MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session April 12, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Wednesday, April 12, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O. C. Lee STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: J. Charles Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, Clark County Risa L. Berger, Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau Laurel Stadler, Legislative Liaison, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter Judy Jacoboni, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter Robin Bates, Chief of Classification and Planning, Department of Prisons David Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General James J. Jackson, State Public Defender BILL DRAFT REQUEST 15-1872: Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. After wishing Senator McGinness a happy birthday, the chairman opened the second day of hearings on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 15-1782. He noted there have been changes suggested, both at the previous hearing and during conversations throughout the day. These changes will be discussed during the hearing and then, the senator stated, a vote will be taken to address each proposal. The first witness to speak was J. Charles Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, Clark County. Mr. Thompson took the floor and explained he and Richard Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney had discussed the BDR since the previous day and wished to offer suggestions for change to a number of crimes. The first suggestion deals with the burglary of an occupied dwelling, he said, asking the committee to adjust the penalty up from the 1-10 year sentence up to 1-15 years. This change would increase the judge's discretion, Mr. Thompson stated, which is something he, as a former judge, strongly supports. He reported his conversation with Mr. Gammick centered on the ability of the sentencing judge to consider all the information about the crime, the victim, and the perpetrator in order to impose an appropriate sentence. This could be done, he said, without creating a separate category of burglary of an occupied dwelling. According to the witness, Mr. Gammick agrees it is best to broaden the sentence range to 1-15 years, rather than create a separate category of burglary. Mr. Thompson's second suggestion centered on the crime of robbery. Currently, he observed, robbery is a 1-15 year sentence, and the proposal changes it to a 2- 15 year sentence. He questioned the reasoning behind this change, and asked the judge be allowed as much discretion as possible in sentencing these crimes. He requested the range be returned to the 1-15 year sentence. Senator Adler responded to this suggestion by pointing out that every time the range is broadened, the fiscal impact increases. If there is too much discretion afforded, the fiscal note will only account for the high end, and the bill will die because of the great expense it appears to bear, he warned. Mr. Thompson opined that dropping the lower end should not have this impact, and he went further to propose that all category B felonies (refers to Exhibit C. Original on file in Research Library.) bear a 1-15 year sentence range. Senator Adler agreed that if there is a consistent range in each of the categories, it might make it easier to figure the fiscal note of the bill. He asked the witness how he feels he would prefer the structure, if he were still a judge. There resulted some general discussion about reclassifying the crimes once again, with murder being a separate category and then arranging the sentence structure to be consistent within categories. The witness opined it would be easier in the day-to-day business of criminal justice to have similar offenses tied to the same punishment range. Senator James interjected the category C and D offenses are arranged as the witness suggested, but category B is filled with serious but diverse offenses which were given a maximum prison term of at least 6 years, but up to 20 years. He agreed that "theoretically you could split them into categories." The problem emerges when trying to make the appropriate changes in the drug crimes, he added. Senator Washington affirmed the chairman's statement. The assistant district attorney stated, "My pitch is to suggest to you that you leave as much discretion with the court as you can, consistent with your goal of truth-in- sentencing." He suggested the judge knows enough to give the defendant an appropriate and fair sentence. The chairman asked the witness to point out specific crimes which should be adjusted. Mr. Thompson noted that on page 3 of Exhibit C battery with intent to commit rape, to commit mayhem, or to kill, are all 2-10 year sentences, and should be changed to 1-15. Senator James explained how these sentences were arrived at, noting that battery with intent to commit rape, mayhem or to kill seemed a lot less serious than battery with intent to commit larceny, and should be assigned a more serious penalty. The former judge argued for judicial discretion, pointing out that under the new system, a convict would serve more time under a 1-15 sentence than he would under the old structure. He also noted it is unusual for the crime of battery with intent... to be the only crime charged. Senator James was