MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-Second Session
February 24, 2003
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 9:12 a.m., on Monday, February 24, 2003. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. John Oceguera, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. David Brown
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. William Horne
Mr. Garn Mabey
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Carrie Lee, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Kristin Erickson, representing the Washoe County District Attorney’s Association, and Nevada District Attorney’s Association
Leon Aberasturi, District Attorney, Lyon County
Arthur Mallory, District Attorney, Churchill County
Mike Ebright, District Administrator, Nevada Department of Public Safety, Division of Parole and Probation
Benjamin Blinn, Citizen
Glen Whorton, Assistant Director of Operations, Nevada Department of Corrections
Darla Salling, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners
David Smith, Management Analyst for the Board of Parole Commissioners
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 9:12 a.m. and noted that a quorum was present. He asked the Committee to consider introduction of the following bill draft request (BDR).
· BDR 2-431-Makes various changes pertaining to litigation involving prisoners. (A.B. 188)
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 2-431.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Buckley and Ms. Ohrenschall were not present for the vote.)
Chairman Anderson distributed a list of potential bill draft requests (Exhibit C). Today was the last day to request a bill draft. He recommended that one of the six bill drafts allocated to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary be dedicated to an interim study of the juvenile justice system; the last study was done six years ago and he felt it was time for an update.
The second BDR was requested by Speaker Richard Perkins and would create an enhanced penalty for a person who was convicted under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 453.321 concerning Schedule I drugs, and who failed to assist a person who had a reaction to the drug and died.
The third BDR would authorize adults over the age of 21 who were molested as children to apply to the State Fund for the Compensation of Victims of Crime. It would remove the statute of limitations for a victim to apply for compensation. Ms. Mary Jo DiCario with the Sexual Assault Response Advocates requested the bill.
Chairman Anderson said the fourth BDR would create a new category with limited access to public records to be classified as “Homeland Defense‑Sensitive Documents.”
The fifth BDR would draft legislation to adopt “Comprehensive Model State Anti-Contraband Legislation” which was designed to stop the sale of illicit cigarettes. When drafted, the bill might go to another committee because its jurisdiction was on the line between Judiciary and Taxation. The bill would clarify language regarding black market tobacco products on shelves in stores, as several states had problems implementing the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the model of compensation.
The sixth BDR would draft legislation to address the decision by the Nevada Supreme Court in Washington v. State to review two statutes that conflicted regarding penalties for the sale of imitation controlled substances. The bill would change the misdemeanor charge to be a felony.
Chairman Anderson summarized three requests that he chose not to have drafted:
· A request from Madelyn Shipman to allow Washoe County to have jurisdiction outside the municipal and county areas. If a business outside the area created problems, the municipal court would not have jurisdiction, whereas the justice court would, which would cause difficulty in citing the business. Chairman Anderson said that there were too many potential problems that the bill would not address.
· A request from Jim Spoo to adopt a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” in response to the referendum passed by Congress in 1993. Chairman Anderson said that while this would be a worthwhile piece of legislation for an individual to bring forward, Nevada did not have a problem in this area, and he did not see it as an issue for this Committee.
· A request from the Nevada State Bail Agents Association that involved the enforcement of bail provisions in the state. Chairman Anderson felt that if the proposed legislation was a matter of great concern, the Association should have brought their request forward during the time individuals could make BDR requests.
Chairman Anderson would like the Committee to consider each BDR individually. He said his habit of putting forth 3-4 issues at a time had caused some concern; if one member was concerned, that was enough cause for everyone to be concerned.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL BDR TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR PERSONS WHO WERE CONVICTED UNDER NRS 453.321, INVOLVING SCHEDULE I DRUGS.
ASSEMBLYMAN MABEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN MOVED TO CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL BDR FOR THE INTERIM STUDY OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
ASSEMBLYMAN HORNED SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE MOVED TO CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL BDR THAT WOULD CREATE A NEW, LIMITED ACCESS CATEGORY OF PUBLIC RECORD FOR SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS REGARDING HOMELAND SECURITY.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL BDR ON COMPREHENSIVE MODEL ANTI‑CONTRABAND LEGISLATION.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL BDR ON PENALTIES FOR THE SALE OF IMITATION CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 95.
