CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 55(2d JUD) "An Act relating to judges of the court of appeals; and providing for an effective date." 3:23:03 PM Co-Chair Johnston invited Senator Wilson's staff to provide a brief introduction of the bill. JASMIN MARTIN, STAFF, SENATOR WILSON, indicated that the senator was on other state business but would likely be at the hearing shortly. She explained that SB 55 added a fourth permanent judge to the Court of Appeals. Any criminal trial that ended in a conviction could be appealed. Since 2014, there had been a significant increase in the instances of criminal trials. The court needed a fourth judge to catch up on the large backlog and to keep pace with the current and expected cases in the future. The bill was fully supported by the Alaska Court System. Nancy Mead was in the room to answer specific questions about the courts. Ms. Martin continued that the focus of the legislation was to strengthen the continuum of public safety. It was essential to equip the courts to handle the growing workload. The issue was highlighted by the Chief Justice in his recent address to the legislature. The current average time between a criminal appeal being filed and being decided was about 3 years. She asserted that the timeline was unacceptable to victims, the public, attorneys, and defendants. Ms. Martin asserted that the court would be much faster at resolving the cases that were pending and ready for decision if there was an additional appellate judge. In 2013, the total number of cases ready for review and assigned to a judge was approximately 50. In other words, judges could keep pace if they were issued about 50 decisions per year. However, in 2018, the number of case assignments rose to about 90 decisions per year. The judges could not keep pace with the increase in cases. The legislation would improve the function of Alaskas criminal justice system. Ms. Martin indicated that the legislatures recent focus on crime legislation had increased the expected case load of the Court of Appeals. In 2018 and 2019 there was a record high number of felony cases filed at the trial courts. All of the facts she had laid out had proven the need for an additional judge. She asked members to support SB 55. She offered to review the sectional analysis at the request of the committee. Co-Chair Johnston thanked Senator Wilson for coming back to the hearing. She invited Nancy Mead to the table to present invited testimony and provide a review of the fiscal note. 3:26:06 PM NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, explained that the Court of Appeals was an appellate court that only handled criminal cases. After a persons Superior Court Trial, an appeal went to the Supreme Court in the instance of a civil case and to the Court of Appeals in the instance of a criminal case. Since the inception of the Court of Appeals in 1980 it had always had 3 judges and had been unable to keep pace with the number of filings and the amount of work since 2011. She expected the trend to continue. Currently, the Court of Appeals was not publishing, disposing, or finishing as many cases as there were cases coming in the door. Ms. Mead reported that the Alaska Court System had been dealing with the problem with several approaches over the last few years. It had been trying to find funding to have temporary judges handle a portion of the cases. Some of the cases were being handled in a quicker manner with shorter decisions. Presently, it was the Alaska Court Systems priority to find a lasting fix to the problem which it expected to continue due to changes in criminal laws and with all of the other increased number of felony trials and felony filings over the previous few years. The Alaska Court System fully supported the bill. It was usually neutral on bills but, the Supreme Court needed the issue to be addressed. She could provide more detail if the committee desired or could answer any questions. Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked Ms. Mead to explain the 4 full-time positions listed in the fiscal note. Ms. Mead responded that a judge in any appellate court in the country needed some support staff in order to do an effective job. A judge on the Court of Appeals had 2 law clerks. Law clerks were typically, but not always, recent graduates of law school. They served for 1 year. It was standardized around the country with all different judges and all different courts that most law clerk positions lasted 1 to 2 years. A judge came with 2 law clerks and a judicial assistant. A judicial assistant kept track of all the files, answered phones, and handled the front desk. They also typically kept things on schedule and handled the computer system as well as other miscellaneous items. In order to be an effective judge, they needed an effective staff. Representative Wool asked about the uptick in 2018. Ms. Mead relayed that felony filings typically fluctuated up and down through the years. She reported a severe downtick in the number of filings and the number of trials between 2016 and 2018. The court systems data did not tell the story of why things happened. She had heard that with some of the monumental changes in the criminal law made during the time period there were fewer arrests and fewer felony filings. She suggested that perhaps it was related to the resources of the Department of Law being able to file certain things. Also, there were changes to the drug laws that meant that certain drug felonies were no longer felonies they significantly dropped. In FY 18 the laws reverted back, and there were an additional 1000 felony filings than the previous year. She reported that there were about 7200 filings in 2018, versus about 6200 in 2017. In FY 19 the number increased again from 7200 to 7350. The Alaska Court System expected the number of cases to continue to rise as more prosecutors were hired and more law enforcement was on the street. 