convinced, and stated he would agree to change the sentence to a 1-15 year range. Mr. Thompson moved to another issue, he talked of what body or person actually imposes the sentence; sometimes the jury, sometimes the trial judge, and sometimes a panel of judges. If a defendant is found guilty of kidnaping resulting in substantial bodily harm or sexual assault resulting in substantial bodily harm, the jury will determine punishment, without providing for a separate penalty hearing. This penalty hearing normally allows information to be presented to the sentencing judge or jury, which is otherwise not allowed at trial. The witness offered this information as a basis for his request that the committee remove the provision for jury sentencing in those two cases. He asserted the judge knows the background of the defendant and will be able to take this into consideration at the time of sentencing. The witness pointed to page 36, line 3 and page 41, paragraph 4 of the BDR, as locations of the changes he wished made regarding jury sentencing. Mr. Thompson recognized such changes were not anticipated with the BDR, but also said he could not tell why the juries were allowed to make these sentencing decisions. Finally, at section 230, page 182 of the BDR, another senate bill is incorporated into the text of the BDR, the bill addresses making a life sentence without the possibility of parole really that, Mr. Thompson noted and he urged the committee to maintain this language. He observed that Senate Bill (S.B.) 245 provides an effective date which is limiting in who is covered under the change. The witness asked the change apply to all who commit crimes in the future, "as well as all individuals who have been sentenced to life without [parole] or death today, who have not received an expectancy of a pardon or a commutation from the pardons board." This measure is constitutional he asserted, and referred to a letter from Stewart Bell, Clark County District Attorney (D.A.) (Exhibit D), which explains the constitutionality of applying the legislation to those who do not have an expectancy of a pardon. If the committee is agreeable, Mr. Thompson pointed out a need to change section 369 of the BDR to except section 230 from the effective date. This concluded Mr. Thompson's remarks. The chairman agreed with the witness's assertion regarding the constitutionality of changing section 230, based upon confirmation from the attorney general's office. Senator James summarized the proposals made by Mr. Thompson, noting problems might arise if the requested changes to from 1 year minimums to 2 year minimums are made. These problems relate to the distinctions made in the trafficking crimes, based on the minimum penalties, he said. The chairman referred to Exhibit C, page 7, which outlines the various drug felonies, and further explained his concerns. He called for input from the committee members. Senator Adler replied he feels the old drug sales statutes, which were the model for the proposed bill, were not very well thought out. He stated his belief that if the judge is allowed "enough years" he can give whatever length of sentence he wants. This is not really changing anything, he opined. Mr. Thompson reminded the senator sales crimes are probationable. Senator James reviewed the remainder of the drug sales and trafficking crimes, noting the severity of the punishment. He asked the assistant D.A. to again discuss with the Washoe County D.A. and the attorney general's office those 10 crimes. The senator asked him to return with "exactly where those penalties are still being effective, under the sentencing regime that we have." Senator Adler expressed a desire to have Mr. Thompson look at the ranges and determine whether this proposed change (to all 1-15 year sentences) will actually alter the sentence that is given. If the consensus is it will make no difference, he said, he would prefer they all be uniform. If the resulting sentence is likely to be the same, why have different numbers, he asked. The witness reviewed the request of the committee to conduct an informal survey of "some judges and district attorneys" to find out if sentencing under the statutes will differ if the range is changed to 1-15 years or if they are left alone. Senator James asked also that he contact the D.A.s to find out "where exactly those minimums will still be effective." Senator Titus noted that talking about truth-in-sentencing means truth for three different parties: the victim, the criminal, and the state. If the range is left at 1-15, while giving discretion to the judges, it also tends to eliminate the truth. Except for the 1-year minimum that will be required, everything else will be "kind of mushy" the senator asserted. The chairman agreed that Senator Titus made a good point. Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst, was requested to explain to the committee how attempts to commit crimes will be addressed by the BDR. Ms. Combs directed the senators to examine page 4 of the BDR. "Under the attempt statute, very little change was made to the attempts. The idea was to keep them the same as they are under existing law." In cases of attempt, she explained, the offense is punishable by one-half of the maximum allowable sentence for the completed offense, she told and unfortunately, this violates the 40 percent rule. Under section 3, part 1, a conviction of an attempted murder is a category B offense (Exhibit C), she noted. She suggested that for all the other categories, an attempt within a category will be punished as a crime which falls under a lower category (i.e., an attempt to commit a category C crime will be charged as a category D offense). This works well, she stressed, except when dealing with category B offenses, which have a large range of sentence possibilities. As a remedy for this, Ms. Combs urged the committee to accept a range of offenses as follows: For the Bs 10 [years] and under, when the sentence is 10 years or less, punish them as a category C. For the Bs that have a possible penalty of over 10 years as a maximum, simply give those a term of years, as we did with the As, such as 1-10, and leave them in the B category for attempt. Senator James asked for questions. Senator Titus asked Ms. Combs to review her suggestion one more time. She did so. Senator Adler asked what would happen to category D offenses, and Ms. Combs replied they would become E category offenses. She observed this leave the category E crimes outside the scheme, but suggested they should still be treated as category E crimes, reminding the senators there is mandatory probation for the first or second offense. Senator Adler questioned whether the attempts for some of the category D crimes are currently charged as gross misdemeanors. Ms. Combs explained the statute would say, "as otherwise provided by law, " which would leave those as outlined in another statute. Ms. Combs continued noting a category A attempt is now a category B with a possible term of 2 to 20 years. This is outlined on page 3 of Exhibit C, she said. She reiterated the changes she proposes to category B crimes. Senator Adler anticipated problems with the close range of punishments allowed for both category C and category D crimes, (C crimes are 1-5 years and D crimes are 1-4 years). The problems is that currently attempted crimes (attempts) are designated to receive only one-half of the maximum for the crime itself, and this proposal is out of line with that guideline he noted. Ms. Combs replied it is not allowable to provide sentences lower than 1-4 years if the desire is to uphold the 40 percent rule. Senator Adler stated it is possible for a judge to give a sentence within the 1-5 year range (for example, 1-2 years) which takes that sentence outside the 40 present rule. Ms. Combs clarified that under the BDR the judge cannot give a 1-2 years sentence for category C crimes, only a 1-4 year, a 1-5, or a 2-5 year sentence is available because of the 40 percent rule. Senator James offered support for the system suggested by the research analyst. Senator Washington concurred with the suggestion stating it makes the proposal "fairly consistent and easy to understand." Senator Titus asked for confirmation that all attempted category A crimes would be punishable by a 2-20 year sentence. Ms. Combs made this confirmation, along with the chairman. Senator James summarized the concerns of Senator Adler as being only a 1-year difference on the upper parameters of the sentence. Senator Adler agreed, noting this might result in the system "loading up on the low end crimes, again, which is something we are trying to get away from." He feared this would impact the prison system with inmates who have shorter sentences. Senator James opined there is really no large difference between the proposal and the current law. He suggested the committee move to the next issue. SENATE BILL 40: Increases penalty for certain convicted habitual criminals. Risa L. Berger, Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, took the floor to address the habitual felon question. During discussions in the interim study committee, it was determined any crime with a maximum sentence of "greater than 10 years" should be incorporated into the mandatory habitual criminal statute (proposed Senate Bill (S.B.) 40) . During the drafting of the instant BDR, some of the penalties changed, which mandated changing the list of crimes that fit the habitual criminal bill, Ms. Berger reported. She passed a list of the crimes which will fall under the habitual criminal penalties (Exhibit E) to the committee. It was suggested the committee may want to encompass all category A crimes, as well as crimes eligible for greater than 10 years imprisonment, the witness related. Chairman James added some further explanation noting during the interim committee it was decided to remove drug crimes out of the new habitual criminal statute. Senator Adler interjected the goal was to develop a "new super habitual criminal" for violent offenders. Senator James concurred pointing out of the question is whether to include those offenses on page 3 of Exhibit C should be included in the habitual criminal trigger. He opined that trafficking and attempted murder should trigger the habitual offender. The remaining question is whether the other crimes on page 3 should also be included in the trigger. Senator Adler observed the judge could still impose the habitual criminal sentence, it simply would not be mandatory. Senator Washington stated he had examined the list and felt many of them should fit the trigger. Senator Adler further explained the habitual criminal bill to Senator Washington. He told the committee there really