Assembly Bill 95: Makes various changes to provision pertaining to authority and discretion of court to suspend sentence and grant probation in certain cases. (BDR 14-284)
Kristin Erickson, representing the Washoe County District Attorney’s Association, and the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, with Leon Aberasturi, District Attorney from Lyon County, thanked the Committee for granting them this bill draft request. A.B. 95 gave district court judges the option to sentence a person to prison or probation if they failed drug court. There was some confusion among judges if they were, in fact, able to sentence people to prison. Ms. Erickson said the drug court program was for first-time offenders convicted of use or simple possession, and their felony conviction was suspended after they completed the program. If an offender completed the program successfully, underwent drug treatment and rehabilitation, and reported frequently to the court, their conviction was repealed. Ms. Erickson said there were often setbacks for participants; a defendant could test “dirty,” which meant they would test positive for drugs. The person was not automatically expelled from the program, but given second, third, or additional chances, depending on the judge’s perception of their potential for successful program completion. Once a person had been expelled from drug court, the district court judge had the opportunity to sentence them to probation or prison. She said some people did not deserve to be on probation for many reasons; A.B. 95 would let a judge determine if probation or prison were appropriate.
Chairman Anderson said that drug court was his favorite program. He wanted to make sure that opportunities were not being taken away from judges and were just being clarified. Ms. Erickson replied in the affirmative: A.B. 95 did not take the opportunity of drug court away; it was a very successful program that she supported 100 percent. Chairman Anderson asked if any judges had endorsed these changes.
Leon Aberasturi, District Attorney, Lyon County, answered that the request for this bill came from Third Judicial District Court Judge Archie Blake who was running the drug court for Churchill and Lyon counties. Drug court had limited resources; clients were carefully screened for their willingness to be in the rigorous program. Being in drug court was more difficult than being on probation. Mr. Aberasturi said in Lyon County participants needed to test for drugs every week, appear in court every other week, make payments, show full employment, and were very highly supervised. A.B. 95 would ensure that defendants would not get into the program and look at it as another step to “delay the inevitable.” Mr. Aberasturi stated that when someone made the decision to go into a drug court program it was a serious decision, and if they did not take the program seriously they could end up in prison.
Chairman Anderson restated that there was no letter of endorsement from any judges; Ms. Erickson replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Aberasturi reminded the Committee that funds to run drug court programs were limited so they did a careful screening of applicants. The public defender and the district attorney discussed potential candidates; when an agreement was reached between the two offices, the option of participating in drug court was proposed to the district court at arraignment. The defendant had to agree to placement; a judge could not impose placement. Then drug counselors and the district court judge determined if the candidate was appropriate. He said it hurt the drug court program when clients did not try to succeed.
Arthur Mallory, District Attorney, Churchill County, and past president of the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, said that he was considered to be on the far right of Attila the Hun as far as punishment of criminals was concerned; he was not a big fan of diversion or treatment programs. He wanted people to be responsible for their conduct and actions. However, Mr. Mallory said that he had seen the success of the drug court program in his and other counties and was absolutely amazed at the success rate. He had nothing but good things to say about drug courts.
Assemblyman Horne said he had done an internship in a drug court for a semester. He was concerned about page 2, line 13, where it mentioned the consequences of failing to successfully complete a drug court program. A drug habit lent itself to failure. A.B. 95 seemed to be open to one relapse for any number of reasons to violate probation; Mr. Horne said that this would stifle the program. Ms. Erickson answered that the discretion still belonged to the district court judge whether or not someone should be removed from drug court. In Washoe County, one failure would not automatically remove someone from drug court; a defendant was given many chances, some more than others, and sometimes more than they deserved. There were repercussions for testing dirty, and judges did everything they could to help a client be successful, such as getting to know their family and friends. Ms. Erickson did not see that the amendment language would affect the failure rate.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if, the language on page 2, lines 13-15 would add an additional category whereby a judge might not suspend a sentence and remand someone to a drug court where he had previously failed, but the judge in his discretion felt that he was a good candidate and likely to succeed, so this would broaden the category. Mr. Aberasturi said the language added another exemption to the statute. When the decision to apply to drug court happened at the time of arraignment, the intake process began, the client was accepted, and after successful completion the sentence would be undone. A client who failed would be sent back to district court, where the original sentence would be imposed. A.B. 95 would seek to give additional leverage to not fail the drug court program because a client was no longer looking at automatic probation.
