Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
02/02/2005 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Therapeutic Courts Alaska Court System & Partners for Progress | |
| SB56 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 56 - CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE/SENTENCING 1:45:31 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 56(JUD), "An Act relating to criminal law and procedure, criminal sentences, and probation and parole; and providing for an effective date." [CSSB 56(JUD) had been amended twice on 1/31/05.] REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report CSSB 56(JUD), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he still had questions about the bill. The committee took an at-ease from 1:46 p.m. to 1:49 p.m. 1:49:51 PM CHAIR McGUIRE noted that at the bill's prior hearing, Representative Gara had made a motion to adopt Amendment 3 but, because of time constraints that day, had withdrawn it. 1:50:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA again made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 24-LS0308\L.1, Luckhaupt, 1/28/05, which read: Page 4, lines 10 - 17: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 24, line 4: Delete "Sections 1, 4, 6, 26, and 29 - 31" Insert "Sections 1, 4, 6, 25, and 28 - 30" Page 24, lines 5 - 6: Delete "Sections 2, 3, 5, 7 - 25, and 27 - 28" Insert "Sections 2, 3, 5, 7- 24, and 26 - 27" Page 24, line 7: Delete "secs. 8 - 21" Insert "secs. 7 - 20" CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion. 1:50:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated that a judge can increases a sentence based on the "Chaney criteria" [statutory guidelines based on the 1970 Alaska Supreme Court case, Chaney v. State]. With Amendment 3, Representative Gara said, judges are required to explain their sentencing decisions, and it gives defendants the right to file an appeal if they think their sentences are too long. He said that if the legislature takes out the right to appeal, "this bill is going be here next year." He said he thinks it is a constitutional issue. 1:53:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to lines 11-13 on page 4 and said that it says that a sentence reviewed by an appellate court may not be reversed as excessive, adding that he believes this does not take away the right to appeal. It limits the court's discretion to render a decision, which therefore violates Article IV, Section 2, of the Alaska State Constitution, which makes the supreme court the highest court in the land. One cannot have the judicial power of the state in a court when it is denied the right to reverse a sentence as excessive. That is a limitation on the judicial power of the state, Representative Gruenberg stated. He also said it is contrary to Rule 520(c) of the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure, which gives the courts full power to reverse a decision. He said, therefore, that he supports amendment 3. 1:55:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the constitution says the jurisdiction of the courts should be prescribed by law, and he thinks, "one of the things that we've done in the legislature is give sentence prescription, and if you want to call that a limitation on the court, that certainly is; this is just an extension of that prescription." He said he thinks the language in the bill wouldn't be challengeable constitutionally, so Representative Coghill said he will vote against Amendment 3. CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the committee's packet contains arguments for and against Amendment 3, and noted that Legislative Legal and Research Services reported that other states that have a similar prohibition against appeals based on excessiveness have been upheld. Chair McGuire said there are good arguments on both sides, and predicted that the debate will continue. She said she will oppose the amendment because she thinks an important prerogative of the legislature is to be able to set mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes. She added that she would prefer to have aggravators in place, but separate trials are costly, and it is necessary to draw the line somewhere. She said there are some lawmakers who would like to simply raise the minimum sentence, but she said she feels more comfortable with giving the courts a range. If the bill allows for appeals based on excessiveness, there will be an appeal "every single time." 2:00:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded to Representative Coghill's points and said that even if Representative Coghill were correct, it would only apply to the court of appeals and not to the supreme court. Representative Gruenberg added that he looked at the two states where Chair McGuire said a similar law was upheld, and he countered that those laws are very different from what Alaska is doing. He said that the Washington statute limits the defendant's ability to file an appeal, and the Kansas statute limits the court's jurisdiction in the legal sense. That is "not at all what this bill does; this bill limits the court's power to issue a judgment of reversal, and that's different from a jurisdictional issue," he said. 2:02:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he does not want to argue about constitutionality because the committee cannot determine that, and he wants to point out that he thinks determining a range is acceptable. Amendment 3 does not alter that; instead it requires judges to explain to the public what they did and why, he said. Representative Gara said he doesn't always have complete trust in judges, and the whole point of the court of appeals is to keep the law consistent. Making a judge defend his or her decisions makes the system more credible. 2:05:01 PM CHAIR McGUIRE said she thinks there are two issues in Representative Gara's amendment, and she recommends that he consider bifurcating it if it fails. She said she is much more sympathetic to his requirement of findings. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON recapped Chair McGuire's comments, and asked Representative Gara to respond. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said Amendment 3 leaves the law the same as it is today, and the people who have the right to appeal today will have that right tomorrow. He said he agrees that there is abuse of the appeal process, but people with good appeals as well as bad appeals file. He said that by eliminating the right to appeal, both groups of people will be punished, and it would protect all judges regardless of whether they are doing a good job. "By taking away the right to appeal from everybody, you are going to uphold sentences that shouldn't have been issued," he said. 2:07:50 PM CHAIR McGUIRE responded that under the current system a defendant knows that if sentencing goes above the presumptive because of an aggravating factor, the likelihood of appeal is less. The reason for pairing the appeal exclusion with the range is the "human tendency to say 'if there's a range of four to seven, and I get anything more than four, I'm mad about it.'" She remarked that all of Representative Gara's arguments standing alone make sense, but it is the package that causes her concern. She said that Section 7, puts "downward pressure," on the sentencing, and she reiterated her belief that anyone who gets more years than the bottom of the range will want to appeal. 2:09:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA said those were good points. However, going back to the premise of the bill, he remarked, the Department of Law (DOL) said it did not want to change the average sentences in the state, but that it wanted to abide by the new constitutional ruling. Representative Gara said he believes his amendment would do that - keep Alaska's sentencing guidelines as similar to current guidelines as allowed. He opined that this bill changes sentencing for every crime, and if the legislature wants to do that, it should consider each crime individually. 2:10:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG spoke on incarceration costs, and suggested that it would save the state money when an appeal is won. He added that judges make "occasional mistakes," sentence appeals are inexpensive, and a few successful appeals can "save the state a significant amount of money." The committee took an at-ease from 2:12 p.m. to 2:14 p.m. [SB 56, as previously amended, was held over with the motion to adopt Amendment 3 left pending.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|