Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
02/10/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB255 | |
HB299 | |
HB303 | |
HB216 | |
HB296 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 303 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 296 - CRIME OF ESCAPE/DEF. OF CORRECT. FACILITY 2:30:49 PM CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be 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." [HB 296 had been amended on 2/1/12.] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, on behalf of the committee, which sponsored HB 296, explained that after discussions with the administration, the committee is choosing not to include a legislative purposes section - which would have specified that the bill's intended purpose was to codify the court's decision in Bridge v. State, 258 P.3d 923 (Alaska App. 2011); not to amend the statutes pertaining to "good time" credit; to amend - as suggested by the administration - Section 3's proposed AS 11.56.310(c)'s definition of what constitutes a "secure correctional facility"; and to delete Section 4 - which would alter existing AS 11.81.900(b)(9)'s definition of what constitutes a "correctional facility". A proposed amendment included in members' packets is intended to effect those two changes, which, again, were suggested by the administration. 2:33:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 27-LS1199\D.4, Gardner, 2/10/12, which read: Page 1, line 2: Delete "'correctional facility'" Insert "'secure correctional facility'" Page 2, lines 13 - 18: Delete all material and insert: "(1) has construction fixtures or security features that are designed to restrict the ability of a person under official detention from leaving the facility without lawful authority; or (2) has correctional officers or other persons authorized to prevent a person under official detention from leaving without lawful authority." Page 2, lines 19 - 23: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 3, line 2, following "Act,": Insert "and" Page 3, lines 3 - 4: Delete "and the definition of "correctional facility" in AS 11.81.900(b)(9), as amended by sec. 4 of this Act," REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER questioned whether Section 4's proposed change to the definition in AS 11.81.900(b)(9) regarding what constitutes a "correctional facility" would impact the reimbursement of Medicaid funds to the state for eligible prisoners. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again relayed that Amendment 2 would delete Section 4; furthermore, HB 296 is only addressing the crime of escape in the second degree - AS 11.56.310 - in which the person would have had to have escaped from a "secure correctional facility," with that term then also being defined. The committee took an at-ease from 2:38 p.m. to 2:49 p.m. 2:52:04 PM DOUGLAS GARDNER, Director, Legal Services, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), in response to questions, concurred with Representative Gruenberg's comments and explanations, and additionally noted that under Amendment 2, proposed AS 11.56.310(c)(2) would use the broader term, "other persons", whereas currently under the bill, it uses the more limited term, "other facility staff"; that retention of Section 4 could lead to conflicts with regard to the various statutory definitions of the term, "correctional facility"; and that the bill addresses the statutes pertaining to the crime of escape in the second degree, not the statutes pertaining to Medicaid reimbursements. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated a preference for removing Section 4, and for having HB 296 focus narrowly on the court's decision in Bridge. CHAIR GATTO relayed that HB 296, as amended, would be held over, with the motion to adopt Amendment 2 left pending.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB 255 Legislative Legal Services Memo.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
HB 255 CS X version.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
CSHB 255(JUD) Amendment X 1.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
HB 216 AM CS (JUD)_T2.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 216 |