Ms. Buckley agreed and asked if it added another category to the original statute; Mr. Aberasturi replied in the affirmative. Ms. Buckley asked what the new language on page 2, line 6, did, exactly. Mr. Aberasturi said the language on lines 6, 8, and 9, meant there would be some discrepancy in terms of sentencing. Currently, at the time of the crime, a judge determined if someone got automatic probation, and, while not epidemic, someone could commit crimes in several different counties. By the time he was before the first county at sentencing, the defendant would have been convicted three times, and at each court appearance, he could get probation. He said that language put all defendants on an equal basis.
Assemblyman Carpenter wanted to make sure that what the presenters wanted was provided for in A.B. 95, as it was not very easy to read. He hoped the Legal Division would clean it up.
Mr. Aberasturi responded that the bill would address what occurred at sentencing, looking beyond a “snapshot in time” as to what the defendant had done. Under the current language of the bill, a judge determined what happened at the time the crime was committed, taking into consideration any habitual criminal behavior. The judge would review more than the defendant in terms of where he was now, as he stood before the judge in district court. For instance, someone could be arrested for use of a controlled substance. They appeared in district court, were arraigned, and released on their own recognizance. After five years, the defendant was re-apprehended and returned to court. The judge might still grant probation because, at the time the crime was committed, the defendant had not committed any other felonies. He said another situation of concern could involve a defendant committing similar criminal acts in a short time frame, which might not be evident at the time of sentencing.
Mr. Carpenter wanted Ms. Lang to make sure the bill was workable.
Chairman Anderson said he was concerned as well; if A.B. 95 broadened the discretion of judges in drug courts, that was admirable. Drug court was not soft on crime. One could make life harder for a person by taking their drugs away; it was difficult to change behaviors. He said to put people in jail might be an easy way for them to go. The tough thing would be to be out on the street and try to overcome addiction. Chairman Anderson said that was why the legislature wanted to make sure judges had the discretion. He would not want to narrow the admission requirements for drug court. Some people did not want to give up drugs. He remembered the initial study that brought about drug courts, where he had asked if someone had to want to be clean to get clean; the answer was no. If someone repeatedly failed their drug tests, perhaps they could see a way out of his or her addiction.
Ms. Buckley said that the bill would slightly broaden the discretion; the Committee might not have a clear understanding on the implementation of the policy goals of drug court. It might make sense for Ms. Lang to clarify. As she understood it, by omitting when the crime was committed, and only putting it in paragraph 1, that requirement was not required for paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, so if one of these things happened in 2, 3, and 4, past the time the crime was committed but before sentencing, then the judge could put them in drug court if they felt the person was a good candidate.
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel, commented that Ms. Buckley’s interpretation of A.B. 95 was correct, but the bill would give the court an indication of when they might not place a person on probation. That meant if a person had failed a treatment program, they would not automatically get probation and might serve time in prison, rather than being placed in a drug court program for a second time. Ms. Buckley agreed with Ms. Lang and wondered if the court could still determine if someone was a good candidate for drug court.
Mr. Aberasturi hoped he did not give Ms. Buckley the wrong idea. These criteria were not used to determine eligibility for drug court; each drug court set up their own procedures and factors to consider. He said people could be put into drug court for crimes other than drug use or being under the influence. A judge might not look at this statute to determine if someone should be placed in drug court. Ms. Buckley queried if it was just to help a judge determine whether or not someone received probation; Mr. Aberasturi answered in the affirmative.
Mike Ebright, District Administrator, Nevada Department of Public Safety, Division of Parole and Probation, reminded the Committee that Parole and Probation prepared pre-sentencing investigation reports for the judges in these cases so they could sentence defendants. He was in support of this bill and felt it would not interfere with the success of drug courts. He had no exhibit prepared but would like to submit new language to correct an inequity on page 2, lines 8 and 11, to include the words “or parole” after the term “probation.”
