Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/08/2019 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB34 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 34-PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS
1:33:33 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the only order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 34, "An Act relating to probation; relating to a
program allowing probationers to earn credits for complying with
the conditions of probation; relating to early termination of
probation; relating to parole; relating to a program allowing
parolees to earn credits for complying with the conditions of
parole; relating to early termination of parole; relating to
eligibility for discretionary parole; relating to good time; and
providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSSB 34(STA), Version U.]
1:35:08 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law, provided a sectional
analysis of SB 34, Version 31-GS1031\U, referred to as Version
U.
She turned to Section 7, on pages 5-6 of SB 34.
Section 7 Requires an application for discretionary
parole to be submitted to the parole board before a
person can be considered for discretionary parole.
She said that Senate Bill 91 eliminated the requirement for a
prisoner to apply for discretionary parole. This language would
revert to the pre-Senate Bill 91 language.
1:35:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for the current processing time of the
applications.
1:36:04 PM
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Director, Division of Probation and Parole,
Department of Corrections, Juneau, deferred to the executive
director of the Board of Parole.
1:36:16 PM
JEFFREY EDWARDS, Executive Director, Alaska Board of Parole,
Department of Corrections, Anchorage, answered that part of
Section 7 would eliminate some timelines in the 90-day
requirement prior to the person's eligibility for discretionary
parole. He said that the Board of Parole procedurally works with
the institutions, the court, and prosecutor months in advance of
the parole hearing to give the institutions time to generate
reports and documentation on inmates, but also to meet victim
notification requirements.
1:37:12 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he appreciates the 90-day mandatory start
date but wondered if any deadlines exist.
MR. EDWARDS offered to research and provide the exact timeline
later today, but he recalled it was a couple of months.
CHAIR HUGHES asked to have the information sent to her office
and she would distribute it to committee members.
1:38:00 PM
MS. SCHROEDER turned to Sections 8, which read as follows:
Section 8 Clarifies that a person who is ineligible
for a good time deduction from their sentence is also
ineligible for discretionary parole. Also, prohibits
certain crimes from being considered for discretionary
parole. These are the same crimes that were ineligible
for discretionary parole prior to January 1, 2017:
• Non-sex class A felonies (Robbery 1, Assault 1, Arson
1);
• B felonies if the person had one or more prior felony
convictions;
• C felonies if the person had two or more prior felony
convictions; and
• B and C sex felonies (Sexual Assault 2, Sexual Abuse
of a Minor 2, Distribution of Child Pornography).
MS. SCHROEDER said that Section 8 would return to pre-
Senate Bill 91 law in terms of parole eligibility. It would
make prisoners who were convicted of non-sex class A
felonies, class B felonies with one or more prior
convictions, and class C felonies with two or more prior
convictions ineligible for discretionary parole. It would
also make class B and C sex felonies ineligible for
discretionary parole.
MS. SCHROEDER referred to page 7, lines 2-5, [Section 8], which
states that inmates who are ineligible for good time deduction
from their sentence are also ineligible for discretionary
parole. This relates to repeat sex offenders, she said.
1:39:08 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether Section 8 is a complete repeal of
Senate Bill 91 language.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that Sections 8 and 9 together would
represent a complete repeal. She said that Section 9 also
included language added in the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee.
Section 9 Raises the amount of time a person sentenced
for an unclassified offense (murder, kidnapping)
before they are eligible for discretionary parole from
one-third to one-half of the active term of
imprisonment or the mandatory minimum whichever is
greater. Also requires persons convicted of B felony
level drug distribution to serve one-half of the
active term of imprisonment before they can be
considered for discretionary parole.
1:39:36 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked for clarification on discretionary parole in
SB 34 and for examples.
MS. SCHROEDER deferred to Mr. Edwards.
CHAIR HUGHES asked which crimes would still be eligible for
discretionary parole.
MR. EDWARDS answered that at the lowest level, first and second
time class C felonies would be eligible for discretionary parole
at one-quarter of their sentences. First time class B felonies
would be eligible for discretionary parole at [one-half] of
their sentences. He said that class A felonies are not eligible
for discretionary parole. Under SB 34, unclassified felonies
would be eligible at one-half of their sentences, or the
mandatory minimum, whichever is greater.
1:40:38 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on the reason an
offender convicted of a class A felony is not eligible for
discretionary parole, since she thinks of unclassified felonies
as being more serious.
MR. EDWARDS said he was unsure. He acknowledged that
unclassified felonies typically have a greater sentence, such
that the maximum sentence is a 99-year sentence, and presumably
if this class is not eligible for discretionary parole, the
inmates would essentially serve a life sentence.
1:41:26 PM
MS. SCHROEDER said that is the best information the department
could give at the moment. She said that prior to Senate Bill 91,
class A felonies were not eligible for discretionary parole. She
said that the department would need to review the legislative
history to determine the reasons the legislature wanted to make
that whole class ineligible.
1:41:46 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD related that the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee wanted to learn what other states were doing and if
every state had discretionary parole. She said discretionary
parole does not make sense, since it seems like offenders
receive big sentences, but prisoners can be released after
serving one-fourth of their sentences. She recalled someone was
going to do a comparison.
MS. SCHROEDER said that comparison would take a significant
amount of time, since it is a very detailed analysis. She said
that the discretionary parole statute in Alaska is difficult to
understand and researching other states' statutes would be
difficult. She did not think the department could provide this
information in a reasonable timeframe.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether an organization such as the
Council of State Governments (CSG) could provide a small sample.
