Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prison Policy Parole topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances bill allowing courts to refer certain geriatric inmates to parole review; adds judge discretion on hearings
Summary
The subcommittee passed an amended HB 36 that allows judges to review petitions for geriatric inmates and refer eligible cases to the parole board; a late amendment restored judicial discretion to hold hearings and emphasized victim notification.
The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee voted to send House Bill 36 as amended to the full Judiciary Committee after adopting amendments that lower the age threshold for a geriatric‑review process and preserve a judge’s discretion to hold hearings.
Vice Chair Davis, the bill sponsor, described the measure as a process for elderly inmates who meet medical and custodial thresholds to seek judicial review and possible referral to the Board of Parole. Under the bill as amended in committee, petitioners must meet specified medical criteria (for example, being within a year of expected life expectancy and having at most one daily activity impairment such as mobility or toileting), must have served a minimum custodial term (the draft increases the minimum to 10 years), and cannot be serving a sentence for certain violent crimes, first‑degree murder, facilitation of first‑degree murder, or life without parole.
The bill requires the petition to be filed in the court that imposed the conviction. A judge would review the TDOC risk assessment and other materials and may forward the matter to the Board of Parole for further review; the bill includes a victim‑notification requirement so victims may be informed and, if appropriate, appear before the court. A late‑filed amendment (code 6437) deleted a sentence that had said the court ‘‘shall not hold a hearing’’ and replaced it with a provision making hearings discretionary, a change sponsors said was intended to preserve victims’ opportunities to be heard.
Legal counsel for the committee and sponsor’s office explained the late amendment would not add required service costs because the bill contemplates notice by the court clerk in many cases. Committee members praised the change: Leader Lambert said restoring the judge’s discretion fixed what he called an important gap and praised the amendment as improving the bill’s fairness to victims.
The committee adopted the sponsor’s amendment (code 6202) and later approved the untimely amendment (code 6437) before voting. The clerk recorded the final committee vote as 8 ayes, 0 nos and 1 present not voting. HB 36, as amended, now moves to the full House Judiciary Committee.
