Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205

02/07/2019 03:30 PM STATE AFFAIRS

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
03:34:55 PM Start
03:35:24 PM SB34|| SB33
05:27:31 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
          SB  34-PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS                                                                      
            SB  33-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION                                                                      
3:35:24 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of 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." and                                                                                                     
SENATE  BILL  NO.  33;  "An Act  relating  to  pretrial  release;                                                               
relating  to sentencing;  relating  to  treatment program  credit                                                               
toward  service  of  a  sentence  of  imprisonment;  relating  to                                                               
electronic  monitoring; amending  Rules  38.2  and 45(d),  Alaska                                                               
Rules  of  Criminal Procedure;  and  providing  for an  effective                                                               
He stated that both bills were  introduced by Senate Rules at the                                                               
request  of   the  Governor.  He   advised  that  he   asked  the                                                               
commissioners of  the Department of  Public Safety (DPS)  and the                                                               
Department  of  Corrections (DOC)  and  the  attorney general  to                                                               
provide opening  remarks from a policy  perspective. The director                                                               
of the  Criminal Division of  the Department of Law  would follow                                                               
with a sectional  analysis for each bill. He  asked the committee                                                               
members to keep  their initial questions at  the 30-thousand foot                                                               
level for  the broad policy  perspectives and wait to  direct the                                                               
detailed questions to Mr. Skidmore.                                                                                             
3:36:56 PM                                                                                                                    
AMANDA  PRICE,   Commissioner  Designee,  Department   of  Public                                                               
Safety,  said she  was thrilled  to  be before  the committee  to                                                               
support  Governor  Dunleavy's   commitment  to  make  communities                                                               
safer.  SB  33 and  SB  34  do that  by  returning  tools to  law                                                               
enforcement  to  move  more  quickly to  make  arrests  and  hold                                                               
offenders accountable.                                                                                                          
3:37:43 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY   DAHLSTROM,    Commissioner   Designee,    Department   of                                                               
Corrections, introduced herself and  advised that the director of                                                               
the parole board  and director of probation and  parole were with                                                               
her and available for questions.                                                                                                
3:38:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  recognized that  Representative Andy  Josephson was                                                               
in  the  audience  and  that  Senator  Micciche  had  joined  the                                                               
3:38:24 PM                                                                                                                    
KEVIN  CLARKSON, Attorney  General Designee,  Department of  Law,                                                               
thanked the committee for the invitation  to talk about SB 33 and                                                               
SB 34. He described  them as numbers two and three  in a suite of                                                               
four   bills  designed   to  return   needed  tools   to  judges,                                                               
prosecutors, and law  enforcement to respond to  the rising crime                                                               
trends in the state.                                                                                                            
He stated Senate  Bill 91 sought to improve  the criminal justice                                                               
system  by changing  the  bail laws,  which  became effective  in                                                               
2018. The  idea was  to release more  people pretrial  while also                                                               
maintaining  community safety.  Unfortunately, that  became known                                                               
as the  "catch and  release" system,  he said.  It took  too much                                                               
discretion  from judges  and limited  their  ability to  evaluate                                                               
each case on the facts and  each offender based on their criminal                                                               
history and ties to the community.                                                                                              
SB  33  corrects  that  by  restoring  judicial  discretion  when                                                               
considering  pretrial  release.  Under  SB  33,  the  panoply  of                                                               
options available to judges include:  release on own recognizance                                                               
(OR),  unsecured  bail,  secured bail,  release  with  electronic                                                               
monitoring  by   a  private  company,   and  release   under  the                                                               
supervision  of  a  third-party   custodian.  The  Department  of                                                               
Corrections will  maintain its ability  and authority  to monitor                                                               
pretrial release through its probation and parole officers.                                                                     
ATTORNEY  GENERAL  DESIGNEE  CLARKSON   said  SB  33  also  seeks                                                               
efficiencies and justice. For example,  it will encourage greater                                                               
use of  video teleconferencing in  almost all  pretrial hearings.                                                               
This will  greatly reduce the  need to transport  defendants, DOC                                                               
personnel, and  prosecutors to court locations  thus resulting in                                                               
significant cost  savings. This  is safer  for officers  and will                                                               
reduce  the  opportunity for  contraband  to  be introduced  into                                                               
correctional  facilities. The  bill  also  prohibits an  offender                                                               
from receiving credit  for pretrial release when he or  she is on                                                               
electronic  monitoring.   This  will  avoid  the   problem  of  a                                                               
defendant prolonging  pretrial release proceedings to  reduce the                                                               
time or  entirely avoid serving  their ultimate sentence  in jail                                                               
upon conviction.                                                                                                                
He  said   defendants  should  always   be  encouraged   to  seek                                                               
treatment, but not to the  extent that pretrial delay impacts the                                                               
victim's ability to  get closure and the  prosecutor's ability to                                                               
pursue  the case.  He opined  that, "Pretrial  delay is  always a                                                               
friend of the defendant and it's  never a friend of the victim or                                                               
ATTORNEY GENERAL  DESIGNEE CLARKSON  encouraged the  committee to                                                               
examine the bill closely and give  serious thought to how it will                                                               
help the criminal justice system help Alaskans.                                                                                 
3:43:20 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  asked  him  to  address  the  exacerbation  of                                                               
release on  own recognizance  (OR) under  the new  bail schedule,                                                               
and whether  SB 33 would send  a message to the  courts to return                                                               
the bail schedule to the direction of the legislature.                                                                          
ATTORNEY GENERAL  DESIGNEE CLARKSON said he  believes judges will                                                               
have  greater flexibility  when deciding  which pretrial  release                                                               
conditions to  adopt but they will  look at the same  factors. He                                                               
deferred further comment to Mr. Skidmore.                                                                                       
CHAIR SHOWER  said he would  reserve time for closing  remarks at                                                               
the end of the hearing.                                                                                                         
3:45:04 PM                                                                                                                    
ATTORNEY GENERAL  DESIGNEE CLARKSON began  his comments on  SB 34                                                               
