Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
01/19/2005 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB56 | |
| SB19 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 56 | ||
SB 56-CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE/SENTENCING
8:36:21 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced the committee was working from Version F
of SB 56.
MS. SUSAN PARKES, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), deferred to Ms. Portia Parker of the
Department of Corrections to address changes made to Version F
in response to members' questions about periodic sentencing and
delegating probation conditions set by the judge to probation
officers.
8:38:04 AM
MS. PORTIA PARKER, Department of Corrections (DOC), explained to
members that regarding periodic sentencing, the assistant
attorney general who works with the court system on that matter
said its occurrence has been less frequent over the years. DOL
has received 2 to 10 requests for periodic sentences per year.
It has become less of a problem since the Court of Appeals
decided the Felix case in 2002; however, some judges ignore that
ruling. A Fairbanks judge recently ignored it and ordered the
release of a prisoner on medical furlough for dental care.
8:39:36 AM
MS. PARKER believed the proposed amendment would provide clear
statutory guidelines.
MS. PARKER said the second question had to do with the offender
who was given a periodic sentence so that he could be released
to commercial fish. That offender was given an 8-year sentence
for sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. He also had 5
prior convictions including attempted homicide, two assaults,
and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which is sexual
abuse of a minor in the second degree under current law. He was
given an 8-year sentence with 5 years suspended. DOC was
required to release him repeatedly for several months over a 3-
year period.
8:41:03 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked if any consideration had been given to
restricting periodic sentences to the lower end of the scale
according to the seriousness of the offense. He stated that he
preferred that periodic sentences only be permissible for
sentences of less than two years.
8:41:45 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that issue was discussed the previous day
and was one reason Ms. Parker gave her report today. He
suggested that the committee could establish an upper limit. He
then asked Ms. Parker about the justification for giving a
presumptive sentence for the last case.
MS. PARKER said she hadn't read the entire court order but
thought one reason for giving periodic sentences was to allow an
offender to be employed.
8:42:45 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if Ms. Parker could suggest language to
implement a limitation.
MS. PARKER said she worked with staff on language that reads,
"pre-existing employment reasons that existed prior to
sentencing and with a composite sentence of less than one year."
8:43:50 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS requested that a copy of the suggested language be
distributed.
SENATOR FRENCH explained that he selected two years because his
concern was with, for example, an offender whose only problem is
drug addiction. If that person were "busted" for cocaine a
second time, under the old scheme he would get a two-year
presumptive sentence for the second offense. He thought it might
be appropriate to allow that offender to subsistence hunt for
his family. He said his suggestion of a two-year presumptive
sentence for a second offense would be the limit. If a person
committed anything more serious, it would be time to "sell the
net, sell the rifle, and let the family live on those proceeds
while you're away in prison...." However, he said he does not
feel Senator Therriault's preference of one year is
unreasonable.
8:45:31 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked DOC to respond to the one-year versus
two-year argument.
8:45:47 AM
MS. PARKER said she is not sure how much of an impact the one-
year difference would have. She explained that since the Felix
decision, periodic sentencing has become much less of a problem.
She said with a two-year sentence, the person with "good time"
would be released after two-thirds of the sentence has been
served. She noted that presumptive sentencing remains a problem
for DOC regarding the movement of prisoners for population
control. And, it is a problem in prisons that are always
overcrowded, such as in Bethel, Fairbanks, and the Mat-Su
pretrial facility. If DOC could keep shorter-term prisoners
there, it would. However, as soon as those prisoners are
sentenced, they are sent somewhere else. She summarized that the
situation is still problematic but it is not a big enough
problem to make a difference to DOC's operations.
8:46:47 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to adopt a conceptual amendment to page
2, lines 5-8, to strike the new suggested language and replace
it with [Amendment 1]:
But only if an employment obligation of the defendant
pre-existed sentencing and the defendant receives a
composite sentence of less than two years to serve.
SENATOR GUESS objected and asked for clarification. She wondered
why Senator Therriault decided to remove the phrase "continued
incarceration would cause extreme hardship."
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the legal drafter suggested his proposed
language.
SENATOR GUESS said she just wanted to hear his thinking behind
Amendment 1.
