, line 1:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Page 98, line 2:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Page 98, line 5:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 82"
Page 98, line 8:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Page 99, following line 10:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(26) AS 12.55.035(b), as amended by sec.
62 of this Act;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 99, line 11:
Delete "86"
Insert "87"
Page 99, line 12:
Delete "sec. 87"
Insert "sec. 88"
Page 99, line 13:
Delete "sec. 93"
Insert "sec. 94"
Page 99, line 14:
Delete "sec. 94"
Insert "sec. 95"
Page 99, line 15:
Delete "sec. 95"
Insert "sec. 96"
Page 99, line 16:
Delete "sec. 148"
Insert "sec. 149"
Page 99, line 31:
Delete "sec. 76"
Insert "sec. 77"
Page 100, line 1:
Delete "sec. 77"
Insert "sec. 78"
Page 100, line 2:
Delete "sec. 78"
Insert "sec. 79"
Page 100, line 3:
Delete "sec. 79"
Insert "sec. 80"
Page 100, line 4:
Delete "sec. 80"
Insert "sec. 81"
Page 100, line 5:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 82"
Page 100, line 6:
Delete "sec. 134"
Insert "sec. 135"
Page 100, line 7:
Delete "sec. 135"
Insert "sec. 136"
Page 100, line 12:
Delete "sec. 75"
Insert "sec. 76"
Page 100, line 13:
Delete "sec. 89"
Insert "sec. 90"
Page 100, line 14:
Delete "sec. 92"
Insert "sec. 93"
Page 100, line 15:
Delete "sec. 102"
Insert "sec. 103"
Page 100, line 16:
Delete "sec. 104"
Insert "sec. 105"
Page 100, line 17:
Delete "sec. 136"
Insert "sec. 137"
Page 100, line 24:
Delete "sec. 64"
Insert "sec. 65"
Page 100, line 25:
Delete "sec. 65"
Insert "sec. 66"
Page 100, line 26:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Page 100, line 27:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Page 100, line 29:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Page 101, line 1:
Delete "sec. 62"
Insert "sec. 63"
Page 101, line 2:
Delete "sec. 69"
Insert "sec. 70"
Page 101, line 5:
Delete "sec. 68"
Insert "sec. 69"
Page 101, line 6:
Delete "sec. 70"
Insert "sec. 71"
Page 101, line 7:
Delete "sec. 71"
Insert "sec. 72"
Page 101, line 8:
Delete "sec. 72"
Insert "sec. 73"
Page 101, line 9:
Delete "sec. 74"
Insert "sec. 75"
Page 101, line 10:
Delete "sec. 96"
Insert "sec. 97"
Page 101, line 11:
Delete "sec. 97"
Insert "sec. 98"
Page 101, line 15:
Delete "sec. 83"
Insert "sec. 84"
Page 101, line 16:
Delete "sec. 84"
Insert "sec. 85"
Page 101, line 17:
Delete "sec. 85"
Insert "sec. 86"
Page 101, line 18:
Delete "sec. 91"
Insert "sec. 92"
Page 101, line 21:
Delete "sec. 100"
Insert "sec. 101"
Page 101, line 22:
Delete "sec. 101"
Insert "sec. 102"
Page 101, line 23:
Delete "sec. 103"
Insert "sec. 104"
Page 101, line 24:
Delete "sec. 105"
Insert "sec. 106"
Page 101, line 25:
Delete "sec. 107"
Insert "sec. 108"
Page 101, line 26:
Delete "sec. 108"
Insert "sec. 109"
Page 101, line 27:
Delete "sec. 109"
Insert "sec. 110"
Page 101, line 28:
Delete "sec. 115"
Insert "sec. 116"
Page 101, line 29:
Delete "sec. 116"
Insert "sec. 117"
Page 101, line 30:
Delete "sec. 117"
Insert "sec. 118"
Page 101, line 31:
Delete "sec. 118"
Insert "sec. 119"
Page 102, line 1:
Delete "sec. 119"
Insert "sec. 120"
Page 102, line 2:
Delete "sec. 120"
Insert "sec. 121"
Page 102, line 3:
Delete "sec. 121"
Insert "sec. 122"
Page 102, line 4:
Delete "sec. 122"
Insert "sec. 123"
Page 102, line 5:
Delete "sec. 123"
Insert "sec. 124"
Page 102, line 6:
Delete "sec. 124"
Insert "sec. 125"
Page 102, line 7:
Delete "sec. 125"
Insert "sec. 126"
Page 102, line 8:
Delete "sec. 126"
Insert "sec. 127"
Page 102, line 9:
Delete "sec. 127"
Insert "sec. 128"
Page 102, line 10:
Delete "sec. 128"
Insert "sec. 129"
Page 102, line 11:
Delete "sec. 129"
Insert "sec. 130"