MS. SCHROEDER said that she was not aware of anyone who tracks
that information. She suggested that the Legislative Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency might be able to provide
it.
MR. EDWARDS said that he was not aware either, but he offered to
do a general research over the Internet to provide some
information.
CHAIR HUGHES answered that it might be worthwhile to do an
inquiry via the CSG or the National Council of State
Legislatures (NCSL). She noted the provisions in SB 34 for class
B and C felonies and unclassified felonies, but not class A
felonies. She asked whether the Department of Law would consider
making an adjustment to this.
MS. SCHROEDER agreed to do so.
1:45:07 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for the impact these changes would have on
the number of cases that go to trial and the length of time the
department spends in preparation. He said the availability of
parole or lack thereof is something that both sides must
consider. He asked for an estimate of the impact this has on
workloads for the Department of Law or the public defenders.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that she does not have an estimate of the
impacts. She agreed that discretionary parole is considered by
the prosecutor and the defense when plea agreements are
discussed. She said she was unsure if it would create a
significant amount of workload that would trigger a fiscal note.
She further agreed that any changes to discretionary parole
would have a direct impact on the Department of Corrections
(DOC).
SENATOR KIEHL said it would help to have a response from the
public defenders on the changes to discretionary parole. He
wondered if DOC would be spending a lot more time and resources
in court opposite the DOL on behalf of their clients. He asked
whether the department would anticipate additional requests for
the lengthy pre-sentence reports that used to consume a lot of
resources but are not done very often.
1:46:54 PM
MS. WINKELMAN responded that the pre-sentence reports are done
at the pre-sentence stage. However, it is not part of the parole
process, she said. She deferred to the DOL to weigh in. She did
not envision that the provisions would impact the DOC in term of
parole.
CHAIR HUGHES said perhaps that could be a discussion in SB 33,
the pre-trial bill.
MS. SCHROEDER remarked that pre-sentence reports are ordered in
every felony case before sentencing, unless it is a first-time
felony. It would be very rare to waive a pre-sentence report.
She offered to further discuss this.
1:48:04 PM
MS. SCHROEDER said that Section 9 is the heart of discretionary
parole. There were a few changes made in the Senate State
Affairs Standing Committee. The first change was that
unclassified felonies would be eligible at one-half or the
mandatory minimum, as Mr. Edwards mentioned. The prior law was
at one-third, so the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee did
increase that discretionary parole.
MS. SCHROEDER directed attention to pages 8-9, [AS 33.16.090(b)]
to a change made in the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
That change related to class B felony drug dealing. Those
offenders would be eligible at one-half of their sentence,
previously eligible at one-quarter, she said.
1:48:49 PM
MS. SCHROEDER turned to Section 10, which pertains to factors
the board should consider when releasing an offender.
Section 10 Eliminates a presumption of release and
thereby returns discretion back to the parole board
when determining release on discretionary parole.
She said that Senate Bill 91 created a presumption of release,
that the board shall release unless the board found by clear and
convincing evidence that the person released would create a harm
to the public. This bill would repeal that section of law and
return the factors to pre-Senate Bill 91 law. It would state
"may" instead of "shall."
MS. SCHROEDER explained Section 11:
Section 11 Allows the parole board to make a person,
who does not meet the factors in section 10,
ineligible for further consideration of discretionary
parole or to have the person serve additional time
before they can be considered again for discretionary
parole.
She said that when the board denies someone for
discretionary parole, it can set out a hearing and require
certain stipulations prior to another hearing.
1:49:40 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Edwards to explain the reasons that
providing discretion to the board is important for public
safety.
MR. EDWARDS said that the word that is most commonly used in
this provision is "discretion." He explained that giving the
[parole] board the authority to analyze and evaluate the
specifics of an individualized plan allows the board to evaluate
the individual candidate, rather than lumping or grouping
prisoners into a "must release" status if they have done certain
things outlined in the law. He characterized returning
discretion as of the utmost importance to avoid "tying" the
[parole] board's hands with a mandated release.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Edwards whether he has encountered
mandated releases that made him uncomfortable. She further asked
if he was aware of instances in which the [parole] board would
not have released individuals if it had the discretion to do so.
MR. EDWARDS answered that he does not always actively
participate at parole board hearings since he is not a voting
member. However, he offered to ask the board to provide
feedback. He recalled that revocation rates have increased
slightly, which might relate to mandated releases. He reiterated
that it is important to recognize the value of discretion to the
[parole] board.
CHAIR HUGHES agreed that discretion is a valuable tool. She
asked if he could look into the revocations to assess any
correlation since that would be helpful for the committee to
understand the importance of returning the discretion. She said
that formulas do not always match up with real life
circumstances. She offered her belief that this section of the
bill is important and should be addressed.
1:52:07 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said this bill changes the terminology from
"shall" release to "may" release unless there is clear and
convincing evidence that the person presents a danger. He asked
for the rationale for using this approach instead of changing
the standard, which would give the board more discretion. He
suggested adopting a standard lower than clear and convincing to
make it easier for the board to do its job if they think a
person might be a danger but retain the notion that if someone
is not dangerous it is time to put them on supervision in the
community to start reentry rather than keeping them in a
facility.
MR. EDWARDS pointed to the four factors listed in Section 10. In
addition, the department also uses the risk assessment tool that
identifies certain risk factors. The changes in SB 34 do not
restrict the ability of the [parole] board to release
individuals. In fact, post Senate Bill 91 resulted in "granting
decisions" or release decisions being cut in half. This means
the board authorized about half as many as pre-Senate Bill 91.
