Legislature(2007 - 2008)
03/18/2008 02:50 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB255 | |
| HB257 | |
| HB332 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 255
"An Act relating to dual sentencing of certain juvenile
offenders; amending Rule 24.1, Alaska Delinquency
Rules; and providing for an effective date."
2:52:48 PM
Representative Craig Johnson presented an overview of HB 255
that would allow a judge to simultaneously sentence a
juvenile to both a juvenile and an adult sentence.
Representative Johnson explained that if a juvenile
successfully completes the juvenile program they will be
finished, but if the juvenile fails to satisfactorily
complete the program or to reoffend, the juvenile can be
subjected to an adult sentence. He related that this bill
began as a commitment to his constituents to address gang
violence. Representative Johnson believed a juvenile should
be aware that the consequences of not complying could mean
adult prison time.
2:55:52 PM
Representative Joule remarked that some juveniles, who have
committed egregious acts, have been tried as adults. He
wondered why this bill was necessary if that is an option.
Representative Johnson replied that a juvenile, tried as
adult, is still an available option of the court, but this
bill would cover crimes that may not automatically rise to
that higher level of sentencing. This bill would give the
prosecutor an opportunity to ask for the duel sentence for
those cases where the juvenile would start in the juvenile
system but, if the rehabilitation failed, the juvenile would
end up in the adult prison.
2:57:45 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if fifteen was the correct number of
states currently practicing duel sentencing and requested
any statistics from those states. Representative Johnson
concurred that fifteen states have this program and referred
the statistic question to juvenile experts who were
available to testify.
2:58:55 PM
Representative Gara voiced his concern on the felony classes
subject to the duel sentencing. Representative Johnson
replied Class B and Class C felonies. Representative Gara
questioned if that was all Class B and C felonies.
2:59:30 PM
ANTHONY NEWMAN, DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, replied that this bill would
extend duel sentencing to Class B felonies against persons,
as well as, misconduct involving weapons in the first and
second degree, and arson in the second degree.
Representative Gara requested clarification on the
sentencing process if a minor commits a violation. He
wondered if the state would have the discretion to request
the court to sentence the juvenile as an adult. Mr. Newman
clarified that the Department of Health & Social Services
would request the court impose the adult sentence that had
previously been pronounced. Representative Gara reasoned
that sometimes personality differences occur between the
juveniles and their counselors and wondered what would
prevent a counselor from imposing an adult sentence on a
juvenile they did not like. He wondered if Representative
Johnson would be comfortable with a Letter of Intent
accompanying the bill declaring that it is not the intent
for insubstantial violations would result in request for
adult sentencing.
3:01:08 PM
Representative Johnson answered that he would have not
problem with a Letter of Intent but stressed that the
department would prefer keeping the juvenile in the juvenile
system rather than moving them into the adult prison.
Representative Johnson informed the committee that, before
any final decision was made, there would be a hearing with a
third party judge, avoiding personality conflict problems.
3:02:17 PM
Representative Gara questioned if a juvenile commits a
probation violation would that be grounds for imposing the
adult sentence, if the judge and hearing officer agreed. Mr.
Newman replied that an earlier version of the bill included
probation violation as a condition to be transferred to the
adult system, but it is not included in this version of the
bill. Representative Gara wondered what would trigger the
transfer. Mr. Newman replied that for a transfer to occur
the juvenile would have to commit a felony or misdemeanor
crime, fail to obey the terms of a restitution order, escape
from a juvenile correctional facility, or fail to engage in
the rehabilitation program. Representative Gara wondered if
it was substantial and unsubstantial to be late in a
restitution payment or to violate a minor infraction in
rehabilitation. He questioned if the judge had standards to
follow or was anything written in the bill declaring that
the adult sentence can not be imposed for an insubstantial
sentence.
3:04:23 PM
Mr. Newman maintained that conditions must indicate the
juvenile is no longer amenable to treatment in the juvenile
system. Representative Gara inquired if the juvenile commits
one of those infractions would the juvenile be considered no
longer amenable to treatment. He requested clarification on
the findings the judge has to make before imposing the adult
sentence. Mr. Newman responded that the judge has to find a
preponderance of evidence. This would include the occurrence
of a felony, a misdemeanor involving an injury, the use of
deadly weapon, the juveniles failure to engage in or
satisfactorily complete a juvenile rehabilitation program,
or the juveniles failure to complete the terms of a
restitution order.
3:06:26 PM
Representative Gara questioned the judge's guidance in
determining if a late restitution payment should result in
imposing the adult sentence. Mr. Newman responded that it
would have to be a preponderance of evidence.
3:07:10 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
referenced current law, AS 4712 170E that states if a youth
is charged with the commission of a felony against a person
or arson, and the court makes that finding by a
preponderance of evidence then the adult sentence is
automatically imposed. She elaborated that if a juvenile
failed in any of the other ways and the department pursued
the adult sentence, the juvenile still has the opportunity
to prove that they are amenable to treatment and should
continue under the juvenile system. Representative Gara
questioned if that becomes the standard for the other
violations. Ms. Carpeneti agreed with the exception of a
felony against a person or arson.
3:08:31 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked Representative Johnson earlier about
any results from the states already using this blended
system and asked again if anyone could answer that question.
Mr. Newman indicated that the department has consulted with
national experts on duel sentencing, but being a new system,
it has not been thoroughly studied. He remarked that fifteen
states have duel or blended structuring in place, but the
programs vary according to the statutes in each state. He
revealed that Alaska has narrow and rigid criteria under
which duel sentencing is currently being applied. This bill
would relax the criteria to put it more in line with the
process in the other fifteen states.
3:10:45 PM
Co-Chair Chenault questioned if this bill would make it
easier or harder for the court system in Alaska to use a
blended system. Ms. Carpeneti replied that historically it
has been difficult to get juveniles waived on a
discretionary basis. She revealed that in the late 90s the
Legislature adopted a mandatory waiver for very serious
offences involving sixteen or seventeen year olds. The
purpose of the duel system is to apply stiffer penalties
such as the possible enforcement of an adult sentence on a
sixteen or seventeen year old who commit serious crimes. Ms.
Carpeneti believed this presents the juvenile with a good
reason to cooperate. Ms. Carpeneti signified that the
juvenile has to be aware that there can be consequences for
not accepting what the juvenile system has to offer.
3:12:46 PM
CHRIS PROVOST, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, ANCHORAGE
(Testified via teleconference), remarked that he has been
authorized by the Anchorage Office of Public Advocacy to
comment. He thanked the bill's sponsor for the improvements
made from the original proposal. He voiced the Office of
Public Advocacy concern about incarcerating a minor in an
adult facility before the final decision was made. The
Office of Public Advocacy believed it would be better for
the juvenile to remain in the juvenile correctional system.
3:15:52 PM
Mr. Provost responded to the previous question regarding
result studies from other states. He mentioned that Florida
is the only state to have completed a thorough study and the
program has not worked out well for public safety or for the
juveniles. He added that Florida's bill is harsher than the
one before the committee.
3:17:09 PM
Representative Kelly questioned how this bill targets gang
behavior. Representative Johnson recalled that his original
concept was to put gang members, no matter their age, in
jail but this approach was changed. He explained that if a
young gang member commits a serious offense, they would
automatically be released when they became an adult. This
bill shows the juvenile that any serious offense can now
translate into real jail time. Representative Johnson
believed this would take the "hero status" from a young gang
member and give them the opportunity to make a life decision
of getting with the program or doing hard time.
3:20:07 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 3, lines 28-31:
Delete all material and insert:
"(4) if
(A) petition has been filed under AS 47.12.160(d) to
impose an adult sentence;
(B) a court, at a hearing held within 48 hours of the
filing of the petition, finds that there is probable
cause to support the allegations in the petition; and
(C) the department transfers custody of the minor to
the Department of Corrections pending the resolution of
the petition."
Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Johnson pointed out that this amendment
provides for a hearing, within forty eight hours, before the
juvenile enters an adult prison. It would also provide for
the transfer of custody to the Department of Corrections.
Representative Johnson maintained that leaving someone in
the juvenile facility can result in a disruptive "hero
status." Representative Kelly asked if the amendment
addressed into which facility the juvenile would be moved.
3:22:22 PM
Representative Johnson replied it would be the "big house."
He illustrated the three levels at the Department of
Corrections facility for placing juveniles: total isolation;
placed with other juveniles; or an area out of the general
population.
Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO Objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:23:33 PM
Co-Chair Chenault commented that all the fiscal notes
reflected a zero cost. He questioned if this bill increased
or decreased the number of juveniles. Representative Johnson
replied there were some indeterminate numbers reflected in
the fiscal notes. He expected an impact, but was unable to
determine exactly how much at this time.
3:24:30 PM
Mr. Newman remarked that the Divisions of Juvenile Justice
estimated that approximately ten to twenty juveniles a year
would be recommended for duel sentences. He expressed the
hope that most juveniles would not refuse to participate in
the rehabilitation or commit further offences. Co-Chair
Chenault remarked that one of the fiscal notes states,
"Under duel sentencing if the minor unsuccessfully completes
their sentence in the juvenile system they will be placed on
adult felony probation under DOC supervision."
Representative Johnson replied this addressed the older
version of the bill which states they will remain under
juvenile probation. He stated that the fiscal note is not
accurate. (Department of Corrections, 3/3/08)
3:27:28 PM
Co-Chair Chenault MOVED TO REPORT CSHB 255 (FIN) out of
committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 255 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and new fiscal notes by the Department
of Corrections, the Department of Administration, the Alaska
Court System, the Department of Health and Social Services
and a previously published fiscal note from the Department
of Law.
3:29:08 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|