Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/06/2014 05:00 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 64 | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 6, 2014
5:06 p.m.
5:06:14 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 5:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Lyman Hoffman
ALSO PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Sponsor; Jordan Shilling, Staff,
Senator John Coghill.
SUMMARY
SB 64 OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS BILL
SB 64 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act establishing the Alaska Sentencing Commission;
relating to jail-time credit for offenders in court-
ordered treatment programs; allowing a reduction of
penalties for offenders successfully completing court-
ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of
driving while under the influence or refusing to
submit to a chemical test; relating to court
termination of a revocation of a person's driver's
license; relating to limitation of drivers' licenses;
relating to conditions of probation and parole; and
providing for an effective date."
5:08:36 PM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, introduced himself. He
pointed out that he had been trying put a high felony theft
threshold in place. He stated that there was a cost to the
commission, and felt that the cost was very important. He
stressed that there were some sentencing structures that
needed review and comments. He remarked that some of the
Driving Under the Influence (DUI) laws were in need of
review. He felt that there were some very important alcohol
issues in Alaska. He wanted to put together a funding
structure for those that recently leave jail. He wanted to
create an avenue for post-jail accountability, in order to
decrease recidivism in the state.
Co-Chair Meyer looked at the felony threshold, and felt
that $750 was a small amount for a felony. He understood
that it was expensive to prosecute felony cases, but still
expressed concern. He wondered if that number was flexible.
Senator Coghill stressed that there were some groups in
Alaska who felt very strongly that if that portion of the
bill was $1000, the bill would not pass. He felt that it
should be higher, but agreed to keep it at $750 in order to
protect the small businesses.
5:13:30 PM
Co-Chair Meyer queried the difference in cost between a
misdemeanor case and a felony case. Senator Coghill agreed
to provide that information.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the Department of Law (DOL) could
provide a response. Senator Coghill stated that there was a
substantial cost difference between a misdemeanor and a
felony.
Vice-Chair Fairclough shared that Fred Meyer and small
businesses expressed opposition to raising the felony
threshold to $1000. She felt that the businesses were
against the increase, because there was a fear that police
officers would not respond to a misdemeanor. She would like
to hear more detail of the specific concerns about raising
the threshold. Senator Coghill replied that there was a
police officer who had testified that they did not respond
to misdemeanors, but another group of police officers said
the opposite of that statement. He stated that higher level
crimes would often take the focus off of the property crime
issues. He stressed that property crimes and misdemeanors
were on the list of police concerns.
Vice-Chair Fairclough stressed that the victims of property
crime clearly had an issue. She felt that the issue should
be examined in order to increase the threshold. She
stressed that the state must contribute a significant
amount of money in order to process the felony property
crimes. She hoped that the purpose of the business
opposition to the threshold increase was not to put people
in jail. She felt that the businesses had a higher calling
for accountability, and encouraged a conversation with the
businesses. She added that she knew it would not be a
simple solution or a simple problem. Senator Coghill
responded that the situation was complicated. He stated
that some misdemeanors required a year in jail and a
$10,000 fine. He stated that felony cases allowed
businesses more leverage, but he stressed that it was
extremely difficult for a felon to obtain employment.
Co-Chair Kelly pointed out that he never had an electronic
device disrupt the committee.
Co-Chair Kelly queried the difference between the cost of
felonies and non-felonies. Senator Coghill agreed to
provide that information.
Co-Chair Meyer asked for a detailed description of the
legislation.
Senator Coghill stated that he had instructed his staff to
rapidly discuss the sectional analysis of the bill.
5:20:54 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, presented a
sectional analysis of version D of SB 64 (copy on file).
Section 1:
This section clarifies that a person commits the crime
of custodial interference in the first degree if that
person is a relative of the child and removes that
child from the state and keeps the child from its
legal custodian, despite not having a legal right to
do so.