He offered his belief that these provisions do not restrict the
board from releasing good candidates. He said Senator Kiehl is
quite right that occupying prison space with low-risk, low-need
individuals to serve time does not make much sense. A number of
considerations were put into the risk assessment tool [LSIR]
that touches on those risk factors. If the determination is made
that the individual is ready for early release, the [parole]
board would make that ruling.
SENATOR KIEHL said he appreciates the approach described and it
shows that the state has a good parole board. However, when
considering how the legislature writes the law, he wondered why
not allow the risk assessment tool [LSIR] and the professionals
a little more wiggle room, but not to go so far as to say that
even if the person poses low risk to the public, that the parole
board does not have to let them out.
MR. EDWARDS responded that he would like to see the language in
an amendment form to more fully understand Senator Kiehl's
vision.
CHAIR HUGHES said that the bar of the clear and convincing
standard or a lower bar could still be somewhat formulaic. She
said that she would be concerned about going back to a formula,
stating that the board has been considering the four items in AS
33.16.100 and it seems to be working. She asked Ms. Winkelman if
she had comments.
1:56:31 PM
MS. WINKELMAN said that she did not.
1:56:46 PM
MS. SCHROEDER turned to Section 12, which read as follows:
Section 12 Conforming language regarding the
requirement that a person fill out an application for
discretionary parole.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that when the prisoner submits an
application for a release plan, which provides information on
where the person intends to live and prospective employment as a
plan, the board can assist.
1:57:19 PM
MS. SCHROEDER continued.
Section 13 Outlines application process for
discretionary parole. Ensures that the prisoner is
furnished with a copy of the prepare report.
She said that this provision means that everyone is informed.
She characterized this as "discovery" for the prisoner on
discretionary parole. In a criminal case the prosecution needs
to turn things over to the defense during discovery and when a
prisoner applies for discretionary parole the prisoner is
allowed to review what the board will be considering when making
discretionary parole decisions.
1:57:49 PM
CHAIR HUGHES recalled an instance where an inmate was being
released that required a 30-day plan, which was increased to 90
days in Senate Bill 91. She said the Commissioner of the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development suggested that the
timeframe should be increased to a minimum of a year or up to
two years. She asked how the 90-day plan requirement would apply
to people who will be let out on parole or probation. She asked
whether the Department of Corrections would be open to
lengthening the time to achieve a greater chance of public
safety for communities.
MS. WINKELMAN stated that when offenders are sentenced; they
receive timesheets that indicate their date of release. The
institutional probation officer works with them on their
release, she said. When inmates apply for parole, the 90-day
plan provides a planning window as part of the application and
release plan. Although the parole board has released some
inmates earlier than the 90-day plan, the preparation the
institutional probation officer uses to assist inmates starts
the release planning process that is used when they come before
the parole board.
MS. WINKELMAN said that the commissioner constantly works toward
the goal of releasing prisoners in "better shape" than when they
came into the system. The department wants to do it right and is
open to suggestions to move inmates successfully from
supervision back into the community. She was unsure of the
source of the specific 90-day timeframe, but the department is
open to considering whether the timeframe needs to be expanded.
2:01:49 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the 90-day plan is considered at the
point of intake to focus prisoners on the concept of turning
their lives around at the beginning of their sentences. She
asked whether the department would consider shifting the plan
instead of waiting until the end of the sentence.
MS. WINKELMAN said than an offender management plan is
established for individual inmates at the time they enter the
facility. She acknowledged that some offenders are in pretrial
status, so those inmates are handled a bit differently. She
explained that the plan is implemented once the inmate is
sentenced.
2:03:15 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the meeting.
2:03:28 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the management plan is in statute or
regulation. She asked for further clarification on whether it is
a plan to manage inmates for reentry or if it is about how to
manage them while they are incarcerated.
She expressed an interest in having the reentry piece addressed
upfront. She said a constituent used the phrase, "An idle mind
is the devil's playground." She asked whether the plan should be
shored up on the front end to avoid churning out habitual
offenders, which has made communities very dangerous. She did
not think that 30-90 days is a sufficient timeframe, so she
would like to continue to work on this issue.
2:05:44 PM
MS. SCHROEDER continued.
Section 14 Gives a parole officer the discretion to
make a recommendation to the parole board that a
person's parole be terminated. Maintains requirement
that the probationer is in compliance with their
conditions of probation and has completed all of the
required treatment programs. Also maintains the
prohibition on unclassified felony, sexual felony, and
domestic violence offenders from being recommended for
early termination.
MS. SCHROEDER said that Senate Bill 91 law required the parole
officer to make a recommendation to the parole board for early
termination. She explained that some requirements in that
legislation were kept since it is important that the probationer
be in compliance with all of the conditions of parole. This
provision also excludes those convicted of unclassified
felonies, sexual felonies, and domestic violence offenses. She
explained that this decision was made in Senate Bill 91 law and
is being carried forward. She directed attention to line 11, to
AS 33.16.210(c), to the timeframe difference for early
termination of probation and parole. She explained that the
inmate must have completed one year on parole before becoming
eligible for early termination.
2:06:49 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he has read lines 11-14 [on page 10]
several times. The new language [AS 33.16.210(c)(3) also
requires parolees to be currently in compliance, he said. He
asked for further clarification on this provision since a
parolee out of compliance would be in violation of parole.
MS. WINKELMAN said she was uncertain.
MS. SCHROEDER offered that would apply to someone found in
violation by the parole officer and the parole board. She said
that this language is a stylistic change and is not meant to be
a substantive change.