are not many persons who fit the category that are not already serving life sentences (approximately eight a year). Senator Washington cited providing drugs that cause death as a violent offense and should be included. Both the chairman and Senator Adler agreed. Senator James explained the super habitual statute introduced in S.B. 40 is a "three-strikes-you're-out law" which allows a nondiscretionary imposition of a life sentence, to be limited to violent crimes. Drug offenses can still be charged under the other habitual criminal laws, he added. Adding in attempted murder, trafficking, and providing drugs which cause death, would be consistent with the recommendations of the subcommittee on the present BDR he stated. Ms. Berger had nothing further to add. At this point the representative from Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) took the floor. Judy Jacoboni, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter, and Laurel Stadler, Legislative Liaison, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter, addressed the committee. Ms. Stadler read from a prepared statement, attached as Exhibit F, and provided the committee with it and with portions of the BDR she wished to discuss (Exhibit G). As Ms. Stadler's testimony progressed, the committee interrupted to respond to the concerns being expressed by the representatives from MADD. She asked why a subsequent judge would have the opportunity to reduce a probation violator's original sentence. Senator James explained the origins of the provision, noting that testimony provided at another hearing by Assistant District Attorney J. Charles Thompson had shown it would be unconstitutional to allow a judge to increase the original sentence. Senator Adler added that typically a judge will sentence an individual to 6 years probation. If they violate the terms of that probation, the convict is sent to prison for the full 6 years, he told. In many instances, judges will impose a much longer period of probation than they would an actual prison sentence, "so they can watch them longer," the senator attempted to explain. Ms. Stadler interpreted this as "rewarding the probationer who violates his probation, by giving him a lesser prison term, and there's no input from the victim." Senator Adler denied that was his intended statement and he tried once more to explain. He said, a judge will give a longer probationary sentence than he would an actual prison sentence. Where a judge might feel 4 years in prison is justified in a particular case, he will give, instead, a 6-year-probationary sentence, hoping to have the individual under court jurisdiction for a longer period of time. If the judge believes an individual will most likely serve in prison the amount of time he has been given for probation, the judge will be more likely to reduce the length of the probationary sentence, the senator speculated in his attempt to explain. Mr. Thompson returned to the stand to confirm the District Attorney Association's support of this provision. He offered an example of how the situation might unwind. If a probationer is successful in his probation for 4 of 5 years of his sentence, and then in the last year he is arrested for some unrelated, minor offense, he could be subject to serve the entire 5 years in prison at that point, he told the panel. The new provision will allow the revoking judge to send the individual to prison, but not require he serve the entire 5 years, he added. Ms. Stadler requested the victims be notified of a probation revocation hearing. Senator James said he feels this would be a good thing. Ms. Stadler continued her statement. The next issue raised by MADD was a need to define good-time credits along with statutory clarification that the minimum sentence cannot be reduced by an sentence reducing credits. It was determined by the senators, based on information provided by Mr. Bates, the term good-time credits is clearly defined in regulations of the prison system. They feared a statutory definition would cause more problems with litigious inmates who might assume a change in the statute implied a right had previously existed. It was confirmed by the bill drafter, Ms. Berger, that no credits will apply to the minimum sentence. The chairman stated it is clearly the intent of the committee that no sentence reducing credits would apply to the minimum sentence imposed. All committee members indicated their concurrence. Ms. Stadler continued asking the committee to clarify their intent under section 316. She stated under the proposal felony DUI offenders face prison time under only two of five sentence options allowed. It was explained by the chairman that these two options, which require prison time, are options that do not exist under current law. He further explained there is a minimum period of days which must be served in prison before house arrest is implemented. The chairman took a moment to explain to the witnesses that fiscal concerns play a part in determining how far it is possible to go with this BDR. He emphasized it is impossible to go the full measure with every crime for fear of causing such a fiscal impact that the BDR will be defeated as a whole. Finally, Ms. Stadler expressed pleasure at the language originally incorporated in section 318 of the BDR, dealing with felony DUI causing substantial bodily harm