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 |
---|