SB 55-OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS  1:35:29 PM CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 55. He explained that this bill is what he has referred to as the technical bill. It addresses non-policy items that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission ("Commission") has proposed, primarily recommendation 2017-14. He asked Mr. Shilling to go through the sectional summary before the committee considers the committee substitute. 1:37:48 PM JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that SB 55 contains a number of the technical changes that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission has been gathering since Senate Bill 91 passed in 2016. These recommendations are mostly technical; some clarify intent and some correct drafting errors. He spoke to the following sectional summary for SB 55: Section 1  AS 11.46.280(d) - Issuing a bad check. Removes inadvertent inflation-adjustment of $25,000. Section 2  AS 11.46.285(b) - Fraudulent use of an access device. Removes inadvertent inflation-adjustment of $25,000. Section 3  AS 11.46.730(c) - Defrauding creditors. Removes inadvertent inflation-adjustment of $25,000. MR. SHILLING explained that in 2016, the Commission recommended raising the felony theft threshold and inflation proofing that number. The recommendation did not include inflation proofing the three larger amounts addressed in Sections 1-3. It was a drafting error to include them and the bill rectifies the error. Section 4  AS 11.71.050(a) - Misconduct involving controlled substances in the fourth degree Eliminates penalty overlap for possession of less than an ounce of a VIA controlled substance. MR. SHILLING explained that an individual under age 21 who illegally possesses less than an ounce of marijuana could simultaneously be charged with a class A misdemeanor and a class B misdemeanor. This bill leaves possession of less than an ounce of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor, Section 5  AS 12.55.011(b) - Victim and community involvement in sentencing. Clarifies that the court shall only provide the form to the victim if practicable. MR. SHILLING explained that the court form gives victims information about the defendant's sentence and release date. It also allows the victim an opportunity to update their information with the Department of Correction's Automated Victim Notification System (VINE). Senate Bill 91 required courts to give this form to victims but the court does not maintain victim information and therefore is not able to supply the form when the victim, for whatever reason, does not attend the court hearing. Section 6  AS 12.55.015(a) - Authorized sentences; forfeiture. Provides explicit authority to the court to suspend an entry of judgement. MR. SHILLING explained that this is the statute that authorizes the court to do such things as sentence individuals and impose probation and impose fines. Suspended entry of judgment is a new concept that belongs in this section. Section 7  AS 12.55.078(d) - Suspended entry of judgement. Clarifies when the court shall discharge and dismiss proceedings in a suspended entry of judgement. MR. SHILLING explained that this section adds the words "was imposed" to clarify the date that is being talked about. Section 8  AS 12.55.078(f) - Suspended entry of judgement. Clarifies that the crimes for which SEJ may not be used are the crimes currently charged, not prior convictions. MR. SHILLING said the terminology was changed in this section for two reasons. The first is that in a SEJ an individual is not convicted so it is inappropriate in this context to be talking about conviction. But the change in paragraph (5) on page 5, line 17, is for a slightly different reason. The intent of SEJ is that an individual that is currently charged with domestic violence cannot be eligible for SEJ. Thus it's important to refer to the current charge that individual has rather than some previous conviction of domestic violence. 1:44:55 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for clarification that the same rationale applies to paragraphs (1)-(4) in Section 8. He read AS 12.55.078(f)(1), as proposed, and asked if the phrase "is charged with" refers to the immediate matter, not a previous charge. MR. SHILLING said he didn't know that the first three instances of changing "convicted of" to "charged with" is the same problem that exists in paragraph (5). The reason the wording was changed in the three instances in paragraphs (1)-(4 is because the SEJ is unique in that there is no conviction. He views this as a drafting oversight. CHAIR COGHILL said he believes Senator Wielechowski is asking if it refers to the issue that is under suspended imposition of judgement. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he's thinking of an event where someone is charged with a completely different crime. "I want the record to be clear that we're not saying in that case you can't have a suspended imposition of sentence." MR. SHILLING emphasized that the intent is that this does not preclude an individual who has had a prior charge or conviction for one of these offenses from getting a suspended imposition of sentence. Section 9  AS 12.55.090(c) - Granting of probation Clarifies that the maximum probation term for a felony sex offense is 15 years, while all other unclassified felonies have a maximum probation term of 10 years. MR. SHILLING explained that Senate Bill 91 created some confusion in this statute because there are unclassified felony sex offenses under Title 11. The added language, "not listed in (1) of this subsection;" clarifies that the maximum probation period for both classified and unclassified felony sex offenses is 15 years. CHAIR COGHILL summarized that the probation for a sex offender may not exceed 15 years. MR. SHILLING agreed. CHAIR COGHILL commented that that was probably the intention all along. MR. SHILLING continued the sectional review. Section 10 AS 28.15.165(e) - Administrative revocations and disqualifications resulting from chemical sobriety tests and refusals to submit to tests. Clarifies that the dismissal of all charges, regardless of prejudice, serves to meet the requirement of this section. MR. SHILLING explained that the intent of this policy was to reinstate the license after acquittal or dismissal, regardless of whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. This corrects a drafting oversight. Section 11 AS 44.19.645(g) - Powers and duties of the commission Requires the Department of Corrections to report certain data to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission regarding earned compliance credits for parolees. MR. SHILLING directed attention to the data collection requirements in paragraph (6) on page 7, line 21. He explained that Senate Bill 91 created a policy for an individual to receive month-for-month credit for sustained compliance with their probation or parole. The bill included the requirement to submit the data to DOC for probation but omitted the requirement to submit the data for parole. This corrects that drafting oversight and adds this reporting requirement for DOC. Section 12 AS 47.37.040 - Duties of the department. Authorizes the ASAP program to accept referrals from the court for minor consuming/possession. CHAIR COGHILL noted that Tony Piper with the Alcohol Safety Action Program was available to answer questions about the ASAP program. MR. SHILLING explained that when Senate Bill 165 passed last year, it changed provisions in Title 4 making minor consuming alcohol a violation rather than a criminal offense. It also provided that the fine for the violation could be reduced if the defendant successfully completed the ASAP program. That provision conflicted with Senate Bill 91 and SB 55 remedies that conflict by giving the ASAP program explicit authority to accept referrals coming from the Court System. 1:51:24 PM CHAIR COGHILL added that Senate Bill 91 narrowed the scope of the Alcohol Safety Action Program which conflicted with the provision in Senate Bill 165 to allow minors to use that program. "This just aligns those two bills, basically." SENATOR MEYER asked if this is limited to minor in possession of alcohol, not marijuana. MR. SHILLING offered his understanding that it is just possession and consumption of alcohol. Section 13  AS 33.16.120(h) - Rights of certain victims in connection with parole. Resolves a drafting error that requires the Department of Corrections to provide notifications for hearings that will not occur. MR. SHILLING explained that Section 13 contains an error and corrects an error from Senate Bill 91. This section repeals AS 33.16.120(a) and AS 33.16.120(h), but including 120(a) was a mistake. AS 33.16.120(h), however, is an unnecessary reporting requirement that should have been removed when the House excluded some types of offenders from administrative parole. This corrects that error. CHAIR COGHILL asked if AS 33.16.120(h) will be repealed. MR. SHILLING answered yes. CHAIR COGHILL asked if the committee substitute (CS) addresses just this section. MR. SHILLING replied that is correct. CHAIR COGHILL said he would bring the CS up after the sectional review was complete. MR. SHILLING turned to Section 14 and deferred explanation to Hilary Martin. Section 14 Uncodified law - applicability This section contains applicability provisions. CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Martin to explain the concept and substance of Section 14, so the committee understands whether it is a technical fix as opposed to policy. 1:56:06 PM HILARY MARTIN, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, said applicability sections generally look at when a change in a crime or penalty applies, which is particularly important for criminal bills. "If you're changing the crime or if you're increasing the punishment, you need to be careful that you're not applying it to conduct that had already been committed before it becomes effective, because that can be an expose facto violation." Applicability sections make it clear when the law applies. For example, (a)(1) [page 11, line 13,] references the change in a crime to remove the adjustment for inflation so it applies on or after the effective date. CHAIR COGHILL offered his understanding that some of the probation and parole requirements had to apply on or after the effective date and by changing the reporting requirements the application must correspond with the time in history that passed. MS. MARTIN replied it depends on what is happening with the probation. Application could be when probation is ordered, or it could be for offenses committed on or after. CHAIR COGHILL asked her to discuss the applicability in (a)(1)- (4) on page ll, lines 13-16. 1:58:52 PM MS. MARTIN explained that they are all changes to crimes; (a)(1)-(3) remove the adjusted for inflation language and (a)(4) adds the reference to AS 11.71.060(a)(2). An element of the crime is being changed and they apply to offenses committed on or after the effective date of that section. CHAIR COGHILL asked what the charge under AS 12.55.078(d) [page 11, lines 17-20] refers to. MS. MARTIN replied that is the change to the suspended entry of judgement. CHAIR COGHILL observed that subsection (c) [AS 12.55.090(c) on page 11, lines 21-23] refers to probation. He asked her to explain her statement that it could apply to somebody on probation, but it doesn't contemplate something that happened before the law passed. MS. MARTIN clarified that there is a difference between an applicability section and retroactivity. AS 12.55.090(c) would apply to anyone granted probation on or after the effective date, regardless of when they committed the offense." CHAIR COGHILL asked her to talk about subsection (d) [on page 11, lines 24-28]. MS. MARTIN said this section allows an individual to request their license revocation for driving under the influence be rescinded in the event of an acquittal or the charges are dropped. The section removes the words "without prejudice" so it applies to more people. This is a benefit that could apply before, on, or after the effective date [of Section 10]. SENATOR COGHILL offered his understanding that the timeframe falls between the signing of Senate Bill 91 and passage of SB 55. MS. MARTIN said she believes that is correct. 2:02:50 PM MR. SHILLING continued the sectional review. Section 15 Uncodified law - applicability This section contains applicability provisions clarifying that no decisions made by the Board of Parole prior to January 1, 2017 that extended the period of supervision beyond the maximum release date are to be construed as invalidated by the passage of SB 91 (2016). There is further clarification that the earned compliance credit for parolees does not apply to time served prior to January 1, 2017. MR. SHILLING said these clarifications address concerns that some of the applicability provisions in Senate Bill 91 are ambiguous. Section 16 Uncodified law - effective date This bill takes effect immediately. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if any thought was given to making the applicability dates in Section 15 the date the bill takes effect as opposed to January 1, 2017. MR. SHILLING replied the applicability provision in Section 15 goes into effect immediately, but it ensures that credit for the earned compliance program isn't awarded prior to the date the program came into existence. CHAIR COGHILL summarized that Senate Bill 91 contemplated that the counting for earned compliance credit would start on January 1, 2017. 2:07:06 PM CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Shilling to point to the differences between the current version D and the proposed committee substitute, version J. MR. SHILLING said the difference is in the repealer Section 13. Version D repeals AS 33.16.120(a) and AS 33.16.120(h), whereas the CS only repeals AS 33.16.120(h), which is an irrelevant notification requirement. 2:08:54 PM CHAIR COGHILL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for SB 55, labeled 30-LS0119\J, as the working document. Hearing no objection, version J, was adopted. CHAIR COGHILL held SB 55 in committee for further consideration.