Committee reviews HP 79 to create "second look" sentencing procedure for long‑term inmates

The Corrections & Institutions Committee on April 10 reviewed HP 79, the proposed "Second Look Sentencing Act," a bill that would allow an incarcerated person serving at least 15 years to petition the sentencing court for a reduction of the person's term of imprisonment.

Ben Novogratzky, legislative counsel with the Office of Legislative Council, told the committee the bill "proposed to create a procedure under which an incarcerated person serving a term of imprisonment of at least 15 years who has served at least that amount may petition the sentencing court for a reduction of the person's term of imprisonment" and walked members through the bill's findings, procedures, expedited timelines and eligibility criteria.

The bill would add a new section to Title 13, authorizing petitions for people who: were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least 15 years, have served not less than 15 years, and meet additional eligibility and procedural requirements. Under the draft, the Department of Corrections must provide written notice of the act to the incarcerated person, the sentencing court, the prosecutor's office and the Office of the Defender General within 90 days after the start of the person's fifteenth year of incarceration; a petition may be filed six months after the fifteenth anniversary.

Novogratzky said petitions may include affidavits, declarations, letters and records, and that the court should, if available, assign the judge who imposed the original sentence. He summarized the hearing timeline provisions: if an incarcerated person meets listed medical criteria or the prosecutor files a petition, the hearing must be held within 45 days; if the person has served 25 years and is at least 60 years old, within 90 days; otherwise within 180 days unless the court finds good cause.

Committee members sought clarifications about the bill's data, jurisdiction and relationship to existing compassionate release mechanisms. Representative Pedrick noted much of the procedure is judicial and asked whether the committee should send the bill to Judiciary. Representative Emmons said the bill resembled compassionate release but stressed that DOC currently uses medical furloughs, medical parole and geriatric housing in some facilities for people with serious medical needs. Emmons also raised concerns about where people released for medical reasons would live and whether nursing homes accept people with certain convictions.

The bill lists the factors a court must consider at a hearing, including the petitioner's age at the offense, age at hearing, changing societal attitudes toward the offense, the petitioner's role in the offense, whether the petitioner was a victim of trafficking or abuse, rehabilitation and disciplinary record, medical evidence, victims' impact statements and whether the original sentence was enhanced for exercising the right to trial or because of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Orders granting a reduction would not change underlying restitution obligations. The draft limits filings: if a court grants a petition the petitioner cannot file another petition for at least five years; if a petition is denied, another petition generally may not be filed until at least two years have passed (the bill allows the court discretion but caps any extended waiting period at five years).

HP 79 would also require DOC to submit an annual report to the Justice Oversight Committee by July 1 detailing any savings from the act and recommending reinvestment in victim services, corrections facilities, community reentry programs and personnel to support proceedings. The bill's applicability clause in the draft makes the statute forward‑looking: it would apply to sentences imposed after the bill's effective date and not to people sentenced before that date.

Committee members asked about supporting evidence cited in the bill's findings. Novogratzky read figures attributed to DOC and other sources, including an estimate that Vermont's per‑capita incarceration cost is $134,218 and cited counts of people serving life or virtual life sentences; members said they would seek the sponsor's supporting data for clarification.

The committee did not adopt any formal amendment or vote on HP 79 at the hearing. Members agreed to request additional testimony from advocates and the bill sponsor and discussed whether further work should go to the Judiciary Committee because much of the proposed procedure is judicial.

The committee chair closed the item after members expressed interest in hearing from victim advocates and other external stakeholders before committing to further work.