2:08:12 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked if the new language refers to the gap period
between being found in violation by the parole officer and been
found in violation by the parole board.
MS. SCHROEDER agreed. She was uncertain of the frequency.
MS. WINKELMAN responded that a parolee may commit a violation
that potentially does not rise to the level of bringing the
person before the board. For example, a parolee may be required
to report to his/her parole officer next week, but instead may
report a week later. That type of violation may not rise to the
level necessary to come before the parole board, unless timely
reporting was a repetitive issue.
CHAIR HUGHES asked how long it would take to make a
determination that a parolee had violated the terms of parole.
MR. EDWARDS answered that typically pending early termination
requests would not necessarily come before the board for pending
violations. In terms of compliance, the violation would fall
under the sanctions and incentive grid, he said. For example,
the parolee might be given a verbal warning. For example, the
individual might not be employed. Although that alone might not
rise to the level of arrest or require an appearance, it would
show a lack of compliance with the parole conditions.
2:10:25 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said the language related to compliance with
conditions of parole for one year previously was "shall" and is
now "may". He related his understanding that this would allow
more flexibility.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that some of the change was made in
reference to the "one year." That language had to be changed to
allow parole officers more flexibility to make a recommendation
on early discharge after the person has been on parole for a
year. She said that if the committee decides to change this
language, she would ask members to be cognizant of this one-year
timeframe. She said that paragraphs (1) and (3) of the previous
language would require a parolee to be on parole for two years,
which was not the administration's intent.
2:11:56 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE acknowledged that previously the department was
required [to recommend early discharge if the parolees had not
been found in violation of parole for one year]. He interpreted
the change to mean that the department could consider minor
issues if the person is currently in compliance and still
recommend early discharge, which made sense to him.
2:12:35 PM
MS. SCHROEDER continued.
Section 15 Eliminates language referencing technical
violations of parole under AS 33.16.215.
MS. SCHROEDER related this is clean up language. She explained
that this statute refers to revocation of parole. The language
would remove the references to the three, five, and 10-day
technical caps in this section, she said.
2:13:09 PM
MS. SCHROEDER continued.
Section 16 Allows the parole board to toll time while
the parolee is in violation status. This is similar to
how probation works when a probationer is in violation
status. Under this provision, the parolee's parole
time will not continue to run while the parole
violation is under consideration by the parole board.
MS. SCHROEDER stated that Section 16 does not revert to pre-
Senate Bill 91 law. This would give the board the authority to
toll time, she said. She explained that toll time means the
clock stops and the parolee's parole time will not continue to
run if the parolee is in violation status.
She said that Senate Bill 91 law allowed toll time for
absconding, which is expanded in this section to apply to all
violations. When a person is in violation status and it has been
filed with the board, the board can stop the clock, so the
parole time does not continue to run. If they were unable to
stop the clock, the parole time would continue to run, and it is
possible that the parolee would be in violation status and time
would run out.
MS. SCHROEDER said that the process in Section 16 is similar to
how probation operates, that case law allows judges to toll time
for probation. She said that this is something the parole board
did not previously have authority to do but Section 16 would
provide it.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether tolling was allowed pre-Senate Bill
91 law.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that in practice the parole board was
tolling time, but this provides the actual authority to do so.
She said that under the court context for probation, the court
derives its authority from case law; however, that authority
does not extend to parole.
2:14:42 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked how long it takes to process toll time. He
said he could understand if the clock is paused for a couple of
weeks, but not if it is paused for six months. He asked for a
sense of how long it takes to process toll time and get to the
final revocation hearing to better understand the impact of this
change.
MS. WINKELMAN said that Mr. Edwards could clarify the timeframe.
However, she related her understanding that from the date of
violation until the parolee appears before the full board must
happen within 120 days. Essentially, a preliminary hearing is
held when parolees are placed in violation status. At the
preliminary hearing, the board will determine whether to
sanction the parolee or to hold a full hearing on the violation.
She reiterated that the full board must hear the case within 120
days, and it cannot just come before a hearing officer.
MR. EDWARDS acknowledged that Ms. Winkelman was correct. He said
this provision would place the parole board under the 120-day
rule. The only exception would be if an individual has new
charges pending. If so, the 120 days would be extended upon
resolution of those new criminal charges. He explained that the
reason to do so is because the [parole] board does not want to
get involved in the prosecutorial work of new criminal charges.
He added that the 120-day period is the maximum time limit.
2:17:01 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he presumed a parole officer would write
up a parolee who committed a violation. He referred to the
phrase used, which was "in violation status." However, he
assumed the parolee would not be allowed to continue to be in
violation status for the entire 120 days. He asked the reason to
pause the clock for the entire processing time.
MR. EDWARDS explained the timeline, such that when a parolee is
arrested and incarcerated for a parole violation, the individual
would appear at a preliminary hearing within 15 working days. He
characterized the process as being similar to a bail hearing. At
the preliminary hearing an evaluation would be made to determine
if probable cause existed for the arrest. Once probable cause is
determined, a final revocation hearing is held. Pre-Senate Bill
91 law, the hearing must be held within 120 days. The person
would be limited to serve three, five, or ten days for a single
violation, he said. Certain sections of SB 34 would repeal the
technical violations and revert to the previous method.
He explained that at the original preliminary hearing the
hearing officer has the authority to release the individual,
similar to a court hearing when someone is released on bail. The
[parole officer] would resume supervision while the parolee is
in violation status, pending the final hearing. If the parolee
subsequently incurred an additional violation, the individual
would be incarcerated.
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that while the parolee
is in supervised status in the community, the clock is paused.
He suggested that from the offender's perspective this action
would not provide an incentive for the parolee to stay clean. He
characterized it as setting up the classic hopeless, helpless,
criminal thinking errors that often lead to more offenses and
additional victims.
MR. EDWARDS said he was not sure he had a great answer, but this
process mirrors the current court process. It provides fairness
and consistency between the court process and parole process.
2:20:38 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether stopping the clock is a deterrent for
the parolee to not violate.
MR. EDWARDS offered his belief that without this provision in
law, a parolee's supervision would expire while the violation
was still pending. He explained that it would create a situation
that has been problematic for the supervision of the offender.
In fact, supervisory conditions would no longer be in place, yet
the parole violation is still pending. He remarked that parole
violations can sometimes be quite serious. The board believes
this mechanism will provide an avenue to maintain the parole
officer's authority over the individual during the violation
pending period. He said he was not sure how to avoid a lapse in
supervision unless supervision was restarted during the pending
status. However, he was unsure of how to accomplish it under
current law.
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that a parolee
could complete parole and be released into the community but
still have a parole violation pending. She suggested that it
might require the person's parole to be extended or for the
individual to be incarcerated.
MR. EDWARDS responded that under current law the board does not
have any authority to extend the parolee's maximum release date,
which is also referred to as the parole expiration date.
MS. SCHROEDER said that Mr. Edwards has highlighted the issue.
She said the Department of Law's concern is the possibility that
a parolee would not have supervision while still in violation
status.
CHAIR HUGHES emphasized that the goal is to close that loophole.
2:22:48 PM
MS. SCHROEDER turned to page 11 and Section 17.
Section 17 Reduces amount of time that a parolee may
decrease their length of parole for good behavior to
one day for every three days without a violation.
MS. SCHROEDER said that the committee previously discussed
earned compliance credits for probation, and this applies to
earned compliance credits for parole. The earned compliance
program was created by passage of Senate Bill 91, which created
a credit that was "half," such that for every 30 days a parolee
did not incur a violation, the individual would receive 30 days
of credit against the person's total parole time. Under Section
17, parole credit would be reduced to one day for every three
days.
2:23:29 PM
MS. SCHROEDER reviewed Section 18.
Section 18 Prohibits a sex offender from earning
credit against their period of parole. [It] also
mandates that [parolees] lose all of the credits they
have accrued if they are found in violation of parole,
requiring the accrual to start over.
MS. SCHROEDER said that sex offenders cannot participate in the
program for parole and probation. She explained that for the
same reasons discussed for probation, the standards are being
applied to parole. The reason to have sex offenders complete
their probation is because the containment model the Department
of Corrections (DOC) uses has proven to be effective. She
characterized it as the "carrot and stick" approach because the
longer parolees go without incurring a violation, the more
credits they will accrue. That means parolees have a greater
risk of losing everything if they commit a parole violation.
2:24:21 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related a scenario in which a model prisoner
has two years to serve. However, the prisoner has never gotten
along with his/her parole officer, which can happen because
different personalities exist. The model prisoner may have
satisfied nearly two years of parole but because of a
personality conflict and a minor infraction, the prisoner could
lose everything. He suggested some way should exist to secure
some earned compliance credit because under this provision "the
carrot" would be eliminated. Perhaps some segments could be
secured that would drive the same positive behavior, he said.
MS. WINKELMAN agreed that this has been a topic of discussion.
She said that this language represents a policy call by this
administration. However, the DOC is open to suggestions. She
stressed that she has faith in her probation officers and
supervisors to make good decisions, but she also acknowledged
that personality conflicts can happen.
2:26:35 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked to shift to the victim. She asked whether a
victim can obtain a copy of the parolee's conditions of release
and if it is public information.
MS. WINKELMAN answered that the probation conditions and
judgment are open to the victim and the public.
MR. EDWARDS clarified that the parole conditions are available
to the public upon written request, but that victims are
automatically provided a copy.
CHAIR HUGHES asked for confirmation that victims automatically
get a copy of probation conditions.
MS. WINKELMAN answered that victims receive a copy of the
probation conditions through the department's victim
notification policy.
2:27:55 PM
SENATOR KIEHL shared Ms. Winkelman's faith in the probation
officers but he said he also shares Senator Micciche's concern
about driving the change in behavior. He commented that what is
being seen in psychology, weight loss, and smoking cessation
accomplishments is that "the carrot" along with "the stick" is
the most effective way to change behavior.
2:28:27 PM
MS. SCHROEDER turned to Section 19.
Section 19 Prohibits a person from earning good time
for time spent on electronic monitoring post-sentence.
MS. SCHROEDER said that Section 19 is a complete return to pre-
Senate Bill 91 law. This provision would prohibit the award of
good time credit against a prisoner's sentence for time spent in
a private residence on electronic monitoring or in a treatment
program. She noted that the treatment listed in this provision
is for treatment that the DOC has ordered. However, it would not
apply to pretrial treatment that an offender has elected to
attend. Further, the electronic monitoring is post-sentence,
that the offender is already in custody, and the DOC makes a
determination to put the person on electronic monitoring.
CHAIR HUGHES said part of this as a "math problem." She related
a scenario that the offender is in a six-month treatment
program, which would apply to the sentence. However, the
offender would not get good time credit of the one-third
sentence reduction or two months. She asked for confirmation
that the individual cannot double dip and obtain eight months
for a six-month treatment program.
MS. WINKELMAN agreed that in the scenario if the court or judge
ordered credit for treatment, the offender would obtain day for
day credit or six months, but not an additional two months of
credit.
2:30:53 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE suggested this language might be worded
strangely. He related his understanding that a judge could still
sentence someone who is guilty of a minor crime to electronic
monitoring.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that Section 19 relates to post-sentence
placement decisions made by the Department of Corrections (DOC).
In this context, a judge may not sentence offenders to
electronic monitoring, she said.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether the sentence could require
electronic monitoring. He related his understanding that once
sentencing has occurred the DOC cannot convert time in
incarceration or probation to time on an electronic monitor.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that there are two types of electronic
monitoring. First, someone can be placed on electronic
monitoring during the pretrial phase, while the defendant is out
on bail. The individual can get jail credit under current law.
For example, a judge could determine the defendant was on
electronic monitoring for 100 days and allow 100 days of credit
against the individual's sentence, which would be included in
the judgement. Second, once the person was sentenced to five
years, for example, the DOC could make the decision to place the
prisoner on electronic monitoring. This decision would be made
outside the court since the court cannot order the Department of
Corrections on placement, she said. This is a separation of
powers issue, she said.
SENATOR MICCICHE related his understanding that a judge cannot
sentence an offender to five years, with three years in an
institution and two on electronic monitor. However, the DOC
could decide after three years to place the person on electronic
monitoring for two years.
2:33:28 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked for clarification that the last two years in
that scenario would be considered probation since it is not
early release.
MS. WINKELMAN responded that the two years would be considered
part of the original sentence. In the prior scenario, the DOC
would make the determination on where to house the individual.
For example, the department could determine that the person
would serve three years in custody and two years on electronic
monitoring. Once the person is released, the individual would be
on probation for the length of time the judge imposed.
2:34:43 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification if the treatment
program would also include programs offered within the
institution.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the treatment programs in question
are ones provided outside of the facilities. She offered her
belief that this would relate to a small cohort of the
population.
2:34:52 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether these are residential treatment
programs in which the prisoner is not free to leave and that it
would not apply to visits to a substance-abuse counselor.
MS. WINKELMAN agreed. She said that this would apply to
residential treatment programs that the DOC has furloughed
someone to, which is similar to a halfway house. The prisoner
would have reached a certain level of his/her sentence and
demonstrated a need for a placement into a treatment facility.
The prisoner would serve the remainder of the jail time in
treatment. Further, the person would not earn any good time for
the period of time spent outside the facility undergoing
treatment.
2:36:09 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether prisoners spending time in a halfway
house earn good time.
MS. WINKELMAN answered yes.
SENATOR KIEHL said it was not clear to him why a person would
obtain good time in a halfway house but not for time spent in a
treatment program. He thought they were similar, yet one would
not receive the incentive.
MS. WINKELMAN responded that this was a policy call by the
administration. She informed members that this refers to a very
small population of prisoners going outside of the facility for
treatment. She explained that a treatment center is a different
setting than a halfway house. For instance, she explained that
halfway house personnel are similar to correctional officers in
facilities.
2:37:26 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for further clarification that if an
individual is out on electronic monitoring, the credit is one
for one and not one for three.
MS. SCHROEDER answered yes, that these individuals do not
receive good time, so it would be one for one.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding in the previous scenario,
that the judge could impose three years in jail and two years of
probation. She asked whether the department could place someone
on electronic monitoring on an ankle monitor during the
individual's probation time. She asked for further clarification
whether the DOC uses ankle monitors for individuals on probation
or parole.
MS. WINKELMAN explained that when a violation occurs during
probation, the individual would go back to court. The court may
revoke time and place the individual on electronic monitoring.
She said it is still considered serving time, which is part of
the revocation process. As part of the sanctions and incentives
grid created under Senate Bill 91 law, when a violation occurs,
the court may use electronic monitoring to ensure sobriety, she
said.
2:38:59 PM
MS. SCHROEDER turned to Section 20.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that Section 20 is clean-up language.
She explained that the DOC is required to report a number of
things to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. Since the caps
and administrative sanctions imposed under the program are
repealed in this bill, this section removes the reporting
requirement.
Section 20 Eliminates the requirement that the
Department of Corrections submit a report to the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission regarding the
sanctions imposed under the administrative sanctions
program which is repealed in this bill.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that Section 20 is clean-up language.
She explained that the DOC is required to report a number of
things to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. Since the caps
and administrative sanctions imposed under the program are
repealed in this bill, this section removes the reporting
requirement. Since the caps and administrative sanctions imposed
under the program are repealed in this bill, this section
removes the reporting requirement.
2:39:34 PM
MS. SCHROEDER turned to Sections 21-23.
Section 21 Repealed section.
Section 22 Applicability.
Section 23 Effective date. This bill takes effect on
July 1, 2019
2:40:03 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 34.
2:40:45 PM
DARCEY PERRY, Board Member, Public Safety Employees Association
(PSEA), Anchorage, spoke in support of SB 34. She said that
everything is not black or white and one solution does not work
for all, and from her prior work as a law enforcement officer,
that pertains to people who commit crimes. She said that
returning discretion back to judges and the parole board is
important since they understand the clients and cases, and this
will lead to a better outcome and a safer Alaska moving forward.
2:41:58 PM
MIKE COONS, President, Greater Alaska Chapter, Association of
Mature Citizens (AMAC), Wasilla, stated his support for SB 34.
He said he especially likes the changes to credit and changing
"shall" to "may" for parole officers related to parolees. He
wondered what happens when a parolee commits another crime and
has additional time on pending probation. He asked whether the
full amount of the original sentence is added to the new crime
sentencing upon conviction. It seemed like previously sentencing
time minus time served for those still on probation upon release
disappears. If so, that would need to be corrected because if a
criminal has five years pending but commits another crime, the
offender should serve all five years plus a new sentence for the
additional crime committed. He suggested that judges should
issue a no parole order for repeat criminals on both sentences.
CHAIR HUGHES suggested that he submit his comments in writing to
senate.judiciary@akleg.gov.
MR. COONS said he sent an e-mail with his suggestions.
2:43:45 PM
MARTY KINCAID, representing herself, Palmer, referred to Section
2, related to defendant defaults in the payment of a crime. She
said that the new language in Section 2 [Version U] states that
the court may order the defendant imprisoned until the order of
the court is satisfied. She asked whether that is the current
language.
CHAIR HUGHES answered yes.
MS. KINCAID asked how the person would satisfy the debt if the
defendant is in prison and what would happen to the family if
the person is the breadwinner. She said that historically
imprisonment has not been a successful deterrent to crime. She
said the debtor's prison was eliminated in 1833 and in 1983 the
U.S. Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional as a violation
of the 14th amendment. She expressed concern that this is
prejudiced against the poor.
CHAIR HUGHES said that the public can submit their questions to
the committee, and she will obtain responses.
2:45:50 PM
CHRISTY ANN ALLISON, representing herself, Wasilla, referred to
Section 2 and echoed Ms. Kincaid's comments. She thought that
the language "until the order of the court is satisfied" circles
around to the concept of the debtor's prison and invalidates the
language that recognizes the defendant's inability to pay. The
defendant would be perpetually held in the system until the
court releases them.
She turned to Section 7. She said that it was important to
remove the language that required a person to apply for parole.
She said it is important to provide due process to ensure that
everyone is meeting all of the stages for the possibility for
discretionary or mandatory parole based on a set of procedures
and not on the prisoner's application for [parole] since they
should be eligible. She offered her belief that this language
would disproportionately affect the uneducated, the poor, and
the mentally ill. It means they are responsible to apply and
those are the people who do not have access to or cannot afford
an attorney to track their cases while they are in prison. These
people cannot fill out the forms because they cannot read or
write on their own. Further, the mentally ill do not have the
faculties to track deadlines and apply timely. She said that the
parole officers are overburdened. She said she is a family
member of an individual who was wrongfully convicted. She said
the way things are on paper is not the way it occurs inside of
prisons. For example, the committee held a discussion on the
management plan for inmates. She said that inmates are typically
ignored until the end of the incarceration. She said that there
is not any comprehensive plan that is discussed with the inmate
until a year or less of their sentence remains.
2:49:10 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reiterated that the public can submit testimony to
senate.judiciary@akleg.gov.
2:49:29 PM
GRACIE PRENTICE, representing herself, Kenai, said that she
supports replacing Senate Bill 91 with SB 34.
2:49:55 PM
JACQUELINE BOCK, representing herself, Sterling, testified in
support of SB 34. She said she believes Senate Bill 91 needs to
be repealed and replaced. She said her family has been a victim
more than once. She expressed concern that law enforcement does
not have the tools to keep law abiding citizens safe. She said
her family is afraid to leave their home because of crime
associated with a drug house in her neighborhood. She thinks
something needs to be done for Alaskans. She said crime takes a
long-term toll on youth and has an adverse financial impact on
the state.
2:52:00 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE thanked her for her activism and work on the
local crime panel. He stated that many suggestions are in the
crime bills.
CHAIR HUGHES said that she hoped that the legislature will be
able to make changes to make her feel safer.
2:52:46 PM
JOHN ROZZLI, Chief Executive Officer, Valley Charities, Inc.,
Wasilla, spoke in favor of retaining Senate Bill 91, perhaps
making some modifications to it. He said that it has been
successful in terms of reentry. He said that the recidivism rate
is about seven percent with one of their reentry programs. He
said the organization has a workforce readiness program that has
helped offenders get back into the community and become
successful. As a third-party employer, he has found reentrants
are more successful at finding work, that unemployment and lack
of housing is one of the big reasons why recidivism occurs. The
organization has succeeded in helping inmates be successful. He
stated he is opposed to repeal of Senate Bill 91, acknowledging
that some things needed to be tweaked.
2:54:15 PM
CHAIR HUGHES advised the public that this bill does not repeal
the reentry program that he mentioned.
2:54:29 PM
LISA ELLANNA, representing herself, Nome, said that the great
number of those incarcerated for felony crimes are for non-
violent crimes. Before the state makes it too restrictive for
people who are trying to get back into their communities. It is
important for them to contribute to their communities in
meaningful ways and reestablish their lives. She echoed what Ms.
Kincaid, Ms. Allison, and Mr. Rozzli stated. She agreed that it
is important not to make laws that will disproportionately
affect people that are experiencing poverty or other protected
populations in the state. She expressed gratitude that some
people question the constitutionality of [incarcerating]
debtors. She agreed with a lot of Senate Bill 91 since it
contains many good elements and a lot of community feedback went
into making that law. She characterized the process as rubber
banding back and forth between providing treatment and being
restrictive. She said that she hopes the legislature can find
the middle ground.
2:57:19 PM
MICHAEL BERGER, representing self, Anchorage, said he is not in
favor of the changes in SB 34. He said that this bill would
repeal caps on sanctions for violations, which are currently
three, five, and 10 days. He said that violators may spend up to
three months or a year prior to going to court. He was unsure
how this bill would reduce spending or overcrowding. In terms of
discretionary parole, he acknowledged that Senate Bill 91 makes
more people eligible, but the parole board still has discretion
who is approved or denied. He said he has served more than 20
years inside institutions and job preparation is very little. He
said that people need to learn basics, including self-care and
how to make a bed. He acknowledged that some programs make
sense, such as custodial and construction programs, but it
should be extended. He offered his belief that it could be
extended through the reentry program. He advocated for training
early on to better run their lives. In his experience, once
people get to the point that they feel useless, they will use
drugs or do whatever they have done that led to them being
incarcerated.
3:00:14 PM
VINCENT LIBERTINO, representing himself, Juneau, said he is in
long-term recovery and would not be here if it were not for
Senate Bill 91. He said he is on discretionary parole. He
commended his probation officer, who works with him and he
learns. He said he is part of the reentry program and will take
a three-week drug and alcohol certification course. He said that
he has gained from Senate Bill 91. He expressed concern that the
committee would [repeal] it since it would go backwards.
He stressed the need to address the underlying cause of
addiction. He said that 90 percent of the people in the prison
system are there due to addiction. He said that addicts,
alcoholics, and convicts do not read the bill before they
offend. What does work is a true carrot and stick approach,
which is what his probation officer does with him. If he is in
violation, he abides by Senate Bill 91. He acknowledged that his
recovery has not been linear. He works as a peer-to-peer
recovery coach with NAMI [National Alliance on Mental Illness]
Juneau. He highlighted his tourism work and success as a small
business owner. He said he would be in prison without Senate
Bill 91, that he received a 14-year prison sentence for drug
sales in Anchorage.
MR. LIBERTINO said he served 5-6 years in prison. He said he
completed an offender management program (OMP), which was not
discussed today. He explained that he received a three-year
furlough. While he was at the halfway house, Senate Bill 91
passed the legislature. His parole officer met with him to
develop his discretionary parole packet. He said that was two
years ago. He said that probation deals with suspended time and
parole deals with good time. He emphasized his desire to be a
productive member of society.
3:04:49 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that the committee is looking for a
balance and for people to pay a price to society but to still
succeed. He asked him to present the rest of his testimony in
writing and provide more detail about the programs he has used.
CHAIR HUGHES said a lot of people do not understand that the
intent of Senate Bill 91 was to allow people the ability to get
on the right path. She emphasized that the legislature is not
taking that away. The goal is to increase treatment programs.
Justice needs to be served but people need to have every
opportunity to better themselves and live productive lives. She
said that passing these bills is not going backward.
3:06:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL highlighted that some disincentives for treatment
have been identified in the bill. He expressed concern that some
proposed changes in the bill will make it much more difficult
for those trying to reenter the community to succeed. He
directed attention to the repealers since one does not seem to
be a conforming change.
CHAIR HUGHES mentioned that public testimony is open on SB 34.
3:08:16 PM
SENATOR KIEHL directed attention to AS 12.55.110(f), revoking a
suspended sentence. He read part of the language, which read,
"If the court does not find that the noncompletion of treatment
was attributable to the defendant's inability to pay, the court
may order the defendant imprisoned subject to the limits
established in this section." He asked for further clarification
on the reason to repeal it.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that series includes other repealers
that relate to the technical violation caps. This was codified
in Senate Bill 91 and is current practice. She said it is not
necessary to codify it, but she does not see a problem in doing
so. She said that the Department of Law started with an initial
sweep and if the committee wants to add the language back in,
the department would not object.
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that some people who have broken the
cycle of addiction have talked to him about a natural process
that occurs. Parents and friends are initially willing to bail
the person out. That group of people willing to bail the person
out shrinks the more the person offends, until the person runs
out of friends. He said that made it serious for them. He
acknowledged that sitting in prison short circuits the process
and causes them to take rehabilitation more seriously. He said
it is also compounded by the bail schedule from the courts. He
said that the legislature signaled in Senate Bill 91 the
inability to pay as a reason to keep people in jail. He said he
supports this change.
3:11:38 PM
SENATOR KIEHL acknowledged the goal of making more treatment
available. He said there are a few no-cost treatment options and
some treatment for inmates is available in facilities. He said
that DOC tries to get court-ordered offenders the ability to
obtain treatment. However, there is not much treatment
available. He said this is about continuing good faith effort.
He said he does not think this relates to running out of
friends. He said that repealing this language takes the criminal
justice system in the wrong direction in terms of a suspended
portion of their sentence.
3:12:39 PM
MS. SCHROEDER offered a point of clarification. She referred to
AS 12.55.110(f). She said that it has never been the case to
send someone to jail because they are unable to complete
treatment for the inability to pay. The issue with Section 2
relates to not paying a fine and potentially going to jail. She
said that if the defendant was unable to pay after having made
continuing good faith efforts, they are not sent to jail. This
language pertains to and targets people who are willfully
refusing to pay their fines. In terms of AS 12.55.110(f), the
department would address someone who violates their probation if
they are willfully refusing to go to treatment. This is not
targeted at people who cannot pay for treatment.
SENATOR KIEHL acknowledged the two sections function
differently.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that he did not have a means to review the
repealer. He said that he stands corrected on the bail issue.
[SB 34 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJUD Agenda 3.8.19.pdf |
SJUD 3/8/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB0034A.PDF |
SJUD 3/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/30/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 - Probation and Parole Sectional.pdf |
SFIN 4/30/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Highlights.pdf |
SJUD 3/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |