Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519
03/22/2020 11:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB115 | |
| SB155 | |
| SB134 | |
| SB172 | |
| SB55 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 55(2d JUD)
"An Act relating to judges of the court of appeals;
and providing for an effective date."
3:23:03 PM
Co-Chair Johnston invited Senator Wilson's staff to provide
a brief introduction of the bill.
JASMIN MARTIN, STAFF, SENATOR WILSON, indicated that the
senator was on other state business but would likely be at
the hearing shortly. She explained that SB 55 added a
fourth permanent judge to the Court of Appeals. Any
criminal trial that ended in a conviction could be
appealed. Since 2014, there had been a significant increase
in the instances of criminal trials. The court needed a
fourth judge to catch up on the large backlog and to keep
pace with the current and expected cases in the future. The
bill was fully supported by the Alaska Court System. Nancy
Mead was in the room to answer specific questions about the
courts.
Ms. Martin continued that the focus of the legislation was
to strengthen the continuum of public safety. It was
essential to equip the courts to handle the growing
workload. The issue was highlighted by the Chief Justice in
his recent address to the legislature. The current average
time between a criminal appeal being filed and being
decided was about 3 years. She asserted that the timeline
was unacceptable to victims, the public, attorneys, and
defendants.
Ms. Martin asserted that the court would be much faster at
resolving the cases that were pending and ready for
decision if there was an additional appellate judge. In
2013, the total number of cases ready for review and
assigned to a judge was approximately 50. In other words,
judges could keep pace if they were issued about 50
decisions per year. However, in 2018, the number of case
assignments rose to about 90 decisions per year. The judges
could not keep pace with the increase in cases. The
legislation would improve the function of Alaskas criminal
justice system.
Ms. Martin indicated that the legislatures recent focus on
crime legislation had increased the expected case load of
the Court of Appeals. In 2018 and 2019 there was a record
high number of felony cases filed at the trial courts. All
of the facts she had laid out had proven the need for an
additional judge. She asked members to support SB 55. She
offered to review the sectional analysis at the request of
the committee.
Co-Chair Johnston thanked Senator Wilson for coming back to
the hearing. She invited Nancy Mead to the table to present
invited testimony and provide a review of the fiscal note.
3:26:06 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
explained that the Court of Appeals was an appellate court
that only handled criminal cases. After a persons Superior
Court Trial, an appeal went to the Supreme Court in the
instance of a civil case and to the Court of Appeals in the
instance of a criminal case. Since the inception of the
Court of Appeals in 1980 it had always had 3 judges and had
been unable to keep pace with the number of filings and the
amount of work since 2011. She expected the trend to
continue. Currently, the Court of Appeals was not
publishing, disposing, or finishing as many cases as there
were cases coming in the door.
Ms. Mead reported that the Alaska Court System had been
dealing with the problem with several approaches over the
last few years. It had been trying to find funding to have
temporary judges handle a portion of the cases. Some of the
cases were being handled in a quicker manner with shorter
decisions. Presently, it was the Alaska Court Systems
priority to find a lasting fix to the problem which it
expected to continue due to changes in criminal laws and
with all of the other increased number of felony trials and
felony filings over the previous few years. The Alaska
Court System fully supported the bill. It was usually
neutral on bills but, the Supreme Court needed the issue to
be addressed. She could provide more detail if the
committee desired or could answer any questions.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked Ms. Mead to explain
the 4 full-time positions listed in the fiscal note. Ms.
Mead responded that a judge in any appellate court in the
country needed some support staff in order to do an
effective job. A judge on the Court of Appeals had 2 law
clerks. Law clerks were typically, but not always, recent
graduates of law school. They served for 1 year. It was
standardized around the country with all different judges
and all different courts that most law clerk positions
lasted 1 to 2 years. A judge came with 2 law clerks and a
judicial assistant. A judicial assistant kept track of all
the files, answered phones, and handled the front desk.
They also typically kept things on schedule and handled the
computer system as well as other miscellaneous items. In
order to be an effective judge, they needed an effective
staff.
Representative Wool asked about the uptick in 2018. Ms.
Mead relayed that felony filings typically fluctuated up
and down through the years. She reported a severe downtick
in the number of filings and the number of trials between
2016 and 2018. The court systems data did not tell the
story of why things happened. She had heard that with some
of the monumental changes in the criminal law made during
the time period there were fewer arrests and fewer felony
filings. She suggested that perhaps it was related to the
resources of the Department of Law being able to file
certain things. Also, there were changes to the drug laws
that meant that certain drug felonies were no longer
felonies they significantly dropped. In FY 18 the laws
reverted back, and there were an additional 1000 felony
filings than the previous year. She reported that there
were about 7200 filings in 2018, versus about 6200 in 2017.
In FY 19 the number increased again from 7200 to 7350. The
Alaska Court System expected the number of cases to
continue to rise as more prosecutors were hired and more
law enforcement was on the street.
3:30:58 PM
Representative Wool wondered if HB 49 had been taken into
account or whether the effects of HB 49 would start to
appear. He wondered if Ms. Mead expected another quantum
leap. Ms. Mead replied that the Alaska Court System
expected at lease a steady increase from HB 49, if not a
more substantial one. In HB 49 the Department of Laws
fiscal note included the funding for 6 additional
prosecutors. She reported that with more prosecutors in
place, there would be more enforcement or consequences for
criminal offenses leading to more work for the court
system.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked Ms. Mead if adding an Appellate
Court judge would really solve the backlog problem. Ms.
Mead responded that the bill would solve the courts part
of the problem. She clarified that there were delays at the
trial court level which SB 55 did not address. The bill
applied to the Court of Appeals. She reiterated that the
average time for an appeal to be filed and resolved was 3
years. No one thought the timeframe was acceptable. The
part of the problem the court was responsible for would be
solved by having a fourth judge on the Court of Appeals.
Other reasons for delay were largely because the agencies
also had difficulty getting all the resources garnered to
get cases briefed in time. They were building up their
resources as well. She reiterated that the part of the
problem that was attributable to the court taking too long
to put its decisions together would be solved by having a
fourth judge on the Court of Appeals.
Representative Knopp wondered about the nature of the
appeals the court was hearing. He asked whether certain
rules should be tightened. Ms. Mead responded that all the
cases were criminal in nature. The cases were basically
equally split between merit appeals (where a defendant felt
something was handled improperly at the trial court level)
and sentence appeals (where a defendant felt they should
have received less time). The reversal rate was low, and
defendants did almost all of the appealing. There were
limited circumstances in which the prosecutor could appeal
such as double jeopardy. She continued that when defendants
appealed, they won only about 10 percent to 12 percent of
the time. When a defendant received a reversal it usually
meant that the case was remanded and sent back to the court
to correct an error. The person was not typically set free
or declared innocent by the Court of Appeals. She provided
an example.
Representative Knopp asked if there was anyone that
reviewed the merits of the appeal before it went to the
trial court for appeal. He wondered if it automatically
went to the Court of Appeals.
Ms. Mead responded that a defendant had a right to file an
appeal. Most defendants in Alaskas system were represented
by a public defender who helped them put together their
appeal. The public defender acted somewhat as a filter to
put together the best arguments. It would be unusual for a
public defender to refuse to file an appeal for a client.
The public defender filtered the appeal to make it as
strong as possible streamlining things and ensuring that
the arguments had merit rather than being frivolous.
Representative Josephson asked if there was a system for a
motion for bail pending an appeal. Along with 3 years being
broadly unacceptable, there were victims that wanted
finality and defendants who might or might not be in
custody pending appeal. He asked how time would be made up
for someone who was wrongfully held in custody. Ms. Mead
answered that people could be out on bail pending appeal.
If it happened, it was often because the person was out on
bail on their own recognizance or in the community pending
their trial. If they did not violate their bail conditions,
went through their trial, and were convicted, they could
request to remain out on their own recognizance during the
pendency of their appeal. It was not common for a person
who was incarcerated to have their case completely reversed
100 percent such that they were found innocent. An appeal
was sent back about 10 percent of the time for a trial
court judge to correct an error.
3:38:05 PM
Co-Chair Johnston OPENED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Johnston CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Johnston would be setting the bill aside.
SB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnston would be recessing Monday morning's
meeting scheduled for 9:00 a.m. to a call of the chair.