Page 102, line 12:
Delete "sec. 130"
Insert "sec. 131"
Page 102, line 13:
Delete "sec. 131"
Insert "sec. 132"
Page 102, line 14:
Delete "sec. 132"
Insert "sec. 133"
Page 102, line 15:
Delete "secs. 152 - 154"
Insert "secs. 153 - 155"
Page 102, line 16:
Delete "152 - 154"
Insert "153 - 155"
Page 102, line 31:
Delete "sec. 63"
Insert "sec. 64"
Page 103, line 1:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Page 103, line 2:
Delete "sec. 142"
Insert "sec. 143"
Page 103, line 6:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 103, line 8:
Delete "sec. 156(a)"
Insert "sec. 157(a)"
Page 103, line 11:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 14:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 17:
Delete "sec. 66"
Insert "sec. 67"
Delete "sec. 156(c)"
Insert "sec. 157(c)"
Page 103, line 20:
Delete "sec. 67"
Insert "sec. 68"
Delete "sec. 156(d)"
Insert "sec. 157(d)"
Page 103, line 23:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 82"
Delete "sec. 156(e)"
Insert "sec. 157(e)"
Page 103, line 26:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 100"
Delete "sec. 156(f)"
Insert "sec. 157(f)"
Page 103, lines 29 - 30:
Delete "61, 62, 65, 67, 69, 73, 76 - 88, 91, 93 -
95, 134, 135, 143 - 151, and 155"
Insert "61 - 63, 66, 68, 70, 74, 77 - 89, 92, 94
- 96, 135, 136, 144 - 152, and 156"
Page 103, line 31, through page 104, line 1:
Delete "66, 68, 70 - 72, 74, 75, 89, 90, 92, 96 -
98, 100 - 133, and 136 - 140"
Insert "67, 69, 71 - 73, 75, 76, 90, 91, 93, 97 -
99, 101 - 134, and 137 - 141"
Page 104, line 2:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 104, line 4:
Delete "63, 99, 142, 152 - 154, and 156(f)"
Insert "64, 100, 143, 153 - 155, and 157(f)"
AMENDMENT 25 [29-LS0896\H.10, Gardner, 3/24/16]
Page 1, line 1, following "Act relating to":
Insert "vehicle registration; relating to off-
road system restricted noncommercial drivers'
licenses; relating to off-road system eligible areas;
relating to motor vehicle liability insurance;
relating to"
Page 50, following line 22:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 83. AS 28.10.011 is amended to read:
Sec. 28.10.011. Vehicles subject to registration.
Every vehicle driven, moved, or parked on [UPON] a
highway or other public parking place in the state
shall be registered under this chapter except when the
vehicle is
(1) driven or moved on a highway only for
the purpose of crossing the highway from one private
property to another, including an implement of
husbandry as defined by regulation;
(2) driven or moved on a highway under a
dealer's plate or temporary permit as provided for in
AS 28.10.031 and 28.10.181(j);
(3) special mobile equipment as defined by
regulation;
(4) owned by the United States;
(5) moved by human or animal power;
(6) exempt under 50 U.S.C. App. 501-591
(Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act);
(7) driven or parked only on private
property;
(8) the vehicle of a nonresident as
provided under AS 28.10.121;
(9) transported under a special permit
under AS 28.10.151;
(10) [BEING] driven or moved by an operator
with an off-highway commercial driver's license on a
highway, vehicular way, or a public parking place in
the state that is not connected by a land highway or
vehicular way to
(A) the land-connected state highway
system; or
(B) a highway or vehicular way with an
average daily traffic volume greater than 499;
(11) driven or moved in an off-road system
eligible area by an operator with a noncommercial
driver's license, including an off-road system
restricted noncommercial driver's license issued under
AS 28.15.126;
(12) [(11)] an implement of husbandry
operated in accordance with the provisions of AS
19.10.065;
(13) [(12)] an electric personal motor
vehicle.
* Sec. 84. AS 28.15 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 28.15.126. Off-road system restricted
noncommercial driver's license. (a) The department
shall waive the road test and issue an off-road system
restricted noncommercial driver's license to an
applicant who resides and operates a motor vehicle in
an off-road system eligible area of the state. A
driver issued an off-road system restricted
noncommercial driver's license may operate a motor
vehicle in an off-road system eligible area of the
state. A driver issued an off-road system restricted
noncommercial driver's license may not operate a motor
vehicle
(1) outside the off-road system eligible
area of the state on a highway, vehicular way, or a
public parking place in the state unless the person
has or is accompanied by a person with a driver's
license that is not restricted under this section; or
(2) outside the state.
(b) The department shall annually publish a list
of off-road system eligible areas. The department
shall make the list available at each office of the
department and on the department's Internet website."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 51, following line 26:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 87. AS 28.15.201(d) is amended to read:
(d) A court revoking a driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license
under AS 28.15.181(c), or the department when revoking
a driver's license, privilege to drive, or privilege
to obtain a license under AS 28.15.165(c), may grant
limited license privileges if
(1) the revocation was for a misdemeanor
conviction under AS 28.35.030 or a similar municipal
ordinance and not for a violation of AS 28.35.032;
(2) the person
(A) has not been previously convicted and
the limited license is not granted during the first 30
days of the period of revocation; or
(B) has been previously convicted and the
limited license is not granted during the first 90
days of the period of revocation;
(3) the court or department requires the
person to use an ignition interlock device during the
period of the limited license whenever the person
operates a motor vehicle in an area [A COMMUNITY] not
included in the list published by the department under
AS 28.15.126 [AS 28.22.011(b)] and, when applicable,
(A) the person provides proof of
installation of the ignition interlock device on every
vehicle the person operates;
(B) the person signs an affidavit
acknowledging that
(i) operation by the person of a vehicle
that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device
is subject to penalties for driving with a revoked
license;
(ii) circumventing or tampering with the
ignition interlock device is a class A misdemeanor;
and
(iii) the person is required to maintain
the ignition interlock device throughout the period of
the limited license, to keep up-to-date records in
each vehicle showing that any required service and
calibration is current, and to produce those records
immediately on request;
(4) the person is enrolled in and is in
compliance with or has successfully completed the
alcoholism screening, evaluation, referral, and
program requirements of the Department of Health and
Social Services under AS 28.35.030(h);
(5) the person provides proof of insurance
as required by AS 28.20.230 and 28.20.240; and
(6) the person has not previously been
convicted of violating the limitations of an ignition
interlock limited license or been convicted of
violating the provisions of AS 28.35.030 or 28.35.032
while on probation for a violation of those sections."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 53, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 91. AS 28.22.011(a) is amended to read:
(a) The operator or owner of a motor vehicle
subject to registration under AS 28.10.011 when driven
on a highway, vehicular way or area, or on other
public property in the state, shall be insured under a
motor vehicle liability policy that complies with this
chapter or a certificate of self-insurance that
complies with AS 28.20.400 unless the operator has not
been cited within the preceding five years for a
traffic law violation with a demerit point value of
six or more on the point schedule determined under
regulations adopted by the department under AS
28.15.221 and
(1) the motor vehicle is being driven or
moved by an operator with an off-highway commercial
driver's license on a highway, vehicular way, or a
public parking place in the state that is not
connected by a land highway or vehicular way to
(A) the land-connected state highway
system; [,] or
(B) a highway or vehicular way with an
average daily traffic volume greater than 499; or
[AND]
(2) the operator has a noncommercial
driver's license, including an off-road system
restricted noncommercial driver's license issued under
AS 28.15.126 and is operating the motor vehicle in an
off-road system eligible area of the state [NOT BEEN
CITED WITHIN THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS FOR A TRAFFIC
LAW VIOLATION WITH A DEMERIT POINT VALUE OF SIX OR
MORE ON THE POINT SCHEDULE DETERMINED UNDER
REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER AS
28.15.221]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 56, following line 28:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 96. AS 28.35.030(t) is amended to read:
(t) Notwithstanding (b) or (n) of this section,
the court shall waive the requirement of the use of an
ignition interlock device when a person operates a
motor vehicle in an area [A COMMUNITY] included on the
list published by the department under AS 28.15.126
[AS 28.22.011(b)]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 57, following line 30:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 98. AS 28.35.032(t) is amended to read:
(t) Notwithstanding (g) or (p) of this section,
the court shall waive the requirement of the use of an
ignition interlock device when a person operates a
motor vehicle in an area [A COMMUNITY] included on the
list published by the department under AS 28.15.126
[AS 28.22.011(b)].
* Sec. 99. AS 28.90.990(a) is amended by adding a
new paragraph to read:
(32) "off-road system eligible area" means
an area of the state, as determined by the department,
that does not have land-connected road access to an
office that offers road testing at least once every
three months and offers a sufficient number of road
tests to meet public demand."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 97, line 15, following "AS 12.55.135(j);":
Insert "AS 28.22.011(b);"
Page 98, line 8:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 106"
Page 99, line 11:
Delete "sec. 86"
Insert "sec. 89"
Page 99, line 12:
Delete "sec. 87"
Insert "sec. 90"
Page 99, line 13:
Delete "sec. 93"
Insert "sec. 100"
Page 99, line 14:
Delete "sec. 94"
Insert "sec. 101"
Page 99, line 15:
Delete "sec. 95"
Insert "sec. 102"
Page 99, line 16:
Delete "sec. 148"
Insert "sec. 155"
Page 100, line 6:
Delete "sec. 134"
Insert "sec. 141"
Page 100, line 7:
Delete "sec. 135"
Insert "sec. 142"
Page 100, line 13:
Delete "sec. 89"
Insert "sec. 93"
Page 100, line 14:
Delete "sec. 92"
Insert "sec. 97"
Page 100, line 15:
Delete "sec. 102"
Insert "sec. 109"
Page 100, line 16:
Delete "sec. 104"
Insert "sec. 111"
Page 100, line 17:
Delete "sec. 136"
Insert "sec. 143"
Page 101, line 10:
Delete "sec. 96"
Insert "sec. 103"
Page 101, line 11:
Delete "sec. 97"
Insert "sec. 104"
Page 101, line 15:
Delete "sec. 83"
Insert "sec. 85"
Page 101, line 16:
Delete "sec. 84"
Insert "sec. 86"
Page 101, line 17:
Delete "sec. 85"
Insert "sec. 88"
Page 101, line 18:
Delete "sec. 91"
Insert "sec. 95"
Page 101, line 21:
Delete "sec. 100"
Insert "sec. 107"
Page 101, line 22:
Delete "sec. 101"
Insert "sec. 108"
Page 101, line 23:
Delete "sec. 103"
Insert "sec. 110"
Page 101, line 24:
Delete "sec. 105"
Insert "sec. 112"
Page 101, line 25:
Delete "sec. 107"
Insert "sec. 114"
Page 101, line 26:
Delete "sec. 108"
Insert "sec. 115"
Page 101, line 27:
Delete "sec. 109"
Insert "sec. 116"
Page 101, line 28:
Delete "sec. 115"
Insert "sec. 122"
Page 101, line 29:
Delete "sec. 116"
Insert "sec. 123"
Page 101, line 30:
Delete "sec. 117"
Insert "sec. 124"
Page 101, line 31:
Delete "sec. 118"
Insert "sec. 125"
Page 102, line 1:
Delete "sec. 119"
Insert "sec. 126"
Page 102, line 2:
Delete "sec. 120"
Insert "sec. 127"
Page 102, line 3:
Delete "sec. 121"
Insert "sec. 128"
Page 102, line 4:
Delete "sec. 122"
Insert "sec. 129"
Page 102, line 5:
Delete "sec. 123"
Insert "sec. 130"
Page 102, line 6:
Delete "sec. 124"
Insert "sec. 131"
Page 102, line 7:
Delete "sec. 125"
Insert "sec. 132"
Page 102, line 8:
Delete "sec. 126"
Insert "sec. 133"
Page 102, line 9:
Delete "sec. 127"
Insert "sec. 134"
Page 102, line 10:
Delete "sec. 128"
Insert "sec. 135"
Page 102, line 11:
Delete "sec. 129"
Insert "sec. 136"
Page 102, line 12:
Delete "sec. 130"
Insert "sec. 137"
Page 102, line 13:
Delete "sec. 131"
Insert "sec. 138"
Page 102, line 14:
Delete "sec. 132"
Insert "sec. 139"
Page 102, line 15:
Delete "secs. 152 - 154"
Insert "secs. 159 - 161"
Page 102, line 16:
Delete "152 - 154"
Insert "159 - 161"
Page 103, line 1:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 106"
Page 103, line 2:
Delete "sec. 142"
Insert "sec. 149"
Page 103, line 6:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 159"
Page 103, line 8:
Delete "sec. 156(a)"
Insert "sec. 163(a)"
Page 103, line 11:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 163(b)"
Page 103, line 14:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 163(b)"
Page 103, line 17:
Delete "sec. 156(c)"
Insert "sec. 163(c)"
Page 103, line 20:
Delete "sec. 156(d)"
Insert "sec. 163(d)"
Page 103, line 23:
Delete "sec. 156(e)"
Insert "sec. 163(e)"
Page 103, line 26:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 106"
Delete "sec. 156(f)"
Insert "sec. 163(f)"
Page 103, lines 29 - 30:
Delete "76 - 88, 91, 93 - 95, 134, 135, 143 -
151, and 155"
Insert "76 - 82, 85, 86, 88 - 90, 92, 95, 100 -
102, 141, 142, 150 - 158, and 162"
Page 103, line 31, through page 104, line 1:
Delete "89, 90, 92, 96 - 98, 100 - 133, and 136 -
140"
Insert "93, 94, 97, 103 - 105, 107 - 140, and 143
- 147"
Page 104, line 2:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 159"
Page 92, line 2:
Delete "99, 142, 152 - 154, and 156(f)"
Insert "106, 149, 159 - 161, and 163(f)"
AMENDMENT 28 [29-LS0896\H.38, Martin/Gardner, 3/31/16]
Page 87, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 143. AS 43.23.065(c) is amended to read:
(c) Claims listed in (b) of this section have
priority in the order listed over other claims on a
permanent fund dividend whether payments are sought
through legal actions for the collection of debts or
through assignments from the debtor, except that
claims under (b)(1) and (2) of this section have the
same priority. If a person owes both child support and
restitution, and the amount due for a child support
obligation under (b)(1) of this section or for court
ordered restitution under (b)(2) of this section is
greater than the total amount of the permanent fund
dividend, the permanent fund dividend shall be divided
equally between the child support obligation and the
court ordered restitution."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 99, line 16:
Delete "sec. 148"
Insert "sec. 149"
Page 102, line 15:
Delete "secs. 152 - 154"
Insert "secs. 153 - 155"
Page 102, line 16:
Delete "152 - 154"
Insert "153 - 155"
Page 103, line 6:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 103, line 8:
Delete "sec. 156(a)"
Insert "sec. 157(a)"
Page 103, line 11:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 14:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 157(b)"
Page 103, line 17:
Delete "sec. 156(c)"
Insert "sec. 157(c)"
Page 103, line 20:
Delete "sec. 156(d)"
Insert "sec. 157(d)"
Page 103, line 23:
Delete "sec. 156(e)"
Insert "sec. 157(e)"
Page 103, line 26:
Delete "sec. 156(f)"
Insert "sec. 157(f)"
Page 103, line 30:
Delete "143 - 151, and 155"
Insert "143 - 152, and 156"
Page 104, line 2:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 153"
Page 104, line 4:
Delete "152 - 154, and 156(f)"
Insert "153 - 155, and 157(f)"
AMENDMENT 30 [29-LS0896\H.70, Gardner, 4/6/16]
Page 44, following line 27:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 76. AS 12.55.125(a) is amended to read:
(a) A defendant convicted of murder in the first
degree or murder of an unborn child under AS
11.41.150(a)(1) shall be sentenced to a definite term
of imprisonment of at least 30 [20] years but not more
than 99 years. A defendant convicted of murder in the
first degree shall be sentenced to a mandatory term of
imprisonment of 99 years when
(1) the defendant is convicted of the
murder of a uniformed or otherwise clearly identified
peace officer, firefighter, or correctional employee
who was engaged in the performance of official duties
at the time of the murder;
(2) the defendant has been previously
convicted of
(A) murder in the first degree under AS
11.41.100 or former AS 11.15.010 or 11.15.020;
(B) murder in the second degree under AS
11.41.110 or former AS 11.15.030; or
(C) homicide under the laws of another
jurisdiction when the offense of which the defendant
was convicted contains elements similar to first
degree murder under AS 11.41.100 or second degree
murder under AS 11.41.110;
(3) the defendant subjected the murder
victim to substantial physical torture;
(4) the defendant is convicted of the
murder of and personally caused the death of a person,
other than a participant, during a robbery; or
(5) the defendant is a peace officer who
used the officer's authority as a peace officer to
facilitate the murder.