3:30:58 PM Representative Wool wondered if HB 49 had been taken into account or whether the effects of HB 49 would start to appear. He wondered if Ms. Mead expected another quantum leap. Ms. Mead replied that the Alaska Court System expected at lease a steady increase from HB 49, if not a more substantial one. In HB 49 the Department of Laws fiscal note included the funding for 6 additional prosecutors. She reported that with more prosecutors in place, there would be more enforcement or consequences for criminal offenses leading to more work for the court system. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked Ms. Mead if adding an Appellate Court judge would really solve the backlog problem. Ms. Mead responded that the bill would solve the courts part of the problem. She clarified that there were delays at the trial court level which SB 55 did not address. The bill applied to the Court of Appeals. She reiterated that the average time for an appeal to be filed and resolved was 3 years. No one thought the timeframe was acceptable. The part of the problem the court was responsible for would be solved by having a fourth judge on the Court of Appeals. Other reasons for delay were largely because the agencies also had difficulty getting all the resources garnered to get cases briefed in time. They were building up their resources as well. She reiterated that the part of the problem that was attributable to the court taking too long to put its decisions together would be solved by having a fourth judge on the Court of Appeals. Representative Knopp wondered about the nature of the appeals the court was hearing. He asked whether certain rules should be tightened. Ms. Mead responded that all the cases were criminal in nature. The cases were basically equally split between merit appeals (where a defendant felt something was handled improperly at the trial court level) and sentence appeals (where a defendant felt they should have received less time). The reversal rate was low, and defendants did almost all of the appealing. There were limited circumstances in which the prosecutor could appeal such as double jeopardy. She continued that when defendants appealed, they won only about 10 percent to 12 percent of the time. When a defendant received a reversal it usually meant that the case was remanded and sent back to the court to correct an error. The person was not typically set free or declared innocent by the Court of Appeals. She provided an example. Representative Knopp asked if there was anyone that reviewed the merits of the appeal before it went to the trial court for appeal. He wondered if it automatically went to the Court of Appeals. Ms. Mead responded that a defendant had a right to file an appeal. Most defendants in Alaskas system were represented by a public defender who helped them put together their appeal. The public defender acted somewhat as a filter to put together the best arguments. It would be unusual for a public defender to refuse to file an appeal for a client. The public defender filtered the appeal to make it as strong as possible streamlining things and ensuring that the arguments had merit rather than being frivolous. Representative Josephson asked if there was a system for a motion for bail pending an appeal. Along with 3 years being broadly unacceptable, there were victims that wanted finality and defendants who might or might not be in custody pending appeal. He asked how time would be made up for someone who was wrongfully held in custody. Ms. Mead answered that people could be out on bail pending appeal. If it happened, it was often because the person was out on bail on their own recognizance or in the community pending their trial. If they did not violate their bail conditions, went through their trial, and were convicted, they could request to remain out on their own recognizance during the pendency of their appeal. It was not common for a person who was incarcerated to have their case completely reversed 100 percent such that they were found innocent. An appeal was sent back about 10 percent of the time for a trial court judge to correct an error. 3:38:05 PM Co-Chair Johnston OPENED Public Testimony. Co-Chair Johnston CLOSED Public Testimony. Co-Chair Johnston would be setting the bill aside. SB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Johnston would be recessing Monday morning's meeting scheduled for 9:00 a.m. to a call of the chair.