or death. She stated she is concerned with a change proposed earlier in the hearing to alter the sentence from 2-20 years to 1-15, "particularly the 2 year minimum...." The chairman observed this is an important point. Mrs. Jacoboni addressed the committee next, reading from a prepared statement (Exhibit H). She cited two articles which she presented to the committee. One article (Exhibit I) from the Reader's Digest magazine which addresses her concern that probation is not always a safe solution for prison crowding. She read an except from the article. The article quotes the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) researchers James Austin and John Irwin as "claiming humanitarian values are eroded by excessive focus on vindictiveness." Ms. Jacoboni replied to this assertion noting there is something very cherished missing from her life due to the commission of a crime. Her daughter was killed by a drunk driver, she told the committee, and is sorely missed by her family. And while it is impossible to put a dollar amount on the value of her daughter, she said she "would pay any amount of money to have [her] daughter back." The second handout offered by Ms. Jacoboni (Exhibit J) is a study done by Mark A. Cohen which makes a cost benefit analysis considering the pain and suffering of victims as well as prison costs. She read a quote from the article (page 549, IV Examples of policy applications using victim cost estimates). This article also attacks the methods used by Dr. James Austin. The witness encouraged the committee to consider carefully information provided by NCCD, as there are ways to compute the cost of crime to victims. The chairman reminded the witnesses this bill draft is targeted at keeping dangerous criminals in prison for longer periods of time. He thanked them and the other victims groups who attend the hearings and offer suggestions. Senator Titus took the floor to offer some defense of Dr. Austin, noting oftentimes statements and writings are cited out of context. She noted the title of Dr. Austin's article is Using Early Release to Relieve Prison Crowding, A Dilemma in Public Policy. He was raising the question whether a policy that is cost effective in a dollar sense really cost effective in "terms of its impact on society." She observed it is unfair to portray the doctor as "in the other camp." The chairman called David Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General. Mr. Sarnowski reported he had discussed the BDR with each of his deputies at length. As a result he offered a suggestion (referring to the BDR `index', Exhibit K) which deals with the proposed sentence of a "term of years plus restitution." This raises concern for him, he noted, because ordering restitution in some cases and not others may result in claims by defendants that they are not liable for restitution because the Legislature did not require it in the case of his particular crime. Senator James explained the committee made restitution a mandatory part of sentences which deal with crimes of fraud or deception. This does not limit any judge's ability to order restitution in any other case, he told the witness. He stated his desire to retain this requirement. Mr. Sarnowski replied: At the very least, the record here [in the committee] has to be very clear of the intent of the committee and whatever product that comes out of the committee, that where restitution is appropriate in whatever circumstance, be it a fraud or other type of crime, that the court should at least consider it, if not mandatorily impose it [restitution]. Senator James told him the BDR, on page 164, contains existing law (Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 176.033)), which includes subsection c, "If restitution is appropriate, set an amount of restitution...." The second point raised by Mr. Sarnowski was some initiatives before the Legislature that deal with consumer fraud and workman's compensation fraud. At some point, these bills may raise a conflict with the provisions of the BDR or they should be incorporated into it. Senator James agreed there frequently arise these types of circumstances and the means to resolve them is to pass a "massive conflict amendment" either to the BDR or to the other bills. Finally, Mr. Sarnowski pointed to provisions of NRS chapter 200. He told the committee that section 70 of the BDR establishes a penalty for patient neglect resulting in death or substantial bodily harm (NRS 200.496); section 71 gives a penalty for child neglect as 2-20 years; and section 72 gives a penalty for elder neglect at 1-6 years. Based on recommendations of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit chief, Mr. Sarnowski stated he feels that the death of an elder should carry a more severe penalty than neglect that does not result in death. He said the proposed penalties place a higher penalty on the abuse and neglect of a child than on the abuse of neglect of an elderly person that results in their death. Senator James asked Mr. Sarnowski to suggest a change in the proposed penalty. He responded the penalty for neglect or abuse that causes death should be closer to or the same for both children and elders. Senator Adler opined a possible reason for the increased penalty for abuse and neglect with substantial bodily harm of elders is they suffer more from this, for