Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/30/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB289 | |
| HB296 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 289 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 296
"An Act relating to service of process on prisoners;
relating to the crime of escape; relating to the
definition of 'correctional facility'; amending Rule
4, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for
an effective date."
2:15:25 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough moved CSHB 296(JUD) 27-LS1199/E as a
working document before the committee. There being no
OBJECTION it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, SPONSOR, relayed that the
bill had been drafted by the House Judiciary Committee. He
stated that the office of Legislative Legal created a
booklet every year that discussed cases and issues of that
year that would benefit from further legislative review. He
added that often the court would recommend further
legislative review. He shared that most of the cases in the
booklet did not warrant further review, but some did. He
highlighted Section 4 of the bill which was a "repeal of a
repealer". He explained that several years ago a law was
passed that said if someone was sentenced for gang related
activity, an electronic monitoring device could be required
after parole. He stressed the importance of keeping paroled
gang members separated; the device would monitor if members
congregated. He relayed that there had been a 3 year sunset
placed on the section that was scheduled to expire very
soon. He believed it was essential that the section be kept
in statute.
Co-Chair Thomas asked whether the provision would be given
another sunset date.
Representative Gruenberg replied in the negative. He warned
that it would be detrimental if judges could not order the
monitoring devices. He continued to Sections 1 and 5 of the
legislation. He explained that in some cases prisoners were
sued and that under current the law there was no one
authorized to serve the papers to the prisoner. He said
that as a result the whole writ of execution had been
eliminated. The sections allowed for the superintendent of
the institution to serve the legal papers to the inmates.
He shared that the change had been recommended by
Legislative Legal. He said that the language clarified that
the statute was an indirect court rule change and could be
implemented immediately.
2:20:14 PM
Representative Gruenberg stated that the third issue
addressed in the legislation related to the crime of
escape. He said that in an example case the defendant had
initially been charged with a minor crime, but could not
make bail. He explained that the court felt that the
defendant was not a flight risk and had assigned him to a
halfway house while awaiting trial. The defendant walked
away from the halfway house and was subsequently charged
with a class B felony, even though he had not yet been
formerly charged. The change would make walking away from a
non-secure facility a class B misdemeanor. He said that
Sections 2, 3, and 6 dealt with the ambiguity in statute
pertaining to walking away from a non-secure facility.
2:23:39 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough clarified that the bill did not
change the use of a facility; the definition of a halfway
house was not being changed to a secure correctional
facility.
Representative Gruenberg replied that the zoning would not
change.
Vice-chair Fairclough understood that zoning was not being
changed. She explained that she was referring to the
definition of what a correction facility was. She expressed
the desire to avoid any problems with land-use issues.
Representative Gruenberg replied that the bill would not
change the land-use terms.
Representative Wilson asked what the charges were if a
prisoner escaped from a secure correctional facility.
Representative Gruenberg stated that escaping from a secure
facility would be a class B felony.
Representative Wilson felt that a prisoner escaping from a
halfway house understood that their actions were wrong. She
wondered why the punishment would be different for a non-
secure facility escape.
Representative Gruenberg replied that a person had to be
considered a non-risk to be put into a halfway house; petty
criminal charges and misdemeanors. He said that most people
who did not return to the halfway house when expected were
out looking for work or visiting family. He stressed that
this was not comparable to breaking out of a secure prison
and should therefore not be treated the same under the law.
He added that the codification would also result in a
significant cost savings to the state.
Representative Wilson thought that lowering the punishment
would entice more inmates to walk away from halfway houses
before finishing their sentence. She believed that it was
just as wrong to walk away from a halfway house as it was
to escape from a secure prison.
2:29:32 PM
Representative Gruenberg explained that the inmate would be
required to serve the remainder of their sentence if they
escaped from a halfway house. He stressed the importance
that the punishment should fit the crime.
Representative Gara expressed that he did not want the bill
to change the land use designation of correctional
facilities. He pointed to Page 1, lines 7 and 8 of the
bill:
Section 1. AS 09.05.050 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) In this section, "correctional facility" has the
meaning given in AS 33.30.901.
Representative Gara explained that "correctional facility"
was changed only according to AS 09.05.050, which pertained
to service of prisoners. He continued to Page 2, line 13
and 14, which redefined "correction facility," but only in
Section 3. He noted that the term was not being redefined
for land-use.
Co-Chair Stoltze argued that the bill would lower the
security threshold. He thought that the threat of the
felony penalty was a strong inducement for inmates to
follow the rules.
Co-Chair Thomas OPENED public testimony.
SAM EDWARDS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, MAT-SU (via teleconference), responded to the
concerns raised by Co-Chair Stoltze. He said that the issue
had been carefully examined by LAW the Department of
Corrections (DOC). He believed that each case should be
weighed on an individual basis.
Representative Wilson maintained her concern about the
lesser penalty for halfway house escapees. She thought that
lowering the penalty would increase the number of inmates
walking away from halfway houses before serving out their
sentences.
Co-Chair Thomas understood the bill related to misdemeanors
and not felony offenders.
Representative Gruenberg replied in the affirmative. He
furthered that a person would not be placed in a halfway
house if they were a threat to the public. He stressed that
the bill simply codified the court's current interpretation
of the law. He added that an inmate that walked away from a
halfway house before serving out the full sentence would be
placed in a secure facility when apprehended.
2:37:53 PM
Co-Chair Thomas told a personal story about a friend who
had been released from prison and was living in a halfway
house. The friend wore an electronic ankle bracelet, which
allowed him to be monitored at all times.
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested that further public testimony be
taken at the next hearing of the bill.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
clarified that under the bill removing oneself from a
facility would be a class A misdemeanor, which would result
in 1 year in jail.
2:40:17 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated that the issue stemmed
from the failure of the courts to recognize that a halfway
house was a correctional facility. He understood that the
bill corrected that.
Ms. Carpeneti responded that the court stated that in order
for the inmate to be charged under the circumstances of a
class B felony, escape in the second degree; the facility
had to be secured with locks.
Representative Guttenberg understood that the bill would
recognize that a halfway house was considered a
correctional facility.
Ms. Carpeneti reiterated that the bill stated that in order
to be charged with a class B felony for escape an inmate
would have had to have escaped from a secure, locked
facility.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested a letter of position from Joseph
Schmidt, Commissioner, Department Of Corrections.
Co-Chair Thomas discussed housekeeping.
HB 296 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|