Section 2:
This section makes it a crime of custodial
interference in the second degree if a nonrelative of
a child knowingly and unlawfully represents themselves
as having a legal right to take or keep a child. This
section establishes a class A misdemeanor for an
attempted child abduction, rather than the lesser
crime of criminal mischief.
Section 3:
This section clarifies that an affirmative defense of
necessity does not apply to a prosecution for
custodial interference if the period for which the
person held the child exceeded 24 hours if that was
the amount of time necessary to report that the child
has been neglected, abused, or is in physical danger.
Senator Dunleavy wondered how schools were aware if there
was a custody dispute between a student's parents. Mr.
Shilling replied that the schools may not be aware of a
custody dispute.
Vice-Chair Fairclough stated that there were levels of
custodial agreements that the school was occasionally
notified about.
Senator Coghill announced that once a person tried to
violate the permitted person's approved list, the bill
stated that it was a criminal mischief issue.
Senator Olson wondered if the administration had considered
the felony threshold increase. Senator Coghill did not know
the answer.
5:25:33 PM
Senator Olson stressed that there were some issues in rural
Alaska regarding property theft felonies. He remarked that
some of those convicted felons had a difficult time
obtaining employment outside of rural Alaska.
Senator Coghill announced that he had not had issues with
the administration or the legislature regarding the
increased felony threshold. He stressed that the issue was
with the business owners.
Senator Olson felt that business owners did not vote in the
legislative body.
Vice-Chair Fairclough remarked that there were several
bills that attempted to help small business with reductions
of corporate income tax.
Mr. Shilling continued to discuss the Sectional Analysis.
Section 4:
This section will increase the minimum amount of
property or services for the crime of theft in the
second degree. Theft in the second degree is a class C
felony and carries a maximum sentence of up to five
years in prison and a fine of up to $50,000.
Section 5:
This section will increase the minimum amount of
property or services for the crime of theft in the
third degree. Theft in the third degree is a class A
misdemeanor and carries a term of imprisonment of not
more than one year and a fine of up to $10,000.
Section 6:
This section will increase the minimum amount of
property or services for the crime of theft in the
fourth degree. Theft in the fourth degree is a class B
misdemeanor and is punishable by imprisonment of not
more than 90 days and a fine of not more than $2,000.
Section 7:
This section will increase the minimum amount of
merchandise for the crime of concealment of
merchandise for a class C felony, and class A and B
misdemeanors.
Section 8:
This section will increase the minimum amount of
property that identification marks are removed from
for a class C felony and class A and B misdemeanors.
Section 9:
This section will increase the minimum amount of
unlawful possession of property for a class C felony
and class A and B misdemeanors.
Section 10:
This section will increase the minimum amount of a bad
check for a class C felony and class A and B
misdemeanors.
Section 11:
This section will increase the minimum amount of the
fraudulent use of an access device for a class C
felony and class A misdemeanor.
Section 12:
Clarifies that, if the property crime felony threshold
is adjusted, the new threshold does not retroactively
apply to prior offenses.
Section 13:
This section will increase the minimum amount of
property damage and expenses as a result of the loss
of use of a vehicle.
Section 14:
This section will increase the minimum amount of
property damage for the crime of criminal mischief in
the third degree. Criminal mischief in the third
degree is a class C felony.
Section 15:
This section will increase the minimum amount of
property damage for the crime of criminal mischief in
the fourth degree. Criminal mischief in the fourth
degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Section 16:
This section will increase the minimum amount of
property damage for the crime of criminal mischief in
the fifth degree. Criminal mischief in the fifth
degree is a class B misdemeanor.
Section 17:
This section will increase the minimum amount of
property damage for the crime of criminal simulation
for a class C felony and class A and B misdemeanors.
Section 18:
This section will increase the amount of the value of
the property for the crime of misapplication of the
value of property for a class C felony and class A
misdemeanor.
Section 19:
This section will increase the minimum amount for the
crime of defrauding creditors under certain conditions
for a class A misdemeanor, and class C felony.
Section 20:
This section establishes a 24/7 Sobriety program that
would be available to defendants out on bail who have
been charged with alcohol-related or substance abuse-
related offenses that are unclassified felonies, class
A felonies, sexual felonies, or crimes involving
domestic violence. The program requires twice-a-day
alcohol monitoring and establishes a means to provide
notification of a violation to the probation officer,
prosecutor's office, or local law enforcement agency
within 24 hours.
Section 21:
This section establishes a 24/7 Sobriety program that
would be available to defendants out on bail who have
been charged with DUI or refusal. The program requires
twice-a-day alcohol monitoring and establishes a means
to provide notification of a violation to the
probation officer, prosecutor's office, or local law
enforcement agency within 24 hours.
Section 22:
This section establishes a 24/7 Sobriety program that
would be available to defendants out on bail who have
been charged with crimes involving controlled
substances or imitation controlled substances. The
program requires twice-a-day alcohol monitoring and
establishes a means to provide notification of a
violation to the probation officer, prosecutor's
office, or local law enforcement agency within 24
hours.
5:29:18 PM
Mr. Shilling continued to discuss the Sectional Analysis.
Section 23:
An incarcerated person shall receive credit against a
sentence of imprisonment for each day spent in a
residential treatment facility, provided the person is
confined at all times to the grounds of the facility,
other than for employment, vocational training,
community volunteer, or purposes directly related to
the person's treatment, so long as the periods they
are permitted to leave the facility are expressly
limited as to both time and purpose by the treatment
program.
Section 24:
This section establishes a 24/7 Sobriety program as a
condition of probation that can be ordered, which
includes twice-a-day alcohol monitoring and
establishes a means to provide notification of a
violation to the probation officer, prosecutor's
office, or local law enforcement agency within 24
hours.
Section 25:
The judicial council shall provide staff and
administrative support to the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission.
Co-Chair Kelly wondered if the testing was always person-
to-person. Mr. Shilling responded that the testing did not
always occur person-to-person. He explained that South
Dakota had was the pioneer of the program, and had 90
percent of participants doing in-person testing. Some of
the participants lived in rural environments which were
inconvenient enough to require electronic monitoring such
as ankle bracelets. He announced that the program would
work anywhere in Alaska with a telephone land line and
local law enforcement.
5:35:03 PM
Co-Chair Kelly felt that there could be a device that
incorporated with the internet. Mr. Shilling stated that
there were some devices that functioned wirelessly.
Mr. Shilling continued to discuss the Sectional Analysis.
Section 26:
The commissioner shall establish the P.A.C.E. program
for felons with conditions of probation that include
not consuming drugs or alcohol and who have been
identified as being at moderate to high risk by a
risk-needs assessment. The program shall include
random drug and alcohol testing and requires a
probation officer to file a petition to revoke
probation by the next business day if the probationer
fails to appear for an appointment or tests positive
for drugs or alcohol. Subsection (g) also contains the
program requirements for 24/7 Sobriety.
Section 27:
This section directs the parole board to establish the
P.A.C.E. program for parolees with conditions of
parole that include not consuming drugs or alcohol and
who have been identified as being at moderate to high
risk by a risk-needs assessment. The program shall
include random drug and alcohol testing and requires a
parole officer to file a parole violation report by
the next business day if the parolee fails to appear
for an appointment or tests positive for drugs or
alcohol.
Section 28:
The parole board may require, as a condition of
special medical or mandatory parole, a parolee must
submit to the P.A.C.E. program.
Section 29:
The commissioner shall establish a program to conduct
assessments of the risks and needs of offenders
sentenced to serve a term of incarceration of 30 days
or more.
Section 30:
This section establishes the Recidivism Reduction
Grant Fund. The commissioner of corrections may make
grants from the fund for programs that have, as a
primary focus, rehabilitation and reduction of
recidivism through transitional re-entry for persons
recently released from correctional facilities. To
qualify for a grant under this section, a program
shall include case management, sober living,
treatment, employment, and a cap on residential
placements of 1 year. The commissioner shall prepare
an annual report for the legislature by January 15 of
each year.
5:41:01 PM
Senator Coghill stated that recidivism was a cost driver.
He stated that the issue was in the current version through
the Department of Corrections (DOC). He explained that the
granting and accountability measures resided in the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) section. He
stressed that some of the department functions and costs
may be more specifically defined in revised versions of the
legislation.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if that language be included in a
later committee substitute. Senator Coghill replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. Shilling looked at the fiscal note, and remarked that
DOC did not have a staff to run a grant fund. Therefore,
the DOC fiscal note estimated a six position increase. He
felt that moving the grant fund to DHSS would not require a
substantial cost increase, because DHSS already had an
infrastructure to support the grant fund management.
Mr. Shilling continued to discuss the Sectional Analysis.
Section 31:
The Alaska Criminal Justice Commission is established
in the Office of the Governor. The commission consists
of 12 members as follows:
(1) the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court
or another active or retired justice of the
supreme court or court of appeals
(2) an active or retired superior court judge
designated by the chief justice
(3) an active or retired district court judge
designated by the chief justice
(4) a member of the Alaska Native community
designated by the Alaska Native Justice Center
(5) the attorney general or designee
(6) a private attorney appointed by the governor
(7) a chief of a municipal law enforcement agency
appointed by the governor
(8) the public defender
(9) two members of the senate appointed by the
president of the senate
(10) two members of the House of Representatives
appointed by the speaker of the House of
Representatives
The commission shall elect a chair and the Alaska
Judicial Council shall provide staff and
administrative support to the commission.
Members of the commission serve without compensation
but are entitled to per diem and travel expenses
authorized for boards and commissions.
A majority of the members constitutes a quorum for
conducting business and exercising the powers of the
commission.
The commission shall meet at least quarterly and shall
keep a record of its proceedings and make these
records available for public inspection.
Sec. 44.19.645. Powers and duties of the
commission.
The commission shall evaluate the effect of
sentencing laws and practices on the
criminal justice system. In formulating its
recommendations, the commission shall
consider:
(1) statutes and court rules
(2) sentencing practices
(3) uniformity and proportionality in
sentencing
(4) alternatives to traditional
incarceration
(5) the use of parole and probation
(6) the effectiveness and availability
of rehabilitation programs
(7) crime and incarceration rates
(8) the relationship between sentencing
priorities and correctional resources
(9) the effectiveness of the state's
current methodologies for the
collection and of data
The commission may retain the services
of consultants to assist the
commission.
The commission may compile information concerning
sentencing practices.
The commission may recommend legislative and
administrative action.
Sec. 44.19.646. Methodology.
The commission shall solicit and consider
information and views from a variety of
constituencies and base recommendations on
the following factors:
(A) the seriousness of each offense in
relation to other offenses
(B) the effect of an offender's prior
criminal history
(C) The need to rehabilitate criminal
offenders
(D) The need to confine offenders to
prevent harm to the public
(E) The extent to which criminal
offenses harm victims and endanger
public safety
(F) The effect of sentencing in
deterring an offender or other members
of society from future criminal conduct
(G) The effect of sentencing as a
community condemnation and as an
affirmation of societal norms
(H) The elimination of unjustified
disparity in sentences
(I) The resources available to agencies
in the criminal justice system
(J) The effect of sentencing on
reducing the rate of recidivism in the
state
The commission shall submit to the governor and
the legislature an annual report and
recommendations by January 1 of each year.
Section 32:
This section establishes a sunset of June 30, 2019 for
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission.
Section 33:
APPLICABILITY
Section 34:
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Section 35:
This section clarifies that the Department of
Corrections may begin adopting regulations to
implement P.A.C.E. and 24/7 Sobriety immediately upon
passage of this bill.
Section 36:
This section establishes a delayed effective date for
Section 29.
Section 37:
This section clarifies that the Department of
Corrections may begin adopting regulations to
implement P.A.C.E. and 24/7 Sobriety immediately upon
passage of this bill.
Section 38:
This section establishes an effective date of July 1,
2014 for the remaining sections of the bill.
5:44:20 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked for explanation of the fiscal notes.
Mr. Shilling explained the fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Meyer asked about the 31 new positions. Mr.
Shilling replied that the 31 positions were requested in
separate sections of the fiscal note.
Mr. Shilling addressed the PACE program in the fiscal note.
Mr. Shilling looked at the third page of the fiscal note
number 7, which mandated that DOC conduct additional
assessments. He explained that probation officers were used
in the correctional institutions, and they conduct
assessments.
Mr. Shilling stressed that there were some incorrect
assumptions in the fiscal notes, and felt that there should
be continued examinations of the fiscal impact.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if there were additional fiscal
notes. Mr. Shilling replied that there was a fiscal note
from the Court System for $320,000 for the commission.
5:53:31 PM
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the sponsor agreed with the
fiscal note. Mr. Shilling responded that it was a matter of
policy.
Senator Olson wondered if the fiscal note would be impacted
with a possible felony threshold increase. Senator Coghill
agreed to provide information regarding the cost of
felonies versus misdemeanors.
Senator Olson felt that addressing probation violation
issues in rural Alaska could be fairly expensive. Mr.
Shilling replied that the program would only be applied in
the most practical locations.
Senator Coghill stated that cost saving outweighed the
less-volume cases.
Vice-Chair Fairclough looked at zero fiscal note component
number 768 from the trial courts. She noted that the
changes would impact the court if there was a result in a
significant number of cases that moved from the superior
court, where felony cases were handled, to district courts,
where misdemeanors were handled. The note stated that the
majority of property cases were already handled in the
district court, previously dismissed, or resolved early in
the case. Senator Coghill replied that there were still
other costs to the state.
5:59:24 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if there were auditing
requirements for the commission. Mr. Shilling replied in
the negative. Senator Coghill furthered that auditing
requirements should be included in a forthcoming committee
substitute.
Co-Chair Kelly felt that the felony threshold provision
could have a sunset, in order to reexamine the issue at a
later date.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the Court System should weigh in
on the sunset of the provision. Senator Coghill responded
that there was an applicability measure that must be
considered regarding the timing of law enactment and date
of prosecution.
Co-Chair Kelly stressed that the felony threshold was so
low that it had created unforeseen problems. He was in
favor of removing the felonies from the convicted persons'
records. Senator Coghill replied that $1000 was within
normal states' operations.
Co-Chair Meyer remarked that some people did not have the
mental capacity to understand their actions, which result
in felony convictions. Mr. Shilling replied that most of
the programs were evidence-based programs. He stated that
currently the department was experiencing a drop in
recidivism.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered what was done with those
individuals who could not afford the $10 per day program.
Mr. Shilling replied that other states did not have an
issue of a person's ability to afford the cost of the
program.
Co-Chair Meyer hoped that the state did not need to set up
a fund to help pay for the cost of the program.
SB 64 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
6:06:29 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 6:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 64 Felony Theft Threshold by State.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2014 5:00:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Testimony - Dilley.msg |
SFIN 3/6/2014 5:00:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 Testimony - Ferris.msg |
SFIN 3/6/2014 5:00:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Testimony - Vandergriff.msg |
SFIN 3/6/2014 5:00:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 Testimony - Weedman.msg |
SFIN 3/6/2014 5:00:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB64 Testomony - Big Bobs Flooring.msg |
SFIN 3/6/2014 5:00:00 PM |
SB 64 |