* Sec. 77. AS 12.55.125(b) is amended to read:
(b) A defendant convicted of attempted murder in
the first degree, solicitation to commit murder in the
first degree, conspiracy to commit murder in the first
degree, kidnapping, or misconduct involving a
controlled substance in the first degree shall be
sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of at
least five years but not more than 99 years. A
defendant convicted of murder in the second degree or
murder of an unborn child under AS 11.41.150(a)(2) -
(4) shall be sentenced to a definite term of
imprisonment of at least 20 [10] years but not more
than 99 years. A defendant convicted of murder in the
second degree shall be sentenced to a definite term of
imprisonment of at least 20 years but not more than 99
years when the defendant is convicted of the murder of
a child under 16 years of age and the court finds by
clear and convincing evidence that the defendant (1)
was a natural parent, a stepparent, an adoptive
parent, a legal guardian, or a person occupying a
position of authority in relation to the child; or (2)
caused the death of the child by committing a crime
against a person under AS 11.41.200 - 11.41.530. In
this subsection, "legal guardian" and "position of
authority" have the meanings given in AS 11.41.470."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 47, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 81. AS 12.55.127(c) is amended to read:
(c) If the defendant is being sentenced for
(1) escape, the term of imprisonment shall
be consecutive to the term for the underlying crime;
(2) two or more crimes under AS 11.41, a
consecutive term of imprisonment shall be imposed for
at least
(A) the mandatory minimum term under AS
12.55.125(a) for each additional crime that is murder
in the first degree;
(B) one-fourth of the mandatory minimum term
under AS 12.55.125(b) for each additional crime that
is murder in the second degree;
(C) [(B)] the mandatory minimum term for
each additional crime that is an unclassified felony
governed by AS 12.55.125(b) other than murder in the
second degree;
(D) [(C)] the presumptive term specified in
AS 12.55.125(c) or the active term of imprisonment,
whichever is less, for each additional crime that is
(i) manslaughter; or
(ii) kidnapping that is a class A felony;
(E) [(D)] two years or the active term of
imprisonment, whichever is less, for each additional
crime that is criminally negligent homicide;
(F) [(E)] one-fourth of the presumptive
term under AS 12.55.125(c) or (i) for each additional
crime that is sexual assault in the first degree under
AS 11.41.410 or sexual abuse of a minor in the first
degree under AS 11.41.434, or an attempt,
solicitation, or conspiracy to commit those offenses;
and
(G) [(F)] some additional term of
imprisonment for each additional crime, or each
additional attempt or solicitation to commit the
offense, under AS 11.41.200 - 11.41.250, 11.41.420 -
11.41.432, 11.41.436 - 11.41.458, or 11.41.500 -
11.41.520."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 98, line 5:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 84"
Page 98, line 8:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 102"
Page 99, following line 10:
Insert new paragraphs to read:
"(26) AS 12.55.125(a), as amended by sec.
76 of this Act;
(27) AS 12.55.125(b), as amended by sec. 77
of this Act;
(28) AS 12.55.127(c), as amended by sec. 81 of
this Act;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 98, line 5:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 84"
Page 98, line 8:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 102"
Page 99, line 11:
Delete "sec. 86"
Insert "sec. 89"
Page 99, line 12:
Delete "sec. 87"
Insert "sec. 90"
Page 99, line 13:
Delete "sec. 93"
Insert "sec. 96"
Page 99, line 14:
Delete "sec. 94"
Insert "sec. 97"
Page 99, line 15:
Delete "sec. 95"
Insert "sec. 98"
Page 99, line 16:
Delete "sec. 148"
Insert "sec. 151"
Page 99, line 31:
Delete "sec. 76"
Insert "sec. 78"
Page 100, line 1:
Delete "sec. 77"
Insert "sec. 79"
Page 100, line 2:
Delete "sec. 78"
Insert "sec. 80"
Page 100, line 3:
Delete "sec. 79"
Insert "sec. 82"
Page 100, line 4:
Delete "sec. 80"
Insert "sec. 83"
Page 100, line 5:
Delete "sec. 81"
Insert "sec. 84"
Page 100, line 6:
Delete "sec. 134"
Insert "sec. 137"
Page 100, line 7:
Delete "sec. 135"
Insert "sec. 138"
Page 100, line 13:
Delete "sec. 89"
Insert "sec. 92"
Page 100, line 14:
Delete "sec. 92"
Insert "sec. 95"
Page 100, line 15:
Delete "sec. 102"
Insert "sec. 105"
Page 100, line 16:
Delete "sec. 104"
Insert "sec. 107"
Page 100, line 17:
Delete "sec. 136"
Insert "sec. 139"
Page 101, line 10:
Delete "sec. 96"
Insert "sec. 99"
Page 101, line 11:
Delete "sec. 97"
Insert "sec. 100"
Page 101, line 15:
Delete "sec. 83"
Insert "sec. 86"
Page 101, line 16:
Delete "sec. 84"
Insert "sec. 87"
Page 101, line 17:
Delete "sec. 85"
Insert "sec. 88"
Page 101, line 18:
Delete "sec. 91"
Insert "sec. 94"
Page 101, line 21:
Delete "sec. 100"
Insert "sec. 103"
Page 101, line 22:
Delete "sec. 101"
Insert "sec. 104"
Page 101, line 23:
Delete "sec. 103"
Insert "sec. 106"
Page 101, line 24:
Delete "sec. 105"
Insert "sec. 108"
Page 101, line 25:
Delete "sec. 107"
Insert "sec. 110"
Page 101, line 26:
Delete "sec. 108"
Insert "sec. 111"
Page 101, line 27:
Delete "sec. 109"
Insert "sec. 112"
Page 101, line 28:
Delete "sec. 115"
Insert "sec. 118"
Page 101, line 29:
Delete "sec. 116"
Insert "sec. 119"
Page 101, line 30:
Delete "sec. 117"
Insert "sec. 120"
Page 101, line 31:
Delete "sec. 118"
Insert "sec. 121"
Page 102, line 1:
Delete "sec. 119"
Insert "sec. 122"
Page 102, line 2:
Delete "sec. 120"
Insert "sec. 123"
Page 102, line 3:
Delete "sec. 121"
Insert "sec. 124"
Page 102, line 4:
Delete "sec. 122"
Insert "sec. 125"
Page 102, line 5:
Delete "sec. 123"
Insert "sec. 126"
Page 102, line 6:
Delete "sec. 124"
Insert "sec. 127"
Page 102, line 7:
Delete "sec. 125"
Insert "sec. 128"
Page 102, line 8:
Delete "sec. 126"
Insert "sec. 129"
Page 102, line 9:
Delete "sec. 127"
Insert "sec. 130"
Page 102, line 10:
Delete "sec. 128"
Insert "sec. 131"
Page 102, line 11:
Delete "sec. 129"
Insert "sec. 132"
Page 102, line 12:
Delete "sec. 130"
Insert "sec. 133"
Page 102, line 13:
Delete "sec. 131"
Insert "sec. 134"
Page 102, line 14:
Delete "sec. 132"
Insert "sec. 135"
Page 102, line 15:
Delete "secs. 152 - 154"
Insert "secs. 155 - 157"
Page 102, line 16:
Delete "152 - 154"
Insert "155 - 157"
Page 103, line 1:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 102"
Page 103, line 2:
Delete "sec. 142"
Insert "sec. 145"
Page 103, line 6:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 155"
Page 103, line 8:
Delete "sec. 156(a)"
Insert "sec. 159(a)"
Page 103, line 11:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 159(b)"
Page 103, line 14:
Delete "sec. 156(b)"
Insert "sec. 159(b)"
Page 103, line 17:
Delete "sec. 156(c)"
Insert "sec. 159(c)"
Page 103, line 20:
Delete "sec. 156(d)"
Insert "sec. 159(d)"
Page 103, line 23:
Delete "sec. 156(e)"
Insert "sec. 159(e)"
Page 103, line 26:
Delete "sec. 99"
Insert "sec. 102"
Delete "sec. 156(f)"
Insert "sec. 159(f)"
Page 103, lines 29 - 30:
Delete "76 - 88, 91, 93 - 95, 134, 135, 143 -
151, and 155"
Insert "78 - 91, 94, 96 - 98, 137, 138, 146 -
154, and 158"
Page 103, line 31, through page 104, line 1:
Delete "89, 90, 92, 96 - 98, 100 - 133, and 136 -
140"
Insert "92, 93, 95, 99 - 101, 103 - 136, and 139
- 143"
Page 104, line 2:
Delete "sec. 152"
Insert "sec. 155"
Page 104, line 4:
Delete "99, 142, 152 - 154, and 156(f)"
Insert "102, 145, 155 - 157, and 159(f)"
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|