Chairman Anderson asked if Mr. Ebright had that proposed amendment in writing; Mr. Ebright answered in the negative. Chairman Anderson asked if Parole and Probation would take the position that this would be a helpful point to broaden the judicial opportunity to place someone on parole. Mr. Ebright said that it was the exact opposite. If somebody was on probation, the judge had the discretion of sentencing them to probation, drug court, or prison; if they were on parole, the judge had to grant probation. Usually the offense that a person was convicted for to be on parole was more serious than what they were on probation for. He said A.B. 95 added some common sense to the law.
Benjamin Blinn, citizen, said that he was one of the original counselors with Judge McGee when drug court first began. He clarified that there was some recidivism in any program, but one kept trying to pull people through it. The degree of improvement could be measured with testing and we should leave discretion to the judges. Mr. Blinn said it was very important when a person was rebuilding his life. Everyone was an individual, we were all citizens, and should use a common sense approach. The judges should err on the side of generosity to make the decision for care and treatment. It would be less punitive until the judge had had enough of a defendant’s repeated failures.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 95 and opened the hearing on A.B. 102.
Assembly Bill 102: Provides that eligibility for parole for prisoner serving consecutive sentences is based upon longest sentence. (BDR 16-445)
Ms. Erickson testified that this bill would clean up what the Nevada District Attorney’s Association had attempted to do last session, the unintended consequence of victim notification. When a defendant was sentenced to two sentences, they might be run consecutively. According to the victim notification law, every time the defendant was eligible for parole the victim must be notified. What had been happening was that a defendant would serve their shorter sentence first, and the victim, who believed the offender would stay in prison longer, was notified of the pending parole, which might bring up many bad memories and panic. A.B. 102 would require the defendant to serve the longest sentence first.
Assemblyman Horne was under the impression that when a person had a consecutive sentence, he would serve one sentence before the other one had begun to toll. He requested that Ms. Erickson explain the purpose of the bill. He asked, if the lengthier term was served first, would not the defendant have to begin the second sentence before eligibility for parole. Ms. Erickson responded that he was correct; consecutive meant one sentence was served after the other. Before a person began the second sentence, he must be granted parole from the first sentence. Parole was discretionary, so the first time he was eligible, a defendant might not get it. She said if convicts were granted parole on the first sentence, then the second sentence began. The purpose of A.B. 102 would be to ensure that the longest sentence was served first.
Mr. Mallory said victims of heinous crimes who were under the impression someone was serving a lengthy sentence, and who received the notice of parole for a shorter sentence, had told him it felt like a hot poker had been stuck into them; victims worried that the defendant would get out after they had been assured by the court that he would not.
Ms. Buckley asked if someone was convicted and had consecutive sentences, even though the second consecutive sentence was about to start, did the victim get sent a parole notice when the defendant was not going to get parole. Ms. Erickson answered in the affirmative; even though they were granted parole, they were not physically released, just released to begin their second sentence, and victims were notified. Ms. Buckley replied that that was dumb. Chairman Anderson thought that this problem had been fixed, and he was chagrined that it had not been.
Ms. Buckley still was not sure if A.B. 102 would do what the presenters wanted it to. It seemed to say if a prisoner was sentenced to serve two or more consecutive sentences, eligibility for parole must be based on the sentence that required the longest period before being eligible; people did not want that. She said if a defendant were sentenced to consecutive terms, we would want to not have to notify a victim of eligibility for parole until both sentences had run.
Glen Whorton, Assistant Director of Operations, Nevada Department of Corrections, said the issue was complex and A.B. 102 might need more crafting to make sure it did what people wanted. The Department of Corrections understood the issue; they regularly received calls from distraught victims. The Department understood the activities of the Parole Board, and there were two problems. A.B. 102 restructured a sentence; it did not say a defendant would serve the first one, but that the Department of Corrections would not give notice to the victim until the second sentence began. The other problem was that the Department needed direction and clear legislative intent in terms of how to handle a consecutive sentence that was obtained after an individual was released on parole. The issue should not be the longest sentence, but the longest parole eligibility. Mr. Whorton said he would want A.B. 102 to stand a legal test.
