Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/12/1997 09:08 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Senate Bill No. 67
"An Act relating to the imposition of criminal
sentences; and amending Rule 32.2, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure."
Co-Chair Sharp stated that SB 67 did not have a fiscal note
and that it was his intention to pass the bill out of
committee.
BRETT HUBER, STAFF, SENATOR RICK HALFORD, explained that SB
67 provided victims of crime and their families, as well as
the general public with a more honest and accurate
assessment of the time that was actually expected to be
served of someone who was convicted of a crime. He noted
that the legislation was consistent with the victims'
rights constitutional amendment, which was passed by the
legislature and ratified by popular vote in 1994.
Mr. Huber began a sectional explanation of the bill and
related that Section 1 short titled the legislation as the
Truth in Sentencing Act of 97. Section 2 of the bill
consisted of language from the Department of Law (DOL) and
the Department of Corrections (DOC); the federal program
for truth in sentencing was put into place the prior year
and provided funding for states that met the federal
guidelines. Although the language in Section 2 of the bill
did not change any provisions regarding how a sentence was
imposed or served, it was expected to capture $617,000 in
federal funds in FY98. He explained that the federal pool
of funds would stay in place for 3 more years, but that the
amount might be reduced as other states began to qualify
for the program; DOL and DOC anticipated the funding to be
at least $500,000 annually for next 4 years. Section 3
represented a written declaration in the sentence report;
at the time of sentencing, the judge would be required to
state an approximate time that was actually expected to be
served under the provisions of good time, mandatory parole,
and discretionary parole. He explained that a 10 year
sentence did not often mean 10 years actually served in the
judicial system. He relayed that Section 4 addressed
concerns by DOL and DOC, and that the sections essentially
stated that the informational portion of the sentence could
not be used against the court in a future appeal. Section 5
reflected a court rule change and provided for an oral
statement at the time of sentencing; at sentencing the
judge would make an oral statement as to the approximate
minimum of the actual time that would be served. Section 5
also contained language that took away the informational
portion of the sentence as a basis of appeal. He concluded
that Sections 6 and 7 addressed the court rule changes.
Senator Donley wondered why the fiscal notes were zeroed
and observed that the notes did not have any mention of the
possible federal funding. Mr. Huber responded that the
fiscal note from DOL originally had reflected costs; the
concern had been that if the bill could be used for a basis
for appeal, there might be additional court challenges.
Furthermore, if the desire was that there needed to be an
exact "to the day" determination of expected served time,
it would cause additional work for the prosecutor's office
and DOC. He offered that the concerns from DOL regarding
the bills potential costs had been addressed in a Senate
Judiciary Committee CS. He observed that the fiscal note
had been zeroed, but offered that he did not know why the
$617,000 in federal fund capture was not included in the
note.
Senator Donley stated that there should at least be a
notation somewhere on the fiscal note that discussed the
$617,000 in federal funding and inquired if there was any
mention of the funding in the note. Mr. Huber responded
that he did not see any mention of the funding that DOL had
testified about in the Senate Judiciary Committee in the
current fiscal note.
Co-Chair Sharp inquired if a positive fiscal note would be
from DOC or DOL. Mr. Huber responded that the federal
funding pool provided for prison facilities construction
and that the note would be from DOC. He stated that the DOL
attorney, Margo Knuth, who had worked with the sponsor, was
currently detached to DOC. He reiterated that he did not
know why the federal funding did not appear on the fiscal
note.
Co-Chair Sharp suggested that the bill be passed out of
committee with instructions to get clarification from DOL
and DOC regarding a possible positive fiscal note to
accompany the legislation.
Senator Donley observed that the bill's sponsor could draw
up a fiscal note that accurately reflected their
understanding of the status of the federal funding. Co-
Chair Sharp mentioned that the sponsor could draft a fiscal
note for the Senate Finance Committee that was based on the
testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator Donley added that the new note could be taken up
under subsequent business.
Co-Chair Sharp requested that the sponsor supply the
committee with a new fiscal note either in the current day
or the next. Mr. Huber responded in the affirmative.
Senator Donley stated that he did not want to hold up the
bill in committee, but rather that the bill could be passed
out and the fiscal note could be revisited a day or 2
later. Co-Chair Sharp agreed and added that the record
should reflect the possible upcoming fiscal note from the
Senate Finance Committee.
Senator Donley MOVED to REPORT CSSB 67(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 67(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with two previously published zero
fiscal notes from the Department of Public Safety, a
previously published zero fiscal note from the Alaska Court
System, a previously published zero fiscal note from the
Department of Law, and with a forthcoming new fiscal impact
note from the Senate Finance Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|