Legislature(2017 - 2018)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/15/2017 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB55 | |
| SB5 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 55-OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS
1:35:29 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 55. He explained
that this bill is what he has referred to as the technical bill.
It addresses non-policy items that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission ("Commission") has proposed, primarily recommendation
2017-14. He asked Mr. Shilling to go through the sectional
summary before the committee considers the committee substitute.
1:37:48 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator
John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee
that SB 55 contains a number of the technical changes that the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission has been gathering since
Senate Bill 91 passed in 2016. These recommendations are mostly
technical; some clarify intent and some correct drafting errors.
He spoke to the following sectional summary for SB 55:
Section 1
AS 11.46.280(d) - Issuing a bad check.
Removes inadvertent inflation-adjustment of $25,000.
Section 2
AS 11.46.285(b) - Fraudulent use of an access device.
Removes inadvertent inflation-adjustment of $25,000.
Section 3
AS 11.46.730(c) - Defrauding creditors.
Removes inadvertent inflation-adjustment of $25,000.
MR. SHILLING explained that in 2016, the Commission recommended
raising the felony theft threshold and inflation proofing that
number. The recommendation did not include inflation proofing
the three larger amounts addressed in Sections 1-3. It was a
drafting error to include them and the bill rectifies the error.
Section 4
AS 11.71.050(a) - Misconduct involving controlled
substances in the fourth degree
Eliminates penalty overlap for possession of less than
an ounce of a VIA controlled substance.
MR. SHILLING explained that an individual under age 21 who
illegally possesses less than an ounce of marijuana could
simultaneously be charged with a class A misdemeanor and a class
B misdemeanor. This bill leaves possession of less than an ounce
of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor,
Section 5
AS 12.55.011(b) - Victim and community involvement in
sentencing.
Clarifies that the court shall only provide the form
to the victim if practicable.
MR. SHILLING explained that the court form gives victims
information about the defendant's sentence and release date. It
also allows the victim an opportunity to update their
information with the Department of Correction's Automated Victim
Notification System (VINE). Senate Bill 91 required courts to
give this form to victims but the court does not maintain victim
information and therefore is not able to supply the form when
the victim, for whatever reason, does not attend the court
hearing.
Section 6
AS 12.55.015(a) - Authorized sentences; forfeiture.
Provides explicit authority to the court to suspend an
entry of judgement.
MR. SHILLING explained that this is the statute that authorizes
the court to do such things as sentence individuals and impose
probation and impose fines. Suspended entry of judgment is a new
concept that belongs in this section.
Section 7
AS 12.55.078(d) - Suspended entry of judgement.
Clarifies when the court shall discharge and dismiss
proceedings in a suspended entry of judgement.
MR. SHILLING explained that this section adds the words "was
imposed" to clarify the date that is being talked about.
Section 8
AS 12.55.078(f) - Suspended entry of judgement.
Clarifies that the crimes for which SEJ may not be
used are the crimes currently charged, not prior
convictions.
MR. SHILLING said the terminology was changed in this section
for two reasons. The first is that in a SEJ an individual is not
convicted so it is inappropriate in this context to be talking
about conviction. But the change in paragraph (5) on page 5,
line 17, is for a slightly different reason. The intent of SEJ
is that an individual that is currently charged with domestic
violence cannot be eligible for SEJ. Thus it's important to
refer to the current charge that individual has rather than some
previous conviction of domestic violence.
1:44:55 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for clarification that the same
rationale applies to paragraphs (1)-(4) in Section 8. He read AS
12.55.078(f)(1), as proposed, and asked if the phrase "is
charged with" refers to the immediate matter, not a previous
charge.
MR. SHILLING said he didn't know that the first three instances
of changing "convicted of" to "charged with" is the same problem
that exists in paragraph (5). The reason the wording was changed
in the three instances in paragraphs (1)-(4 is because the SEJ
is unique in that there is no conviction. He views this as a
drafting oversight.
CHAIR COGHILL said he believes Senator Wielechowski is asking if
it refers to the issue that is under suspended imposition of
judgement.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he's thinking of an event where
someone is charged with a completely different crime. "I want
the record to be clear that we're not saying in that case you
can't have a suspended imposition of sentence."
MR. SHILLING emphasized that the intent is that this does not
preclude an individual who has had a prior charge or conviction
for one of these offenses from getting a suspended imposition of
sentence.
Section 9
AS 12.55.090(c) - Granting of probation
Clarifies that the maximum probation term for a felony
sex offense is 15 years, while all other unclassified
felonies have a maximum probation term of 10 years.
MR. SHILLING explained that Senate Bill 91 created some
confusion in this statute because there are unclassified felony
sex offenses under Title 11. The added language, "not listed in
(1) of this subsection;" clarifies that the maximum probation
period for both classified and unclassified felony sex offenses
is 15 years.
CHAIR COGHILL summarized that the probation for a sex offender
may not exceed 15 years.
MR. SHILLING agreed.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that that was probably the intention all
along.
MR. SHILLING continued the sectional review.
Section 10
AS 28.15.165(e) - Administrative revocations and
disqualifications resulting from chemical sobriety
tests and refusals to submit to tests.
Clarifies that the dismissal of all charges, regardless
of prejudice, serves to meet the requirement of this
section.
MR. SHILLING explained that the intent of this policy was to
reinstate the license after acquittal or dismissal, regardless
of whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. This
corrects a drafting oversight.
Section 11
AS 44.19.645(g) - Powers and duties of the commission
Requires the Department of Corrections to report
certain data to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
regarding earned compliance credits for parolees.
MR. SHILLING directed attention to the data collection
requirements in paragraph (6) on page 7, line 21. He explained
that Senate Bill 91 created a policy for an individual to
receive month-for-month credit for sustained compliance with
their probation or parole. The bill included the requirement to
submit the data to DOC for probation but omitted the requirement
to submit the data for parole. This corrects that drafting
oversight and adds this reporting requirement for DOC.
Section 12
AS 47.37.040 - Duties of the department.
Authorizes the ASAP program to accept referrals from
the court for minor consuming/possession.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that Tony Piper with the Alcohol Safety
Action Program was available to answer questions about the ASAP
program.
MR. SHILLING explained that when Senate Bill 165 passed last
year, it changed provisions in Title 4 making minor consuming
alcohol a violation rather than a criminal offense. It also
provided that the fine for the violation could be reduced if the
defendant successfully completed the ASAP program. That
provision conflicted with Senate Bill 91 and SB 55 remedies that
conflict by giving the ASAP program explicit authority to accept
referrals coming from the Court System.
1:51:24 PM
CHAIR COGHILL added that Senate Bill 91 narrowed the scope of
the Alcohol Safety Action Program which conflicted with the
provision in Senate Bill 165 to allow minors to use that
program. "This just aligns those two bills, basically."
SENATOR MEYER asked if this is limited to minor in possession of
alcohol, not marijuana.
MR. SHILLING offered his understanding that it is just
possession and consumption of alcohol.
Section 13
AS 33.16.120(h) - Rights of certain victims in
connection with parole.
Resolves a drafting error that requires the Department
of Corrections to provide notifications for hearings
that will not occur.
MR. SHILLING explained that Section 13 contains an error and
corrects an error from Senate Bill 91. This section repeals AS
33.16.120(a) and AS 33.16.120(h), but including 120(a) was a
mistake. AS 33.16.120(h), however, is an unnecessary reporting
requirement that should have been removed when the House
excluded some types of offenders from administrative parole.
This corrects that error.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if AS 33.16.120(h) will be repealed.
MR. SHILLING answered yes.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the committee substitute (CS) addresses
just this section.
MR. SHILLING replied that is correct.
CHAIR COGHILL said he would bring the CS up after the sectional
review was complete.
MR. SHILLING turned to Section 14 and deferred explanation to
Hilary Martin.
Section 14
Uncodified law - applicability
This section contains applicability provisions.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Martin to explain the concept and
substance of Section 14, so the committee understands whether it
is a technical fix as opposed to policy.
1:56:06 PM
HILARY MARTIN, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, said applicability sections
generally look at when a change in a crime or penalty applies,
which is particularly important for criminal bills. "If you're
changing the crime or if you're increasing the punishment, you
need to be careful that you're not applying it to conduct that
had already been committed before it becomes effective, because
that can be an expose facto violation."
Applicability sections make it clear when the law applies. For
example, (a)(1) [page 11, line 13,] references the change in a
crime to remove the adjustment for inflation so it applies on or
after the effective date.
CHAIR COGHILL offered his understanding that some of the
probation and parole requirements had to apply on or after the
effective date and by changing the reporting requirements the
application must correspond with the time in history that
passed.
MS. MARTIN replied it depends on what is happening with the
probation. Application could be when probation is ordered, or it
could be for offenses committed on or after.
CHAIR COGHILL asked her to discuss the applicability in (a)(1)-
(4) on page ll, lines 13-16.
1:58:52 PM
MS. MARTIN explained that they are all changes to crimes;
(a)(1)-(3) remove the adjusted for inflation language and (a)(4)
adds the reference to AS 11.71.060(a)(2). An element of the
crime is being changed and they apply to offenses committed on
or after the effective date of that section.
CHAIR COGHILL asked what the charge under AS 12.55.078(d) [page
11, lines 17-20] refers to.
MS. MARTIN replied that is the change to the suspended entry of
judgement.
CHAIR COGHILL observed that subsection (c) [AS 12.55.090(c) on
page 11, lines 21-23] refers to probation. He asked her to
explain her statement that it could apply to somebody on
probation, but it doesn't contemplate something that happened
before the law passed.
MS. MARTIN clarified that there is a difference between an
applicability section and retroactivity. AS 12.55.090(c) would
apply to anyone granted probation on or after the effective
date, regardless of when they committed the offense."
CHAIR COGHILL asked her to talk about subsection (d) [on page
11, lines 24-28].
MS. MARTIN said this section allows an individual to request
their license revocation for driving under the influence be
rescinded in the event of an acquittal or the charges are
dropped. The section removes the words "without prejudice" so it
applies to more people. This is a benefit that could apply
before, on, or after the effective date [of Section 10].
SENATOR COGHILL offered his understanding that the timeframe
falls between the signing of Senate Bill 91 and passage of SB
55.
MS. MARTIN said she believes that is correct.
2:02:50 PM
MR. SHILLING continued the sectional review.
Section 15
Uncodified law - applicability
This section contains applicability provisions
clarifying that no decisions made by the Board of
Parole prior to January 1, 2017 that extended the
period of supervision beyond the maximum release date
are to be construed as invalidated by the passage of
SB 91 (2016).
There is further clarification that the earned
compliance credit for parolees does not apply to time
served prior to January 1, 2017.
MR. SHILLING said these clarifications address concerns that
some of the applicability provisions in Senate Bill 91 are
ambiguous.
Section 16
Uncodified law - effective date
This bill takes effect immediately.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if any thought was given to making
the applicability dates in Section 15 the date the bill takes
effect as opposed to January 1, 2017.
MR. SHILLING replied the applicability provision in Section 15
goes into effect immediately, but it ensures that credit for the
earned compliance program isn't awarded prior to the date the
program came into existence.
CHAIR COGHILL summarized that Senate Bill 91 contemplated that
the counting for earned compliance credit would start on January
1, 2017.
2:07:06 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Shilling to point to the differences
between the current version D and the proposed committee
substitute, version J.
MR. SHILLING said the difference is in the repealer Section 13.
Version D repeals AS 33.16.120(a) and AS 33.16.120(h), whereas
the CS only repeals AS 33.16.120(h), which is an irrelevant
notification requirement.
2:08:54 PM
CHAIR COGHILL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 55, labeled 30-LS0119\J, as the working document. Hearing no
objection, version J, was adopted.
CHAIR COGHILL held SB 55 in committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 5 - Fiscal Note.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 - Summary of Changes (D to U).pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 - Written Testimony Shively.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 - Written Testimony Willis.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 - Contribution Limit Chart.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 - Group Definition AS 15.13.400.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 - Sectional Summary.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 5 - Legal Memorandum.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB 55 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 55 |
| SB 55 - Bill Contents.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 55 |
| SB 55 - ACJC Recommendations.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 55 |
| SB 55 - Sectional Summary.pdf |
SJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 55 |