Chairman Anderson asked if the Department of Corrections was considering submitting an amendment to this piece of legislation. Mr. Whorton answered that this was not their bill; he was just responding to the question asked by Chairman Anderson. Chairman Anderson gave a hypothetical situation where a person who was in prison for several different crimes became eligible for parole for one charge and was released to begin serving the remaining sentence. Mr. Whorton said if an individual went out on parole and returned with a new sentence, which would be consecutive, there were two options. The Parole Board could revoke his parole and give him a stand-off date when they would consider parole again, at which time they would look at going to the consecutive sentence, or they could deny that individual the discharge, in which case they would not see the Parole Board again until they were eligible on their second sentence. He said dealing with the sentence that came significantly later than the initial sentence was tricky.
Assemblyman Mortenson asked why the wording in A.B. 102 could not be changed so a person serving any number of consecutive terms was only eligible for parole after the last sentence was served. Mr. Whorton said that the issue of parole eligibility was on the initial sentence, so there was still that discretionary element for the first sentence. A defendant could go to parole for every sentence unless it was a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Mr. Mortenson said the law could be changed so a defendant was not eligible for parole on the first sentence if he was serving two or more consecutive sentences. Mr. Whorton said that would require the removal of parole eligibility from the initial sentence; the Department of Corrections would not propose that. It would be a major policy decision, and could increase the population and costs at the Department of Corrections. Parole was still available in all sentences where there were a determinant number of years to be served. If the Committee wanted to not carry out victim notification until the person had the potential to return to the community, that was easily done. Mr. Mortenson thought the intent was to keep the person in jail if he was serving consecutive sentences. Mr. Whorton answered that the issue of parole was a discretionary one. A person was punished by coming to prison; the Parole Board determined when that individual was released. The Department of Corrections had no control over that.
Ms. Lang clarified that there had been some confusion over how sentences were imposed. In NRS 176 where there were two or more convictions, they could be concurrent or consecutive. A.B. 102 said that if a person had consecutive sentences and served the longest one first, they would not become eligible for parole at the earlier date, but after they served the longest sentence.
Assemblyman Conklin wondered why the victim would be notified in the first place. Would they come testify, and if so, they should still be notified because they were the most powerful witness there was against a criminal.
Mr. Mallory answered that even if a person was not eligible to be released because of the second sentence, the process of the parole hearing still took place. The notification brought up memories of the crime to the victim; it was an additional injury to the victim to receive the letter saying that this bad person might get out. Mr. Conklin understood, but he still struggled with the victim feeling compelled to come testify. Mr. Mallory answered that people from his office would attend a hearing with a victim when there was a real possibility of the person getting out and would encourage them to testify.
Assemblyman Brown wondered if the length of time served would decrease or increase by switching the order of sentences served. If parole eligibility came up for the shorter sentence first, that might be hostilely received and then be rejected by the Parole Board. If eligibility came up after more years were served, there could be credits for time served or a change in personality, and the likelihood of parole would be greater.
Mr. Whorton said that scenario would depend on the individual. For inmates who had consecutive sentences for non-violent offenses, the Board would move them through that sentence structure. He had also seen where a person with a non-violent offense committed a violent offense; it depended on the individual. He said when defendants were sentenced, the public was under the impression that they received all the sentences at the same time, when they might be sentenced in different courts at different times, separated in some cases by years. Mr. Brown clarified that when someone was paroled on the first sentence, that was when the service of the second sentence began; Mr. Whorton answered in the affirmative.
Ms. Erickson said she figured out where the confusion was coming from. A.B. 102 attempted to address the point in time when two consecutive sentences were given. In the bill, the sentences were given on the same date. Mr. Whorton attempted to address difficulties that occurred when someone was on parole in the community and committed a subsequent offense. That problem was not anticipated in this bill.
Mr. Blinn said that victims did not need to be notified when people stayed in prison. He felt the shorter sentence should be served first; it was a method of control and incentive to behave so prisoners could be structured back into society. If a person violated parole, Parole and Probation could send him back to prison, but the state did not have to spend the money from the city and county to get another conviction because another conviction was already in suspension. Mr. Blinn emphasized compassion and mercy on the victims, who might never have closure about a lost loved one.
Mr. Mortenson asked if parole could be served inside prison; Mr. Blinn said that he was a living example. As the law was now written concerning consecutive sentences, all had to be served before a convict could return to society, whether or not the shorter sentence was served first or second.