8:48:33 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS commented that by saying the person must have a
pre-existing employment obligation that is for less than one
year composite, it will be easier to get a composite sentence by
removing a degree of difficulty.
SENATOR THERRIAULT agreed and added that it removes a
restriction that was tied to paying restitution and replaces it
with the limitation of time.
8:49:24 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said he could go along with that.
SENATOR THERRIAULT furthered that Ms. Parker said this problem
has largely corrected itself.
SENATOR GUESS removed her objection and thanked Senator
Therriault for the explanation.
8:49:52 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that with no further objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:50:05 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the next issue pertained to judges
granting probation officers the right to modify parole
conditions. The committee had asked for language to clarify that
a probation officer could not just send a letter to the
probationer, because that person might be illiterate or might
not be English proficient. He wanted make sure the person
clearly understands the modifications.
8:50:42 AM
MS. PARKER said probation officers already communicate verbally
and in written form with the probationer so DOC does not oppose
adding "and verbally" as that is current practice.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to adopt a conceptual amendment on page
4, line 5: after the word "provided" insert "orally and in
writing".
CHAIR SEEKINS labeled Senator Therriault's amendment as
Amendment 2 and announced that with no objection, it was
adopted.
8:52:13 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Ms. Parker to describe the powers or
parameters of a probation officer to impose the conditions of
probation. He referenced page 3 and asked if a probation officer
could suddenly decide the offender has to pay a fine that was
not imposed by the court.
MS. PARKER explained that a probation officer couldn't impose
additional fines, restitution, or payments of any kind without
court approval. She said the typical conditions a probation
officer could add when the court grants the probation officer
authority under number 12 are mandates such as reporting to job
training, curfew if interfering with employment, or assessment
for drug and alcohol abuse. Those conditions can be added on a
temporary or immediate basis for public safety reasons. DOC
feels it is critical to give probation officers that authority
because doing so keeps people out of jail and prevents clogging
up the court system.
8:54:43 AM
SENATOR FRENCH agreed with Ms. Parker completely but asked if
that authority is written down anywhere.
8:55:08 AM
MS. PARKER offered to get back to him with specific information.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Parkes to address a concern
expressed about judges escalating sentences because of how the
ranges are set in SB 56, the reason being they would not want to
be viewed as being slack on crime. He asked her if she has
thought about how to convey to the court system that is not the
legislature's intent.
MS. PARKES said she has given that concern a lot of thought. She
said there has been a lot of speculation about how this bill
will be implemented but no one will know until the bill goes
into effect. She believes a letter of intent would be a good way
to clarify that the legislature's intent is not to raise
sentences across the board; instead, the creation of this new
system is to bring the state into compliance with the Blakely
decision. She noted that she ran across a case, Beltz v State,
in which a defendant was convicted of sexually abusing his 11-
year-old daughter. He was given a presumptive 8-year sentence.
He appealed that sentence for being too harsh. He quoted the
Superior Court judge at his sentencing that stated on the record
that half the judges in the state would only give a 5-year
sentence for this type of offense if it weren't for the
legislature ordering an 8-year presumptive sentence. She said
that is anecdotal evidence but, in her experience, one reason
judges do not like presumptive sentences is that they believe
they are too harsh. She doesn't share that concern, but believes
a letter of intent would make the legislature's intentions
clear.
8:58:57 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Parkes if she had any data on the
number of cases in which aggravators actually kick in. He also
asked how many cases mitigators come into that impact sentences.
MS. PARKES said she tried to track down that information. She
noted that although Ms. Brink said 120 cases were aggravated and
that number may be accurate, she wanted to find out in how in
many cases aggravators were proposed. She spoke with Terry
Carnes at the Alaska Judicial Council who was involved in the
1999 study and asked the number of cases in which the state
noticed aggravating factors. The Judicial Council only looked at
two-thirds of the felony cases for 1999; notices of aggravators
were filed in 483 cases. That extrapolates out to 642 cases if
one were looking at 100 percent of cases. She said again, it is
up to judges to decide whether to increase sentences but
potentially, there could be 642 cases where the state would be
proposing aggravators and taking them to a trial jury. Regarding
mitigators, Ms. Carnes said in 186 cases, mitigators were
noticed up. That would extrapolate out to 247 cases if 100
percent of cases were accounted for. She noted the felony
caseload referrals have increased by 1,000 cases since 1999 so
the state is probably looking at a higher number of cases where
aggravators and mitigators would apply.
9:01:12 AM
MS. PARKES referred to a 1999 study pie chart and indicated that
overall, in 55% of cases the offenders got presumptive
sentences, in 25% of cases offenders got below, and in 20%,
offenders got above.
9:01:47 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if 1,000 additional cases equal a 20
percent increase.
MS. PARKES said in 1999, there were 5,629 new felony referrals.
In 2003, there were 6,477; that represents about a 15% increase,
which is significant. She said Ms. Brink thought aggravators
should go before a grand jury but that would create a
significant resource problem for the state and criminal justice
system as a whole. She pointed out that Chair Seekins asked what
happens if the aggravators are unknown at the time and answered
that the prosecution would have to go back to the grand jury.
She felt it is extremely unrealistic to expect the state to have
that kind of information that early in the process.
9:02:59 AM
SENATOR FRENCH referred to page 17 and said his question
pertains to the phrasing of time parameters for giving notice
about aggravators to the other side. The language on lines 26
through 31 talks about 10 days before trial or at another
specified time. He asked if the time limit could be less than 10
days or if this was provided to give the judge some leeway.
9:03:46 AM
MS. PARKES thought that language was intended to give the courts
some leeway. She said there is often a lot of local practice
depending on the court. Some courts may find 20 days to be more
appropriate. She said as an issue of fairness, if the state
suddenly gets significant information 5 days before a trial, the
remedy would be a continuance for the defense.
SENATOR FRENCH said that pertains to a trial but his question
has to do with "lesser included" and "changes of plea" and asked
Ms. Parkes to walk him through such a scenario.
9:04:54 AM
MS. PARKES said that language was inserted because it actually
happened in a case. DOL had a retrial where the defendant was
charged with murder in the second degree. That offense does not
have a presumptive sentence, so aggravators and mitigators are
not applicable. The state hadn't gone to grand jury on
aggravators or noticed any aggravators. DOL had not indicted on
manslaughter, which is the lesser included. At the trial, the
defense asked for the lesser included of manslaughter. The jury
was instructed on manslaughter and came back with a guilty plea
of manslaughter, not guilty on murder in the second degree.
Manslaughter has a presumptive sentence and aggravators do
apply. At that point, DOL requested to notice up some
aggravators but the judge refused. He said the state has to take
aggravators to the grand jury. Because DOL had not, it was
precluded from bringing them to the trial. DOL is appealing that
ruling.
9:06:26 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said regarding changes of plea, a range of
aggravators might apply. He asked what happens if the defendant
won't admit the aggravators and they are contested. Would the
jury have to make that finding.
9:07:14 AM
MS. PARKES said DOL is requesting a jury trial based on
aggravators alone. DOL would try to negotiate that as part of a
plea. DOL thought the judge would make findings on aggravators
but in the meantime the Blakely decision was issued. The judge
can't make those findings so DOL requested a jury trial.
9:08:06 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked, since the Blakely decision was issued
during the process, the plea was accepted or whether any
negotiation took place. He noted that if negotiations took
place, DOL would be able to negotiate the full sentence and
whether an aggravator should apply.
MS. PARKES said DOL normally would have gotten a stipulation
that the aggravators existed, an agreed upon sentence, or an
agreement that it wouldn't pursue aggravators, but the timing
was crucial. DOL would strive to avoid this kind of situation.
9:09:22 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Parkes if it is DOL's intent that
aggravators not be required to go to the grand jury but, if
detected later, they could be added into the jury trial.
MS. PARKES said that is correct and explained that under the
rules, once a person is in custody, DOL only has 10 days to get
to grand jury. That is a very short period and often, especially
in serious cases, DOL must rely on the pre-sentence report. That
is why under the current system aggravators are noticed 10 days
before sentencing. Ten days after arrest is simply not enough
time to know all of the facts.
9:10:38 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that aggravators will still be in place for
certain crimes after the Blakely decision but the standard of
proof has changed to beyond a reasonable doubt and will have to
be found by a jury, not by a judge. He indicated that he doesn't
see in the bill the sponsor's intent that aggravators need to go
to a grand jury. He noted he is open to any discussion on that
point.
9:11:34 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said he agrees with Ms. Parkes that the
ballistics evidence, DNA etc., is not available within 10 days.
CHAIR SEEKINS maintained that the record needs to be clear that
it is not the intent of this bill to require aggravators be
presented to the grand jury.
9:12:23 AM
SENATOR GUESS asked if the Blakely decision forces the
legislature to put ranges in the bill.
MS. PARKES replied that Blakely does not require ranges; the
range method is one option that DOL believes is appropriate.
Another option would be wide open sentencing that gives judges
full discretion. The purpose of providing ranges is to recognize
that the playing field has changed. DOL believes that providing
ranges will give back some discretion that Blakely took away.
9:14:41 AM
SENATOR GUESS asked how a judge would determine where in the
range the sentence should fall.
MS. PARKES replied that AS 12.55.005 contains the principles of
sentencing that judges are supposed to look at. That language
reads:
The legislature finds that the elimination of
unjustified disparity in sentences and the attainment
of reasonable uniformity in sentences can best be
achieved through a sentencing framework set by
statute. When imposing sentence the court should
consider the seriousness of the defendant's present
offense in relation to other offenses, prior criminal
history, likelihood of rehabilitation, need to confine
the defendant, circumstances of the event, harm to the
victim, effect of the sentence to be imposed in
deterring the defendant and deferring others and
community condemnation, restoration of the victim.
DOL anticipates that judges would look to those principles to
determine where in the range the sentence should fall.
9:16:18 AM
SENATOR GUESS referred to the previous day's discussion about
inconsistency of sentences in the past and asked how DOL can
ensure that this legislation will not take the state back to
that situation.
MS. PARKES said most states with presumptive sentencing schemes
have ranges. Many of those states have found that the ranges
resolved the disparity problem. DOL believes that fairly narrow
ranges will take care of the disparity problem because judges
will still have direction from the presumptive sentencing
scheme.
9:17:56 AM
SENATOR FRENCH thought the range idea is a good one. He then
described a story to illustrate why.
9:20:03 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Parkes to address the language in
Section 5.
MS. PARKES said there is a problem on page 3 in Section 5. She
believed line 14 should read "sentence or lower than the
presumptive range."
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to adopt a conceptual amendment on page
3, line 14, after the word "or" strike "within" and replace it
with "lower than."
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that without objection, Amendment 3 was
adopted.
9:21:37 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Parkes to respond to Ms. Brink's comment
regarding the lower limit for presumptive sentences caused by
mitigating factors.
MS. PARKES said the bill was drafted so that the ranges start at
the current presumptive, except in two instances. The thinking
was that the mitigators haven't changed. The Blakely decision
did not affect a judge's ability to find mitigators by clear and
convincing evidence and to mitigate accordingly. Because the
Blakely decision only affected a judge's ability to aggravate,
DOL felt that was the appropriate place to begin the range. The
Legislature could make changes if it feels that is appropriate.
Blakely did not affect the current system's ability to mitigate
sentences.
9:23:30 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said with that explanation on the record, he has
no objection to leaving the bill as is. He believes the
legislature's intent is that mitigating factors have not been
affected so there is no perceived need to build mitigating
factors into the presumptive scheme. He asked if anyone objected
or wanted to discuss the matter further. There was no response.
9:23:58 AM
SENATOR FRENCH noted that last week the Supreme Court issued a
ruling on a case called Booker and a companion case named
FanFan. He asked Ms. Parkes if she thinks anything from that
ruling would affect the statutory fix in SB 56. He thought that
ruling was about federal sentencing guidelines and putting them
under the Blakeley decision.
MS. PARKES said DOL's appellate attorneys looked at that ruling.
They do not believe it affects the response proposed in this
bill. It was fairly specific to the federal guidelines and
turned them into voluntary guidelines.
9:24:58 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said his understanding of the Blakely case was -
other than the fact of prior conviction - any fact that
increases the penalty has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt
to a jury. SB 56 exempts six facts that a judge can learn by
looking at the court file. The only one that could be argued is
number 12 on page 12, line 27, which pertains to whether the
defendant is on bail release for any felony or assault. He asked
why that was included.
MS. PARKES said DOL felt number 12 was one the judge could take
judicial notice of by looking at the court file. DOL believes it
is appropriate.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if that is "black and white"?
MS. PARKES said that is how DOL saw it.
9:26:38 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS referred to the language on page 23, Section 29,
and said it could be argued that Section 29 constitutes an
impermissible change in sentence because of an unconstitutional
increase in punishment applied before the effective date of the
act. The legal drafter said it would allow the Board of Parole
to make a prisoner ineligible for further consideration of
parole when that prisoner otherwise would have been eligible.
MS. PARKES commented that discretionary parole is just that -
discretionary. No one is entitled to it. If denied discretionary
parole, the sentence is not being changed. She said her
understanding is that a person can ask for discretionary parole
the first time but if the board decides the person does not meet
the criteria, the question is whether the parole board should be
required to hold repeated hearings with that same person. The
intent of Section 29 is to cut down on the parole board's
expenditures if it has determined that a person doesn't meet its
standards. She said DOL doesn't believe that can be seen as a
sentence modification.
9:29:15 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked what standard DOC would be looking at.
MS. PARKER told members the parole board looks at the person's
conduct while incarcerated - whether that person availed himself
of opportunities for reform, past convictions, and a wide array
of considerations. The board is very cautious about what it
grants. She pointed out that Section 29 is already current
practice in its regulations; it merely clarifies the authority
to do what is already being done. This section is preventative
in nature because of continued challenges.
9:30:48 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if a crime committed while incarcerated
could be cause to deny discretionary parole.
MS. PARKER agreed that could be one reason.
9:31:16 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS referred to Section 7 on page 4 and asked if the
appellate court could no longer say that a sentence is excessive
and reverse it.
MS. PARKES said her recollection is that Senator Therriault
asked Ms. Brinks if she felt this bill met the constitutional
requirements of the Blakely decision. She agreed that it did
with the one caveat that Section 7 might be unconstitutional.
Ms. Parkes said she researched that issue; DOL strenuously
disagrees with that analysis. She explained that this doesn't
deny a person the right to appeal. It says the legislature has
set a range of sentences appropriate for a particular offense.
If a person receives a sentence within that range, a court can't
reverse it based on the sentence being excessive. The
Legislature gets to set appropriate sentences based on statutory
law. In Bear v State, the Supreme Court said it didn't have the
authority to review sentences at all. In response, the
legislature gave statutory authority to the Supreme Court to
look at sentences and it created the Court of Appeals and gave
it statutory authority to look at sentences. She said in cases
since then, particularly a 1997 case, Bear was again cited as
good law. In that case, the legislature had passed a law in 1995
restricting sentence appeals for people who receive sentences of
less than two years as excessive. That was challenged and the
court said the legislature had solid reasons for passing that
law. It cited resource issues as one reason for the restriction.
She noted that DOL anticipates that people who get sentences at
the top of the range may challenge them as excessive but judges
shouldn't have to be second-guessed if the sentence is within
the range - that is the intent of sec 7. DOL believes it is
constitutional; she urged members to leave it in.
9:36:04 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out the ranges were drawn fairly
narrowly.
9:36:42 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS complimented all of the players involved,
particularly Ms. Parkes and Ms. Parker. He said the hearing has
been very educational and it is important that Alaskans realize
that quality people are representing their interests. He thanked
everyone.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced the committee would take a 5-minute
recess.
9:46:18 AM
Upon reconvening, CHAIR SEEKINS asked if members had any other
questions.
SENATOR THERRIAULT thought the committee had dealt with all of
the issues today but proposed that the committee take no final
action until the most recent changes were printed in a new
committee substitute. He also wanted to work with Ms. Parkes on
the letter of intent and offered to do so between today and
tomorrow and to iron out the fiscal impact of SB 56 with the
departments. He said he anticipated getting zero fiscal notes.
He asked that the committee hold the bill for one more day.
9:47:50 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that Ms. Sidney Billingslea wanted to
testify.
9:48:07 AM
MS. SIDNEY BILLINGSLEA, a director on the Board of the Alaska
Academy Trial Lawyers, told members SB 56 was new to her so she
would offer her initial thoughts. She said the Blakely and
Booker/Fanfan cases were decided by a conservative Supreme
Court. They were decided to primarily support and uphold the
Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, especially on aggravating
factors, and to reduce prosecutorial powers, especially as
federal guidelines were designed to withhold relevant collateral
information until the imposition of sentence and then permit
enormous increases in guideline sentences. It restricts judges'
discretion not to give enormous increases based on relevant
conduct. The purpose was not to increase the sentences of people
who were accused. She disagreed with Ms. Parkes that the intent
of SB 56 is to address Blakely and not to increase sentences
because that is what it does.
9:50:25 AM
MS. BILLINGSLEA said prior to SB 56, if no aggravating or
mitigating factors existed, an individual would get an 8-year
presumptive sentence. Now, an individual can get an unreviewable
8 to 12-year sentence, which has the practical effect of giving
the prosecutors a free aggravator. However, it does not give the
defense a free mitigator because the defense must prove its
mitigators by clear and convincing evidence. The Booker and
Fanfan case addresses congressional intent in drafting the
sentencing guidelines. One of the legislative purposes when
originally suggesting a presumptive term for first-degree sexual
assault was to allow an individual to receive and complete sex
offender treatment while incarcerated. That is no longer an
option for those convicted of committing sex offenses. She asked
if it was the legislature's intent to continue to have an 8-year
sentence with a possible increase to 12 years when the purpose
of the 8-year sentence no longer exists. She asked the committee
to examine that from an historical perspective as well as a
practical perspective.
She responded to Senator French's example of the 18-year-old
offender who only got 5 years. She noted, when supervised, that
person has no court access. If that individual violates
conditions of parole, he can be incarcerated immediately without
judicial review. She continued to explain the parole situation.
9:54:24 AM
MS. BILLINGSLEA said she sees SB 56 as an opportunity to
increase sentences. The sentencing ranges could have been 6 to
12 years or 6 to 10 years. She believes the numbers did not come
with an eye toward completely preserving judicial discretion;
instead that discretion will be decreased. She explained her
reasoning and offered to comment again later.
9:55:36 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if she could cite any decision that implies
that the ranges are unconstitutional.
MS. BILLINGSLEA said she could not but she did not believe that
is the issue.
9:56:26 AM
MR. WILLIAM OBERLE, President of the Alaska Academy Trial
Lawyers, said the Academy has not had the opportunity to review
the bill so the following comments are his personal comments.
He sees SB 56 as reactive legislation to the Blakely decision
that requires the greatest reflection. The fallout of that
decision has not been fully realized yet. In addition, the
Booker/Fanfan decision was issued just last week. He said that
although the committee thinks SB 56 will have a zero fiscal
impact, he doesn't believe that will happen in the long run. He
doesn't know if it will cause more trials but cautioned the need
to look at increased costs to DOC due to increased sentences. He
disagrees with Ms. Parkes' statement that DOL will save money
because DOL will not have to present aggravators to a grand
jury. He sees this as a resource transfer from DOL to DOC.
9:59:13 AM
MR. OBERLE said he sees SB 56 as contrary to the underpinnings
of the original presumptive sentencing scheme. That scheme was
specifically designed by the legislature because disparate
sentences were being issued around the state. SB 56 takes the
presumption out and will allow for disparate sentences. He has
not heard any clamoring for longer sentences from anyone but
that is what SB 56 will do. The Alaska Trial Lawyers have not
reached consensus on SB 56; they were not involved in the
process. He asked to be involved when these issues arise in the
future. He cautioned that SB 56 will have significant fiscal
impact and said he will provide further comments later.
10:02:12 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that he would hold SB 56 over until
tomorrow and get a clean draft. He anticipated that the
committee would take final action at the next hearing.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|