the rest of their lives. Senator Titus asked the committee to "clean that up," referring to the difference in penalties. She opined this would be an ideal opportunity to make the penalties more equitable. Senator James summarized the request that the law be amended to provide a separate crime under NRS 220.495, neglect of a patient resulting in death would be punishable by 1-20 years in prison, leave child abuse and neglect the same, and leave neglect or abuse of an elderly person the same. Mr. Sarnowski concurred the change would make the penalties more consistent. This concluded Mr. Sarnowski's testimony. James J. Jackson, State Public Defender, spoke next. Mr. Jackson expressed support for the validity of truth-in-sentencing for defendants. He told the committee his concern lies in page 159, section 197 of the BDR. This section addresses the surety bond requirement for probationers. He stated he understands the language is "the judge may require a surety bond," but he fears a person's inability to provide a surety might exclude them "from participation in a program." He requested language to the effect that such inability will not prohibit such participation. Senator Adler queried if the only concern Mr. Jackson has is with the possibility that a judge will make it a condition of probation for parties who have no way of providing such a bond. Mr. Jackson confirmed his understanding. Senator Adler asked what other states have a similar provision. He also voiced a concern that if a surety bond is required, there will be less money available to go to restitution to the victims. Mr. Jackson reiterated he is not "flatly opposed to the bond requirement," but he does fear the exclusion of indigents on this basis. At this point the chairman closed the day's hearing on the BDR. He next reviewed each proposed amendment and called for a motion on each one. He proceeded as follows: Amendment 1: Allow the judge to issue the sentence in cases of first degree kidnaping and rape with substantial bodily harm. This allows accounting for factors a jury may be unaware of regarding the defendant's history. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND BDR 15-1872 AS OUTLINED ABOVE. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Amendment 2: Amend the effective date of section 230 so it applies to prior offenses, as it is not unconstitutional to make the section retroactive. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND BDR 15-1872 AS OUTLINED ABOVE. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Amendment 3: In cases of attempted crimes, the amendment would leave category A crimes as they are in existing language; make category B crimes with a penalty greater than 10 years maximum, would remain category B crimes with penalties of 1- 10 years; category B crimes with penalties no greater than 10 years maximum, they would become a category C crime; and all others would be dropped to the category just below (Cs would become D, and Ds would become Es), except that category E crimes would not change as they are non-prison penalties. Senator Adler stated his feeling the amendment needs more work and stated he would not vote for it. Senator Washington voiced his support for the amendment. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND BDR 15-1872 AS OUTLINED ABOVE. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER VOTED NO.) ***** The chairman noted he would not ask for an amendment to address the MADD group's request for notification of probation revocation hearings, but would ask the legal division to examine whether or not it is possible. Amendment 4: Adjust the penalty for commission of criminal patient neglect resulting in death (NRS 200.495) to 1-20 years, with the other crimes in sections 70 through 72 of the BDR remaining the same. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND BDR 15-1872 AS OUTLINED ABOVE. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** The senator promised to investigate the surety bond question raised by Mr. Jackson. He also reminded Mr. Thompson to be prepared to report back regarding the change in sentence structure he requested. Senator James formed a subcommittee made up of Senators Washington, James and Adler to work on the change from 2 year to 1 year minimum on the sentences for category B crimes as well as examining the need to formulate another category within the B crimes. He told the audience when the BDR will be heard again in order to resolve the issues left from today's hearing. SENATE BILL 299: Requires department of motor vehicles and public safety to issue permits to carry concealed firearms to certain persons. Senator McGinness reminded everyone there is a subcommittee hearing scheduled for Friday morning to work on S.B. 299. Robin Bates, Chief of Classification and Planning, Department of Prisons, requested that Ms. Combs provide him a list of the changes so the NCCD can adjust their data for the fiscal note to the BDR. Senator Washington then reminded the chairman that one other amendment should be voted on. Amendment 5: To incorporate into the habitual criminal statute the charges of attempted murder, trafficking, and providing drugs which cause death. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND BDR 15-1872 AS OUTLINED ABOVE. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary April 12, 1995 Page