Darla Salling, Chairman, Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, offered the Committee the opportunity to ask her any questions. Chairman Anderson noted that she had not signed in to speak. She answered that she had not planned on speaking, but felt that she could help clarify matters. Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 102, and opened the hearing on A.B. 105.
Assembly Bill 105: Provides additional credits against sentence of parolee under certain circumstances. (BDR 16-550)
David Smith, Management Analyst, Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, testified that A.B. 105 would level the amount of restitution credits that a parolee could earn while on parole with the same amount of credits that an inmate could earn in prison at a camp or restitution center. He said an inmate who went to work or school while incarcerated was eligible to earn up to 20 days of work credits that he was not eligible to earn on parole. The Board of Parole Commissioners had experienced situations in which inmates realized that their term on parole was going to be extended, refused to cooperate with the parole process, and wanted to clean up their sentences sooner. The intent of the bill was twofold: it would provide an incentive for inmates to go out on parole by leveling the amount of credits an offender could receive in prison or on parole, thus freeing up prison space, and would provide an incentive for parolees to pay restitution and supervision fees as well as to work or go to school full time to receive the additional credits. Mr. Smith submitted a memo (Exhibit D) that detailed language the Nevada Department of Corrections and the Division of Parole and Probation would want deleted from A.B. 105 as it was currently written. The administrators of both departments agreed to delete Section 1, subsection 1(a), due to ambiguities of the way it could be interpreted inconsistently over time.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Smith to clarify what he did with the Board of Parole Commissioners; Mr. Smith replied that he was a management analyst. Chairman Anderson queried if he was the gentleman who actually figured out the time an inmate served in prison to recommend to the Parole Board. Mr. Smith said that the Board reviewed each case individually. His duties were many; he dealt with many of the different issues that the Board had, including operational and administrative procedures and supervising employees.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Whorton if Mr. Smith was doing the job John Slansky used to do. Mr. Whorton answered Mr. Smith performed the administrative functions for the Board itself. The actual calculations that would be implemented would be implemented at the Nevada Department of Corrections, using their existing information system. The Parole Board had discussed A.B. 105 with the Department of Corrections and was in support of the bill because it replicated the activities they performed in regard to inmates who were on residential confinement. The bill would encourage inmates to appear, acquire, accept, and remain on parole, plus pay their fees and restitutions.
Chairman Anderson said that removing Section 1, subsection 1(a) would move the fee repayment to be subsection 1(a) that was currently 1(b); Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Ebright said that he was in favor of A.B. 105 with the change presented by Mr. Smith.
Mr. Blinn said inmates should “do good, do right, and get out right.” He said to clog up the system cost money and there was no incentive. With good time on the street, it was easier to “do the time day for day in the joint and kick back.” The incentive program allowed a person doing his time on the street to get his life back on track. He said people who thought it would be easier to do the time faster in prison would violate their parole. It was the discretion of the judge to put them back in prison. Mr. Blinn said if the incentive of good time for parole continued, and a person behaved in prison and in the neighborhood, they succeeded on the street.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Blinn if A.B. 105 was a good bill; Mr. Blinn emphatically agreed. Chairman Anderson recounted an anecdote about an articulate gentleman who merely stood up and said, “This is a very good bill and does exactly what needs to be done.” He thought Mr. Blinn made that point very clear for the Committee. And since Parole and Probation was supportive, the Committee might think the bill would work. Mr. Blinn said he liked agreeing with the office of Mr. Gammick occasionally.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 105. He thought that the Committee could move on the bill as amended.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 105, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
· DELETE LINES 9 AND 10: “(a) HE HAS NO SERIOUS INFRACTION OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HIS PAROLE OR THE LAWS OF THIS STATE;”
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Buckley and Ms. Ohrenschall were not present for the vote.)
Chairman Anderson said that he would introduce the bill on the Floor of the Assembly. He advised the Committee that it was the intention of the Chair to spend the first hour of the work session scheduled for tomorrow discussing A.B. 11, A.B. 27, A.B. 33, A.B. 40, A.B. 42, A.B. 53, A.B. 63, and A.B. 73. The last hour would be spent on bills that pertained to the death penalty: A.B. 13, A.B. 14, A.B. 15, and A.B. 17. Ms. Combs had prepared a document that included all proposed amendments and background material for the bills mentioned above for the Committee.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:51 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carrie Lee
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: