HB 152 JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES Number 518 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL to the ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, noted that the House Judiciary Committee had introduced HB 152 at the request of the supreme court. He said the bill made some technical changes to the laws regarding magistrate jurisdiction. He explained that magistrates presided over certain district court matters in areas of the state where the services of a full-time district court judge were not required. He stated that magistrates were the highest-ranking judicial officials in approximately 40 different district court locations in Alaska. MR. CHRISTENSEN said that in major metropolitan areas, magistrates handled routine matters to ease the workload of the district court judges. He said that unlike other judicial officers, magistrates were not appointed by the governor; rather, they served at the pleasure of the presiding judge. MR. CHRISTENSEN mentioned that district court was the lowest level of court and employed two types of judges: magistrates and district court judges. He said that the district court judges had jurisdiction over civil matters of up to $50,000 and over all misdemeanors. Magistrates, he said, had civil jurisdiction for matters of up to $5,000 and had jurisdiction over certain types of criminal offenses. Number 550 MR. CHRISTENSEN said that HB 152 proposed to modify magistrate jurisdiction with respect to minor offenses. He said that a minor offense was one which could not be punished by jail time, an excessive fine, or loss of a valuable license. He noted that, currently, magistrates were authorized to hear certain minor offense cases, but not others. He stated HB 152 would expand a magistrate's jurisdiction to include all minor offenses, regardless of where they were located in the statutes. He commented that the change would result in some operating efficiency for the district court. MR. CHRISTENSEN stated that a second change proposed by HB 152 would modify magistrate jurisdiction regarding post- conviction relief. He said this change would correct an oversight contained in a 1990 law. There was a common-law right for an offender to petition the convicting court to reconsider the case, he said. He noted that post-conviction relief was different from the right to an appeal. He said that sometimes new facts came to light months after a case had been decided, past the date by which an appeal had to be filed. MR. CHRISTENSEN said that until 1990, jurisdiction to hear post-conviction relief petitions had always rested with the superior court. A change in the law made in 1990, however, provided that post-conviction relief petitions would be handled by the court that originally imposed the sentence. Through an oversight, he said, the 1990 law only applied to judges within the district court and not to magistrates as well. He stated HB 152 provided that a magistrate could grant post-conviction relief in a case in which the magistrate had the original jurisdiction. MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that the committee substitute for HB 152 contained two changes from the original bill. On page 2, line 2, "or no contest" was added to clarify that a magistrate had the authority to impose a sentence, whether a defendant pleaded "guilty" or "no contest." MR. CHRISTENSEN commented that the second change found in the committee substitute undid a change made by the House State Affairs Committee. The change was located on page 2, line 5, and was technical in nature. He said the change would cover some old statutes which held that certain misdemeanors were also "minor offenses." Number 669 REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Christensen to clarify the second change in the committee substitute. Number 671 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained the change on page 2, line 5, to Rep. Davidson. Number 676 REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Christensen if there had been any recent changes to state or federal law regarding situations in which a person was found innocent, but information revealing that person's guilt later came to light. Number 683 MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that both the U.S. Constitution and the Alaska Constitution had "double jeopardy" provisions, providing that once a person was acquitted after trial on a criminal offense, he or she could not be charged again for the same offense. Number 692 REP. JAMES made a motion to adopt the committee substitute. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 702 REP. NORDLUND made a motion to move CSHB 152(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 79 next.