MINUTES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session March 8, 1995 The subcommittee meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 4:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 8, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Maurice Washington STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Emory Crews, Member of the Public Senator James indicated he had prepared a "grid" which listed all felonies, showing the current sentence structure and the sentence structure proposed by the subcommittee. A draft of the proposed grid is attached hereto as Exhibit C. He stated the subcommittee had received additional information from the representatives of the Department of Prisons which was used in preparation of the grid and the ultimate truth-in-sentencing bill draft. Senator James stated the subcommittee now had a good picture of the different sentences being served by the prison population and the average time the individuals serve before release, after the operation of either parole eligibility and/or sentence reducing credits. Senator James presented to the subcommittee his proposal for the "truth-in-sentencing" bill draft request. The proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Senator James reviewed the provisions of Exhibit D with the subcommittee members. He then discussed categories A and B included on the "grid" ( Exhibit C.) He asked the members of the subcommittee to review the "grid" prior to the meeting of the full committee scheduled for March 9, 1995. Senator James referred to drug offenses (category D felonies) and said the policy decision made by the subcommittee was as follows: "Selling drugs...importing drugs...offering them for sale...providing them to minors in any way, are qualitatively different in seriousness than using or possessing drugs for use." He said they believe a person attempting to market drugs "is a serious criminal" and they have placed some serious criminal penalties in the "grid." Senator James said a person who possesses drugs for his or her own use "has a problem" and added, "At least on the first offense, we need to try to get them into an alternative program." He outlined the new sentencing regime set forth on the "grid" regarding category D-2 felonies and indicated although the penalties in most cases were changed to community service, the crimes would still be classified as felonies. Senator James indicated the sentencing ranges set forth on the "grid" were not "set in stone," but said he would like to send the bill for drafting and schedule hearings as quickly as possible. Senator Adler stated for the record: "I didn't participate in the preparation of this grid or draft, and I don't really express an opinion one way or the other as to supporting some of the categories." He added, "There are some things I disagree with." Senator James stated everything contained in the "grid" came from the informational meetings and "deep investigation" over the past 2 months, with the assistance of the representatives of the prison system. He said the proposals regarding the serious felonies listed under category A came from testimony at several hearings of the full committee. Senator James praised Senator Washington for the "long, arduous hours" he had spent working on the first draft of the "grid." He stated he had earlier doubts about doing "categorization," but proceeded at the insistence of Senator Adler. Senator James added Senator Adler "made a good point." He indicated to Senator Adler that no member of the subcommittee was necessarily endorsing the final outcome of the legislation at this time. Senator Adler pointed out some of the sentences in the various categories were so similar, that it might be good to consider having just one sentence within the category. Senator James agreed it was important to make the sentencing structure as simple as possible. Senator Adler suggested there was merit in having a "minimum sentencing range and a maximum sentencing range, instead of having the minimum range being able to go up to statutory maximum." He said he worried about the possibility of one person doing 1 year and one doing 15 years, when the crime was the same. Senator Adler indicated "truth-in-sentencing" should mean "the same type of criminal gets the same type of sentence." Senator Washington reiterated Senator James' earlier comments that discretion should be left to the judges to determine minimum and maximum sentences, based on the circumstances of the crime. Senator Adler replied, "If you don't have some minimum and maximum range, it makes it really complicated to calculate the fiscal cost." Senator James said the subcommittee had studied the North Carolina "grid." He said in that state they entered into "micro managing" the judges. Senator James indicated in North Carolina there is an "aggravated range," a "mitigated range" and a "medium range," together with "aggravating factors" and a "point system." He said a judge in that state has to abide by those guidelines. Senator James indicated there were several bad things about this system: "You micro manage the judge...you try to anticipate all the different factors [the judge] might want to consider...you build into the system an appeal." He said the criminal will look at the decision, and if the judge has not made specific written findings, he will argue with the way the findings were made. Senator James stated the way the subcommittee had dealt with the fiscal cost is by "bringing the top down." He said the judge should be able to approximate "somewhere around where people actually serve...." Senator Washington stated by leaving discretion with the judges, the judge could pass sentence based on the felon's prior record and the extent of the crime. Senator James stated the largest prison population is made up of those persons serving time for drug offenses. He indicated based on a 12-month sampling, of the total number of inmates entering the prison system, the crimes "possession of a controlled substance" and "attempted possession of a controlled substance" accounted for 512 incarcerations. He added under the new sentencing structure, a large number of those persons would not be going to prison. Senator James stated he is willing to endorse the concept of a sentencing commission, so long as the commission would not "do what we are doing here today...that is making policy decisions associated with meting out punishments for crime." He said he has spoken with Governor Miller and believes there will be an agreement as to that matter. Senator James indicated a sentencing commission would examine the Legislature's action and propose any changes necessary before the next session. Mr. Emory Crews, a member of the public, approached the subcommittee and asked to speak. He indicated his son was murdered in Carson City in 1994, being shot seven times at point-blank range. Mr. Crews said the crime was "plea-bargained down to second degree murder." He added, "I don't know how a person can take the life of another...and [have] the possibility of parole in 5 years. Mr. Crews stated he supported the concept of a "minimum" being placed into the hands of the judges. He added he believed the judges should be given latitude, and not be burdened with "micro managing." Mr. Crews stated he believed the purpose of "truth-in-sentencing" should not only be to let the victims know exactly what the sentence is, but should be a deterrent to crime as well. Senator James thanked Mr. Crews for his testimony. He indicated the subcommittee had suggested two things with regard to second degree murder; first, the penalty would be 10 years minimum to parole to life. Senator James stressed the 10-year minimum could not be reduced by good-time credits nor would the person be eligible for parole prior to the 10 years being served. He added if the judge determined to impose a 25-year sentence, it would be 25 years before the inmate would be eligible for parole. Senator Washington expressed appreciation to the staffs of the Department of Prisons and Division of Parole and Probation, and to the district attorneys who provided input in the development of the truth-in-sentencing proposals. He said he believed this was a very worthwhile project for the state as a whole, and would make Nevada a more desirable place in which to live. There being no further business to come before the subcommittee, the hearing was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: ________________________________ Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate subcommittee on Judiciary March 8, 1995 Page