stating  that it  is designed  to  strengthen the  tools used  to                                                               
address  probation infractions.  It  eliminates the  caps on  the                                                               
sanctions for those probationers  who commit technical violations                                                               
or abscond.  The bill  returns discretion  to judges  to consider                                                               
the original crime(s) and technical  violations of their terms of                                                               
SB 34 also changes the  earned compliance credit from day-for-day                                                               
credit to a  credit system wherein the offender  receives one day                                                               
credit  for every  three days  without a  violation. Further,  an                                                               
offender who  commits a violation  loses all of the  credits they                                                               
earned  up to  the  time of  the violation.  He  opined that  the                                                               
longer  an  individual  goes without  a  violation,  the  greater                                                               
incentive they have to continue their good behavior.                                                                            
With  reguard  to  parole eligibility,  the  bill  reimposes  the                                                               
previous  restrictions  as  to   what  crimes  are  eligible  for                                                               
discretionary  parole. SB  34 also  eliminates  a presumption  of                                                               
release that has to be  overcome by clear and convincing evidence                                                               
and  returns  discretion to  the  parole  board. This  will  help                                                               
ensure that  individuals who  are released on  parole are  a good                                                               
risk  and  return  safety  to   communities.  Finally,  the  bill                                                               
eliminates good  time credit for  convicted offenders who  are on                                                               
electronic monitoring.                                                                                                          
He  noted that  Mr.  Skidmore would  walk  through the  sectional                                                               
3:47:40 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  SHOWER asked  Mr.  Skidmore to  start  with the  sectional                                                               
analysis of SB  34, but to feel free to  begin with a 30-thousand                                                               
foot view of switching back from Senate Bill 91.                                                                                
JOHN SKIDMORE,  Director, Criminal  Division, Department  of Law,                                                               
said he would  start his comments by reminding  members that when                                                               
he testifies,  he tries to provide  insight on the law  and how a                                                               
bill will impact the criminal justice  system. It is not his role                                                               
to express his  personal opinions about any  particular bill. His                                                               
testimony is always on behalf of the administration.                                                                            
He  related that  most of  his  comments during  the hearings  on                                                               
Senate  Bill 91  were that  the bill  represented recommendations                                                               
that the  former administration wanted to  implement. He recalled                                                               
that throughout his testimony, he  consistently counseled that it                                                               
would take  time to understand  how provisions in the  bill would                                                               
play out.  He said, "Whenever you  make changes to a  system, you                                                               
always need  to evaluate it  for whether  or not you  achieve the                                                               
desired   result,   whether   or   not   there   are   unintended                                                               
consequences,  and then  you have  to decide  whether or  not any                                                               
changes have  to be made."  He said that principle  is consistent                                                               
with what  he would  describe today. He  opined that,  "These are                                                               
changes that  I think folks are  going to say are  appropriate to                                                               
be making  because of some of  the concerns or the  problems that                                                               
they have created."                                                                                                             
3:50:19 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL said  he has  always  found Mr.  Skidmore to  be                                                               
honest  as  well as  clear  on  the law  and  how  it plays  out.                                                               
However,  because Mr.  Skidmore does  not bring  the view  of the                                                               
court or  public defender to the  discussion, he said he  may ask                                                               
for those perspectives at some point.                                                                                           
CHAIR SHOWER clarified  that there is no intention  to rush these                                                               
bills, but to provide a thorough  vetting and "get it right going                                                               
3:53:17 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE  delivered the following  sectional analysis  for SB
     Section  1:  Eliminates  language related  to  caps  on                                                                    
     technical violations of probation under AS 12.55.110.                                                                      
     Section  2:  Eliminates  language related  to  caps  on                                                                    
     technical violations of probation under AS 12.55.110.                                                                      
SENATOR COGHILL requested information, at  some point, on how the                                                               
caps worked and the issues that came up on the timeline.                                                                        
CHAIR  SHOWER  noted that  the  bill  frequently uses  the  terms                                                               
"shall" and "may"  and he would like some  discussion, when "may"                                                               
is  used,  about  what  that  means  to  the  judge  and  if  the                                                               
discretion is  bounded sufficiently to  ensure it does  the right                                                               
MR. SKIDMORE continued:                                                                                                         
     Section  3: Makes  the  recommendation  of a  probation                                                                    
     officer for  early termination of  probation permissive                                                                    
     and at  the discretion  of the probation  officer. Also                                                                    
     eliminates the timeline for  when such a recommendation                                                                    
     must   be   made.   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                                                                    
He  explained  that  probation   officers  have  the  ability  to                                                               
recommend to the  court that a defendant does not  need to remain                                                               
on  probation.  Senate  Bill  91  encouraged  this  to  occur  by                                                               
requiring probation  officers to make a  recommendation. They did                                                               
not have a choice. Section  3 returns discretion to the probation                                                               
officer; it does not force a recommendation to occur.                                                                           
SENATOR COGHILL  pointed out  that Section 3  does away  with the                                                               
things  the probation  officer had  to consider  when making  the                                                               
required recommendation.  He asked  Mr. Skidmore to  review those                                                               
MR. SKIDMORE read  the deleted text starting on page  2, line 31,                                                               
through page 3,  line 7, of the bill and  agreed with the concept                                                               
Senator  Coghill   described.  The   condition  upon   which  the                                                               
recommendation was required was  twofold: first, either two years                                                               
or 18 months  had elapsed; second, the defendant had  not had any                                                               
violations during that time.                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL recalled  the finding was that with  that kind of                                                               
incentive, probationers were shown to  be safer. He said he would                                                               
try  to  produce the  data  upon  which that  recommendation  was                                                               
3:58:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KAWASAKI  asked  how  many   people  had  qualified  for                                                               
probation termination under the two year or 18 month provision.                                                                 
MR. SKIDMORE suggested  he direct the question  to the Department                                                               
of Corrections;  he did not  have that  data. He noted  that that                                                               
part of Senate Bill 91 was implemented in January 2017.                                                                         
CHAIR  SHOWER noted  the  experts  online who  might  be able  to                                                               
answer the question.                                                                                                            
SENATOR  KAWASAKI   said  he   was  willing   to  wait   for  the                                                               
3:59:27 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE continued.                                                                                                         
     Section 4:  Reduces amount of  time that  a probationer                                                                    
     may  decrease  their  length   of  probation  for  good                                                                    
     behavior  to one  day for  every three  days without  a                                                                    
He  explained  that  under the  current  law,  earned  compliance                                                               
credits allow a probationer who  goes 30 days without a violation                                                               
to reduce their probation by an  equal 30 days. Section 4 changes                                                               
the calculation  so that  for every 3  days without  a violation,                                                               
one day is removed from the period of probation.                                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL  said he'll  be interested  in seeing  where that                                                               
has failed.                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SHOWER  said he would like  to see data that  shows a trend                                                               
one way or the other.                                                                                                           
SENATOR MICCICHE observed that the  bill recognizes some value in                                                               
the earned compliance  credit because it does not  return to pre-                                                               
Senate Bill 91 when it did not exist.                                                                                           
MR. SKIDMORE  said that's correct;  it is not a  complete repeal.                                                               
It  adopts the  concept  that human  behavior  can be  influenced                                                               
through both the stick and  carrot method. Section 4 provides the                                                               
carrot, but it is a slightly smaller carrot than in current law.                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE observed  that sex  offenders are  not eligible                                                               
for  earned  compliance credit  and  a  probationer who  violates                                                               
their  conditions  of probation  loses  any  credits they  earned                                                               
prior to the violation.                                                                                                         
MR. SKIDMORE responded that that is what Section 5 does.                                                                        
CHAIR SHOWER  advised that the  committee wants to know  what the                                                               
data shows so  they are better able to make  effective changes to                                                               
the criminal justice system.                                                                                                    
4:03:43 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD   pointed  out  that  the   bill  still  allows                                                               
individuals  to  get 33-percent  credit  while  they are  out  on                                                               
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that was correct.                                                                                        
SENATOR REINBOLD opined  that Alaska ought to  benchmark to other                                                               
states and questioned  whether this is more  lenient. She offered                                                               
her understanding  that there were  nine ways for  individuals to                                                               
get out of jail after Senate Bill 91 passed.                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE  said he knows  that some,  but not all,  states are                                                               
using earned compliance  credits and that the 3:1  ratio was just                                                               
adopted at the federal level in the First Step Act.                                                                             
SENATOR  REINBOLD clarified  she  was talking  about states  with                                                               
lower crime rates. She noted  that some statistics show Alaska is                                                               
the  most dangerous  state in  the nation.  Because the  Governor                                                               
wants to make  Alaska the safest state in one  year, she wants to                                                               
look at all the  ways people can get out of  jail more easily and                                                               
off probation more  quickly. She also posed the  question, "or is                                                               
supervision a good thing for these people?"                                                                                     
SENATOR MICCICHE said that when there  is not a full repeal, he'd                                                               
like to see the data and the logic that supports that.                                                                          
CHAIR  SHOWER  added   that  the  bill  will   change,  but  it's                                                               
appropriate for  the committee to  look at the metrics  that show                                                               
what is and is not working.                                                                                                     
4:07:21 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL said  the intention  in  Senate Bill  91 was  to                                                               
incentivize people to get treatment  during probation and parole.                                                               
What Sections  4 and  5 will  do is remove  the ability  for some                                                               
people, certain sex offenders in  particular, to be in a program.                                                               
He said  he'd like  to see  data that shows  that that  aspect of                                                               
Senate Bill 91 was not successful.                                                                                              
MR. SKIDMORE  pointed out that  the language that  allows certain                                                               
sex offenders to  earn credits for complying  with the conditions                                                               
of  probation  was  removed  from Section  4  because  Section  5                                                               
prohibits earned compliance credit for sex offenders.                                                                           
     Section  5:  Prohibits  a  sex  offender  from  earning                                                                    
     credit   against  their   period  of   probation.  Also                                                                    
     mandates  that a  probationer lose  all of  the credits                                                                    
     they have  accrued if  they are  found in  violation of                                                                    
     probation, requiring the accrual to start over.                                                                            
He  explained  that  sex offenders  on  probation  are  monitored                                                               
through what is call the  containment model that imposes a series                                                               
of  conditions. He  said  it has  been  extremely successful  and                                                               
should not be  shortened for sex offenders.  Because probation is                                                               
what  allows  them  to  succeed  so well,  the  intention  is  to                                                               
completely exempt sex offenders  from reductions of probation. He                                                               
said DOC can  discuss the details about why it  is so successful,                                                               
but as a prosecutor for 20 years he can attest to its success.                                                                  
Section 5 also establishes that an  individual who is found to be                                                               
in violation of  probation will lose all credits  accrued to that                                                               
point. The idea is to  encourage people to continue good behavior                                                               
because, "the longer they go, the  bigger that carrot is for them                                                               
and  they  don't want  to  risk  losing it."  Addressing  Senator                                                               
Reinbold's question about how the  bill compares to other states,                                                               
he said this concept is not  found in the federal First Step Act.                                                               
He did not know if other states use it.                                                                                         
SENATOR  COGHILL noted  that this  information was  not discussed                                                               
several years ago.                                                                                                              
MR. SKIDMORE agreed.                                                                                                            
4:11:56 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD  opined that the  committee needs a  compare and                                                               
contrast  document  for  the Governor's  bills  like  Legislative                                                               
Legal Services prepares  for the bills it drafts.  She added that                                                               
at a  high level she was  supportive of all the  Governor's crime                                                               
bills, but she  needed to see where they differ  from Senate Bill                                                               
MR.  SKIDMORE  directed  attention  to the  bill  matrix  in  the                                                               
packets.  It shows  the progression  of the  law prior  to Senate                                                               
Bill  91, how  it  was changed  by  Senate Bill  91,  how it  was                                                               
changed by Senate Bill  54 or House Bill 312, and  what SB 32, SB
33,  and SB  34  do. He  acknowledged that  the  matrix does  not                                                               
provide information  about the specific  sections of  Senate Bill                                                               
91  that are  not touched  by these  three bills.  He offered  to                                                               
follow up with a synopsis.                                                                                                      
SENATOR REINBOLD  said she  was accustomed  to seeing  a document                                                               
that  has red  and  blue  text that  indicates  the  new and  old                                                               
language respectively. She asked if he could provide that.                                                                      
MR. SKIDMORE said he has not seen that type of document.                                                                        
4:14:39 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL advised that once  the administration's bills are                                                               
amended, Legislative Legal Services can provide that format.                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD reiterated her  preference to immediately have a                                                               
red and blue text side-by-side comparison.                                                                                      
MR. SKIDMORE moved to Section 6.                                                                                                
     Section  6: Amends  duties of  a  probation officer  to                                                                    
     require that a  probation officer consider recommending                                                                    
     early  termination of  probation.  Also eliminates  the                                                                    
     requirement  to  use  administrative  sanctions  before                                                                    
     filing a petition to revoke.                                                                                               
He directed  attention to the  deleted language on page  4, lines                                                               
23-30,  and  page 5,  lines  2-8.  Both subsections  referred  to                                                               
administrative  sanctions. He  clarified that  DOC still  has the                                                               
ability  to  use  administrative  sanctions, but  at  the  policy                                                               
level. Thus it does not need to be in the statutes.                                                                             
MR. SKIDMORE pointed  out that the language on  page 5, paragraph                                                               
(7),  regarding  termination  of  probation  says  the  probation                                                               
officer  "shall consider  recommending termination"  of probation                                                               
as  opposed  to  "shall   recommend  termination."  This  returns                                                               
discretion to the probation officer.                                                                                            
4:17:32 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked  him to reiterate the  reason for removing                                                               
administrative sanctions and incentives.                                                                                        
MR. SKIDMORE  explained that one  of the concepts in  Senate Bill                                                               
91  was to  reduce the  number of  petitions filed  in court  for                                                               
probation violations.  The bill codified the  requirement for DOC                                                               
to develop  a program of  administrative sanctions  or incentives                                                               
to try and  get compliance. He reiterated that  the department is                                                               
able  to have  policies  that  do or  do  not use  administrative                                                               
sanctions  or  incentives.  Having  administrative  sanctions  in                                                               
statute  caused problems  because it  required regulations  to be                                                               
adopted and that has not happened.                                                                                              
SENATOR  KAWASAKI  summarized  that  regulations  have  not  been                                                               
adopted and were not adopted prior to Senate Bill 91.                                                                           
MR.   SKIDMORE  confirmed   that   there   were  no   regulations                                                               
previously, there  are none now,  and there  would not be  any in                                                               
the  future. Now  there  is  a written  policy  and  DOC has  the                                                               
discretion to continue that policy or not.                                                                                      
SENATOR COGHILL commented that the  policy in statute indicated a                                                               
preference  for  adopting  regulations;  now  that  DOC  has  the                                                               
discretion, it appears that they may not adopt regulations.                                                                     
MR.  SKIDMORE suggested  that  was  a question  for  DOC; he  was                                                               
giving  the   legal  analysis  of   what  these   changes  allow.                                                               
Discretion  is  returned  to  the   department  to  manage  their                                                               
      Section 7: Requires an application for discretionary                                                                      
      parole to be submitted to the parole board before a                                                                       
     person can be considered for discretionary parole.                                                                         
He explained  that under current  law, an inmate is  not required                                                               
to apply, but  the parole board is required to  consider them for                                                               
parole automatically  once they  have served a  sufficient amount                                                               
of time.  The proposed  change requires the  inmate to  apply for                                                               
parole; consideration for parole does not happen automatically.                                                                 
SENATOR COGHILL  recalled that some  of the discussion  was about                                                               
addressing  the number  of  petitions that  were  filed but  were                                                               
never considered by the board.                                                                                                  
MR.  SKIDMORE  recalled  the  discussion was  that  a  number  of                                                               
inmates  simply do  not apply  for discretionary  parole and  the                                                               
intent was to ensure that every  inmate who was eligible would be                                                               
considered. He  suggested asking the  parole board for  the data,                                                               
but he understands that a number  of inmates still do not show up                                                               
for their  hearing. It is a  waste of resources for  the board to                                                               
schedule hearings  for those  inmates who  are not  interested in                                                               
parole, he said.                                                                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL said he disagrees  with the practical outplay but                                                               
would stay open to the discussion.                                                                                              
4:24:48 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  asked what mechanism  is available for  inmates who                                                               
have a learning disability and may  not know they have the option                                                               
of applying.                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE suggested he asked the parole board.                                                                               
4:25:36 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD voiced support for Section 7.                                                                                  
SENATOR  MICCICHE asked  which section  addresses  the timing  of                                                               
parole hearings.                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE  said a  provision  in  Senate Bill  54  encouraged                                                               
parole hearings  to occur  more frequently than  they had  in the                                                               
past. Nothing  in SB 34 talks  about that concept, but  timing is                                                               
addressed in an upcoming section.                                                                                               
SENATOR MICCICHE said he could wait.                                                                                            
MR. SKIDMORE turned to Section 8.                                                                                               
     Section 8: Returns discretionary parole eligibility to                                                                     
        where it was prior to January 1, 2017. Makes the                                                                        
     following crimes ineligible:                                                                                               
   • Non-sex class A felonies (Robbery 1, Assault 1, Arson                                                                      
   • B felonies if the person had one or more prior felony                                                                      
   • 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).                                                                          
CHAIR SHOWER  asked for  a layman's explanation  as opposed  to a                                                               
legal  definition of  crimes such  as  robbery in  the first  and                                                               
second degrees.                                                                                                                 
MR. SKIDMORE  explained that robbery  in the first degree  is the                                                               
taking of  property from another person  using significant force.                                                               
Assault in the first degree is  the most serious level of assault                                                               
and  generally involves  serious  physical injury.  Arson in  the                                                               
first degree is intentionally setting  a fire that causes harm to                                                               
another person as well as damage  to the property. The concept of                                                               
class A and B felonies captures  the repeat offender. Class B and                                                               
C sex felonies  are generally talking about  sexual contact. Some                                                               
levels  of penetration  involving  incapacitated individuals  are                                                               
the  second  level  of  seriousness  of  sexual  assault.  Sexual                                                               
assault is  generally committed  against a  non-consenting adult.                                                               
Sexual abuse  of a minor  is about engaging in  a sex act  with a                                                               
person  who is  under the  appropriate  age for  that conduct  to                                                               
CHAIR SHOWER  said some of  the discussion will be  about putting                                                               
repeat  offenders   and  violent  offenders  behind   bars  while                                                               
ensuring that  non-violent offenders  are not  put in  the prison                                                               
system when they don't need to be there.                                                                                        
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that robbery  in the first degree requires                                                               
that a  person is armed with  a deadly weapon and  they represent                                                               
by  words or  conduct  that  they have  the  weapon  is on  their                                                               
person. Assault  in the first  degree is causing  someone serious                                                               
physical injury.                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  asked him to  define discretionary  parole pre-                                                               
Senate Bill 91 and what that bill allowed.                                                                                      
MR. SKIDMORE explained  that prior to Senate Bill  91, the crimes                                                               
set out in Section 8  were not eligible for discretionary parole.                                                               
SB  34 reinstates  the pre-Senate  Bill  91 law  so those  crimes                                                               
would not be eligible for discretionary parole.                                                                                 
SENATOR REINBOLD  summarized her  understanding that  Senate Bill                                                               
91 expanded the  law to allow: 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) to be eligible for discretionary parole.                                                                           
MR. SKIDMORE said yes.                                                                                                          
4:35:35 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE suggested  that people would find  it helpful if                                                               
he explained  where there has been  a full repeal of  Senate Bill                                                               
91.  For example,  Section 8  fully  repeals the  Senate Bill  91                                                               
expanded eligibility for discretionary parole.                                                                                  
MR. SKIDMORE said that's correct.                                                                                               
SENATOR COGHILL stated his intention  to ask the parole board how                                                               
many  offenders  in  those  crime  categories  have  applied  for                                                               
discretionary parole and how many were problematic.                                                                             
MR. SKIDMORE continued.                                                                                                         
       Section 9: Eliminates a presumption of release and                                                                       
      thereby returns discretion back to the parole board                                                                       
     when determining release on discretionary parole.                                                                          
He  explained  that  Senate  Bill 91  created  a  presumption  of                                                               
release because  it used  the term "shall"  when it  talked about                                                               
releasing a person unless there  is clear and convincing evidence                                                               
that the  person should  not be released  based on  four criteria                                                               
that were already in the law. Section  9 is a full repeal of that                                                               
provision in Senate  Bill 91. It says that instead  of creating a                                                               
presumption  that  someone shall  be  released,  the decision  is                                                               
returned to the discretion of the parole board.                                                                                 
CHAIR SHOWER  requested any  data that  was available  related to                                                               
Section 9.                                                                                                                      
4:38:25 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE continued.                                                                                                         
     Section 10: Allows  the parole board to  make a person,                                                                    
     who does not meet the  factors in section 9, ineligible                                                                    
     for  further consideration  of discretionary  parole or                                                                    
     to have  the person  serve additional time  before they                                                                    
     can be considered again for discretionary parole.                                                                          
He explained that  Senate Bill 91 tried to  streamline the parole                                                               
application and  hearing process  thereby eliminating  the parole                                                               
board's ability  to make  case-by-case determinations  on whether                                                               
or not  an offender is  a good  candidate for parole.  Section 10                                                               
would be a complete repeal of that aspect of Senate Bill 91.                                                                    
4:40:10 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL asked  if  Section 10  uses  pre-Senate Bill  91                                                               
MR.  SKIDMORE  answered  in  the  affirmative.  The  language  in                                                               
Section 10,  [AS 33.16.100(h)], is  identical to the  language in                                                               
AS  33.16.100(e)  that  was  repealed when  Senate  Bill  91  was                                                               
4:40:50 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  asked  him  to clarify  that  not  every  case                                                               
qualifies for discretion on parole eligibility.                                                                                 
MR.  SKIDMORE said  the  limitations he  discussed  in Section  8                                                               
about who is  eligible for parole still exist. For  Section 10 he                                                               
described  a   person  who  is   eligible  and  does   apply  for                                                               
discretionary parole.  In those cases,  the parole board  has the                                                               
ability to  say an individual is  or is not a  good candidate for                                                               
parole now or in the future.                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL asked  if the tool is added  back because Section                                                               
9 eliminates the presumption.                                                                                                   
MR. SKIDMORE  replied Section  9 removes  the language  about the                                                               
board using  the clear and  convincing evidence standard  when it                                                               
analyzes four  factors to consider  whether or not somebody  is a                                                               
good  candidate  for  release. Those  factors  existed  prior  to                                                               
Senate  Bill 91  and those  factors  have not  changed. What  has                                                               
changed is  the presumption to  be applied. Prior to  Senate Bill                                                               
91, the board would consider  those factors and decide whether or                                                               
not the individual was a  good candidate for parole. After Senate                                                               
Bill 91, the board was  required to release the individual unless                                                               
they found  by clear  and convincing evidence  that one  of those                                                               
factors indicated  that the person  should not be  paroled. Also,                                                               
the presumption  was not  a presumption of  release. It  was that                                                               
the parole board  would decide whether it thought  the person was                                                               
a good candidate or not.                                                                                                        
4:44:30 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE continued the sectional.                                                                                           
    Section   11:   Conforming   language   regarding   the                                                                     
     requirement that a person fill out an application for                                                                      
     discretionary parole.                                                                                                      
     Section  12:  Eliminates  time restriction  on  when  a                                                                    
     person  may   be  discharged  from   parole,  returning                                                                    
     discretion back to the parole board.                                                                                       
He   explained  that   Section   12   eliminates  the   mandatory                                                               
recommendation that  a person be  released from parole  after one                                                               
year in  which they had  no problems. It returns  that discretion                                                               
to  the parole  board  to  determine whether  or  not the  person                                                               
remains on parole.                                                                                                              
SENATOR  KAWASAKI  asked if  deleting  the  language changes  the                                                               
meaning such that the parole  board could release somebody before                                                               
one year has passed.                                                                                                            
MR. SKIDMORE replied the parole  board has always had the ability                                                               
to discharge  somebody from parole  before one year.  Senate Bill                                                               
91 said that at that one-year  mark the board is required to make                                                               
the  recommendation   unless  the  individual  has   committed  a                                                               
violation.  This  gives  the  probation  officer  and  the  board                                                               
greater discretion.                                                                                                             
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he would look at the statutes.                                                                            
MR. SKIDMORE continued.                                                                                                         
     Section 13:  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.                                                                                                         
He  noted  that this  section  eliminates  the term  "shall"  and                                                               
instead says  the parole officer "may"  recommend early discharge                                                               
for a parolee who has met  the treatment condition of parole. The                                                               
requirement to complete one year on parole is eliminated.                                                                       
     Section 14:  Eliminates language  referencing technical                                                                    
     violations of parole under AS 33.16.215.                                                                                   
He said this is a conforming  amendment for parole; he would talk                                                               
further  about   technical  violations  when  he   discusses  the                                                               
     Section 15: Eliminates language  related to tolling [of                                                                    
     parole] when  a person absconds  [on the loose  and not                                                                    
     reporting]  from parole  (conforming  to  repeal of  AS                                                                    
     33.16.215 regarding technical  violations of parole and                                                                    
     sanctions  for absconding)  and prohibiting  the parole                                                                    
     board  from extending  the person's  parole beyond  the                                                                    
     maximum release date.                                                                                                      
He reviewed the concepts of  absconding and tolling and explained                                                               
that the  purpose of setting  conditions of probation  and parole                                                               
and monitoring  the person  during that period,  is to  help them                                                               
transition  from  the  institution  to  a  productive  member  of                                                               
4:50:02 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  asked if  the parole board  has the  ability to                                                               
penalize someone who absconds.                                                                                                  
MR. SKIDMORE replied  the parole board has  broad discretion when                                                               
it determines what sanctions to  impose. He noted that Section 15                                                               
returns full discretion to the board.                                                                                           
SENATOR   COGHILL   recalled   that   the   former   commissioner                                                               
recommended  that provision  for  situations  such as  difficulty                                                               
getting to  court. He  said he'd  look at  this section  a little                                                               
MR. SKIDMORE clarified  that he was not commenting on  why it was                                                               
implemented.   He  was   discussing   what   the  section   means                                                               
     Section 16: 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.                                                                          
He  said  the  concept  of  earned  compliance  credit  that  was                                                               
discussed earlier  for probation also applies  to parole. Instead                                                               
of 30  days credit for  30 days  without a violation,  Section 16                                                               
provides  one  day   credit  for  every  three   days  without  a                                                               
     Section  17:  Prohibits  a sex  offender  from  earning                                                                    
     credit against  their period  of parole.  Also mandates                                                                    
     that  a  parolee lose  all  of  the credits  they  have                                                                    
     accrued  if  they are  found  in  violation of  parole,                                                                    
      requiring the accrual to start over. Page 11 of the                                                                       
He  said  this  is  the  same  concept  that  was  discussed  for                                                               
probation, only  this applies to  parole. He emphasized  that the                                                               
period of parole is not  reduced for sex offenders. He reiterated                                                               
that those offenders should be on  parole for as long as possible                                                               
because  the data  indicates that  is very  successful. He  noted                                                               
that this section also provides  that a parolee loses all credits                                                               
they have accrued if they have a violation.                                                                                     
     Section 18: Prohibits a person from earning good time                                                                      
     for time spent on electronic monitoring post-sentence.                                                                     
He said  the rationale for this  provision is that the  person on                                                               
electronic monitoring  has far greater  freedom than a  person in                                                               
jail. They have  already been awarded the  significant benefit of                                                               
not being in the institution.                                                                                                   
SENATOR  COGHILL  said  part  of  the  idea  was  to  incentivize                                                               
treatment,  but  it  has  not  proven  to  be  as  beneficial  as                                                               
anticipated. Nonetheless,  he said  he would  still like  to look                                                               
for incentives for treatment.                                                                                                   
SENATOR MICCICHE requested help locating AS 33.20.010(a).                                                                       
MR. SKIDMORE  read the existing  subsection (a) of  AS 33.20.010.                                                               
and  explained that  Section 18  prohibits the  good time  earned                                                               
while on electronic monitoring that is in current statute.                                                                      
SENATOR COGHILL  recalled that part  of the discussion  was about                                                               
finding a way  to keep people from staying in  jail and adding to                                                               
their criminogenic behavior. He  acknowledged that Senate Bill 91                                                               
went too far,  but said he was still interested  in finding a way                                                               
to incentivize treatment.                                                                                                       
SENATOR  KAWASAKI   asked  for   confirmation  that   Section  18                                                               
completely repeals those provisions of Senate Bill 91.                                                                          
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed it is a full repeal.                                                                                     
SENATOR  KAWASAKI asked  if halfway  houses  and other  inpatient                                                               
treatments qualify as a treatment program in this case.                                                                         
MR. SKIDMORE said he did not know.                                                                                              
CHAIR SHOWER asked him to follow up with the answer.                                                                            
5:02:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD, responding  to Senator  Coghill, related  that                                                               
prosecutors have  told her that  they no longer have  anything to                                                               
hold over  offenders' heads [in terms  of jail time] so  there is                                                               
no  incentive to  get  treatment. She  expressed  hope that  that                                                               
would enter into the discussion at a future time.                                                                               
SENATOR  COGHILL   said  he  understands  that,   but  these  are                                                               
probationers which is different.                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE continued.                                                                                                         
     Section  19:   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.                                                                                    
He  explained  that  this  is   a  conforming  amendment.  SB  34                                                               
eliminates administrative  sanctions from  the statutes  and this                                                               
section  eliminates the  requirement  to report  on  them to  the                                                               
     Section 20: Repealer section.                                                                                              
He  said  he  would  only highlight  certain  repealers  such  as                                                               
technical  violations. He  described examples  of the  conditions                                                               
that  probationers and  parolees are  required to  follow, noting                                                               
that technical violations of these  conditions are not defined as                                                               
a new criminal offense. He  related that during the discussion of                                                               
Senate Bill 91,  there was talk about replicating  the concept of                                                               
the  PACE program,  which is   swift and  certain  sanctions  for                                                               
those who  violate conditions of  probation and parole.  The idea                                                               
is  that the  petition  to  revoke, the  admission  or denial  of                                                               
guilt,  and adjudication  would occur  quickly, and  the sanction                                                               
would be  certain. That  is the  goal and  that program  has been                                                               
found  to be  very effective.  However, in  Alaska the  component                                                               
about  swiftness is  missing. He  said he  does not  know if  the                                                               
petitions  to revoke  are filed  quickly, but  he does  know that                                                               
they are not decided quickly.                                                                                                   
What happened is that provisions  throughout the law say that for                                                               
a first violation  a person will be placed in  jail for a maximum                                                               
of three  days. After  that time, they  will be  released because                                                               
they have  already served the  maximum time. He posited  that the                                                               
cap may  have been  built into the  law anticipating  the process                                                               
wouldn't  happen as  quickly as  desired.  I'm  here to  tell you                                                               
it's not happening  in a week. It's not happening  in two weeks,                                                                
he emphasized. The process is not  swift, and that delay does not                                                               
result  in  a  sanction  close  in time  to  when  the  violation                                                               
occurred,  which  diminishes  its  effectiveness,  he  said.  The                                                               
process is neither swift nor certain. This is the first problem.                                                                
The  second   problem  prosecutors   encountered  is   the  court                                                               
interpretation of  the allegations that  are filed in a  case. He                                                               
explained  that in  a  criminal case,  each  conduct of  criminal                                                               
behavior  is  a  separate  allegation  or  charge.  For  example,                                                               
failure  to report,  consuming alcohol,  losing  a job,  changing                                                               
residence,  and contact  with  other known  felons  could all  be                                                               
filed in  a single  petition even though  they are  five separate                                                               
charges. In other  cases, a single allegation or  charge is filed                                                               
in  a  petition. The  problem  is  that criminal  justice  reform                                                               
eliminated the ability for the parole  board or the judge to take                                                               
into consideration  not only the  number of allegations  but also                                                               
the underlying offense. They are all treated the same.                                                                          
To exacerbate this problem, all  petitions filed after a persons                                                                
first violation are considered the  first petition amended, not a                                                               
second and  subsequent petition.  The courts interpreted  that to                                                               
mean all the amendments to the  petition still have a cap of just                                                               
three  days.   We have  cases  in  which  people have  had  their                                                               
petitions amended  multiple times and  still only had  [jail time                                                               
of]  three days  for  that first  violation,   he emphasized.  He                                                               
further stressed  that not considering the  number of allegations                                                               
and how  they interact  with the  underlying offense  has created                                                               
huge  problems. Clearly,  the caps  for technical  violations did                                                               
not work out  as hoped. He reminded the committee  that he talked                                                               
about this  concern when  Senate Bill 91  was considered  but the                                                               
law nevertheless  ended up  this way  and it  has been  a problem                                                               
from the beginning.                                                                                                             
MR. SKIDMORE  said the department  litigated in an effort  to get                                                               
the courts  to change their  interpretation, but to no  avail. He                                                               
highlighted  that no  other state  in the  country addresses  its                                                               
probation and  parole system in this  way, and it is  not working                                                               
in Alaska. Thus, the caps are repealed.                                                                                         
He  offered to  discuss the  repealers in  other statutes  if any                                                               
member had a question.                                                                                                          
     Section 21: Applicability.                                                                                                 
     Section 22: Effective date. This bill takes effect on                                                                      
     July 1, 2019.                                                                                                              
5:13:41 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  remarked that he  asked for forceful  testimony and                                                               
the foregoing fulfills that request.                                                                                            
SENATOR  MICCICHE noted  that the  applicability  dates apply  to                                                               
sentences  imposed  on or  after  the  effective dates  of  those                                                               
sections for  conduct also  occurring on  or after  the effective                                                               
date of  those sections. He asked  if there has ever  been a case                                                               
where the  sentences imposed  on or after  an effective  date can                                                               
apply to conduct that occurred before the effective date.                                                                       
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that this is  not about the conduct of the                                                               
underlying  crime but  of the  conduct  for the  petition of  the                                                               
probation or  parole violation That  being said, the  answered is                                                               
no; the  offender has  to be advised  of the  potential sanctions                                                               
prior to  committing the conduct  otherwise it is a  violation of                                                               
due process.                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  referenced the caps  in Section 19 and  said he                                                               
agrees that  people are stacking  offenses. He asked how  much of                                                               
that  is  based on  the  fact  that  the alleged  violations  are                                                               
generally not adjudicated swiftly, in the three-day window.                                                                     
MR.  SKIDMORE said  he did  not  have data  as to  the number  of                                                               
people who  ended up with  repeat violations, but it  was common.                                                               
Complaints about  this provision came  in from all  12 prosecutor                                                               
offices.  He agreed  that swiftness  plays a  role but  there are                                                               
other factors  in play  and it's difficult  to separate  them. He                                                               
opined  that  there  will  also be  problems  providing  data  as                                                               
changes  are considered  because a  host of  things were  changed                                                               
simultaneously. This makes it difficult  to impossible to isolate                                                               
all the factors to evaluate them individually.                                                                                  
5:19:00 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD commented that she  likes the bills more all the                                                               
time, but they don't go far  enough. She thanked Mr. Skidmore for                                                               
the  presentation and  the media  for doing  an excellent  job of                                                               
letting the folks at home stay abreast on this important topic.                                                                 
SENATOR MICCICHE  said he is  carefully evaluating the  bills and                                                               
supports the  repeal and  replacement of Senate  Bill 91  to more                                                               
responsive statutes. However,  he will be very careful  not say a                                                               
bill does not go far enough this early in the process.                                                                          
5:20:46 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KAWASAKI  highlighted that  this  is  not a  repeal  and                                                               
replace  of  the  entire  Senate Bill  91.  He  cited  compliance                                                               
credits as  an example where  some value  has been shown  and the                                                               
provision is  not being  fully repealed. He  asked if  there were                                                               
other aspects of Senate Bill  91 that are good practical measures                                                               
but are not in SB 34.                                                                                                           
MR. SKIDMORE  said yes, a  number of crimes were  eliminated from                                                               
the criminal  code while  the penalties  were reduced  for things                                                               
like  promoting an  exhibition of  fighting animals,  obstructing                                                               
highways, and  dealing with gambling.  A subsection of  arson was                                                               
added into  the penalties, provisions for  murder were increased,                                                               
and the increased  victims' rights which Senate  Bill 91 provided                                                               
are  not changed.  A suspended  entry of  judgement was  created,                                                               
which  was to  work in  conjunction with  the suspended  entry of                                                               
sentence. The suspended  entry of judgement is  retained and will                                                               
be  a valuable  tool going  forward in  terms of  how to  address                                                               
individuals addicted to drugs.                                                                                                  
He summarized  that there  are a number  of provisions  in Senate                                                               
Bill 91  that are not  changed at  all, but throughout  the three                                                               
bills there  are things like  earned compliance credits  that are                                                               
not  completely  repealed.  They  are modified  but  the  concept                                                               
remains. He  estimated that the  bills touch on 90-95  percent of                                                               
the  concepts  in  Senate  Bill   91,  but  some  are  completely                                                               
retained. "There  are certainly very  good things that  were done                                                               
in Senate  Bill 91 that  are still here. But  there are a  lot of                                                               
things  that we  went too  far and  we're trying  to adjust  them                                                               
here. And  that's what these  suite of bills  does in [SB  32, SB
33, and SB 34]."                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER requested  a  list  of those  things  that are  not                                                               
proposed  to be  fully  repealed. He  opined  that the  committee                                                               
would  like  the opportunity  to  review  that data  because  the                                                               
public  expects a  repeal effort.  People  on both  sides of  the                                                               
political spectrum are upset and it  is important to get it right                                                               
this time.  "We better be  able to show  them what we've  done to                                                               
make it right," he said. In the  rush to get these bad actors off                                                               
the  streets  and behind  bars  it's  important to  remember  the                                                               
presumption of innocence and that  the constitution matters. This                                                               
committee, in particular,  should be looking to see  that in this                                                               
rush to judgement, all citizens  are protected. "But don't get me                                                               
wrong,  if somebody's  a bad  actor and  they need  to be  behind                                                               
bars, we should  put them there for the safety  of our citizens,"                                                               
he concluded.                                                                                                                   
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 33 and SB 34 in committee for further                                                                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SSTA Agenda Week of 2.04.19.pdf SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB0033A.PDF SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 Transmittal Letter.pdf SFIN 4/30/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 - Pretrial Sectional.pdf SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
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 33 - Pretrial Highilghts.pdf SFIN 4/30/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
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
SB 33-DOA - OPA-FN.pdf SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 - DOA-PD-FN.pdf SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 - DOC-PopMgmt - FN.pdf SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 -Law-CrimDiv-FN.pdf SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33-DPS-AST-PrisTrans-FN.pdf SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB34-DOC-PopMgmt-IDO-FN.pdf SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB34-DOC-PopMgmt-PP-FN.pdf SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB34-Law-CrimDiv-FN.pdf SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB0033-6-2-012319-COR-Y.PDF SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 33
SB 33 & 34-GOA Bills Matrix 1-30-19.pdf SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM