Committee hears House Bill 1417 on tiered sanctions, supervision fees and indigent defense fees

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on House Bill 1417, which sponsors described as a set of statutory changes to community supervision and court fees aimed at reducing admissions to prison from parole and probation violations.

Representative Lawrence Clamine, sponsor, said the bill updates definitions, introduces recommended tiered sentencing for technical supervision violations, eliminates a $55 monthly supervision fee and removes an application fee and court‑ordered recoupment for indigent defense. “These sanctions both say that an individual, following a decision by the court or parole board to revoke supervision due to a technical violation, may be subject to 15 days in jail for the first revocation, up to 30 days in jail for the second revocation, and up to 90 days for the third,” Clamine said while stressing those are recommendations and not mandatory limits.

Clamine and Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCR) witnesses tied the bill to findings from the interim Justice Reinvestment reentry study: the state’s prison population has been rising while national prison populations fell, and that drug‑ and alcohol‑related offenses plus supervision revocations are major drivers of admissions. The bill would add statutory definitions for “absconded,” “technical violation,” and modernize “risk assessment,” all intended to create consistent terms across agencies.

DOCR representatives said the change aims to give probation and parole authorities clearer statutory guidance and to allow graduated sanctions and intermediate interventions before revocation. Robin Schmalenberger, DOCR reentry program manager, told the committee the proposal is “consistent with the best practices” in DOCR’s managing‑behavior guidance and that eliminating supervision fees would free staff time and reduce financial burden on people under supervision; DOCR currently bills roughly $6 million in supervision fees per biennium but collects about $1.5 million, testimony stated.

Proponents included the Armstrong administration and the state’s Commissioner of Recovery and Reentry, Jonathan Holt, who said the bill offers consistency so supervision can “use staggered periods of custody as a sanction for a technical violation without imposing the remaining balance of the sentence.” Sister Kathleen Atkinson (Ministry on the Margins) described how fees can create a cycle that undermines reentry: for people on low wages the fee burden reduces the ability to stabilize housing and employment.

The Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigence testified in favor of removing application and recoupment fees; Travis Fink, executive director, said the American Bar Association recommends against charging application fees for public defense and against ordering reimbursement where people are eligible for counsel. The bill includes a $310,000 appropriation to the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigence to offset lost revenue from eliminating the $35 application fee.

Opponents included the Attorney General, who said the state’s violent crime counts have increased over the last decade and urged caution when loosening supervision or statutory safeguards. During his remarks he said, “Violent crimes against individuals … have increased every year for 10 years. There are now 4,000 more violent crimes committed against individual people in the state of North Dakota every year than there were 10 years ago.” The Attorney General said his office does not support the bill as drafted and urged the legislature to review crime statistics carefully.

Technical questions from senators focused on distinctions between new crimes and technical violations, whether charging discretion remains with prosecutors, and whether the tiered sanctions could unintentionally limit judicial discretion. Sponsors and agency witnesses emphasized the bill offers non‑mandatory guidance and definitions to encourage consistent responses to technical violations while preserving judicial and parole‑board discretion for serious crimes.

No committee vote was recorded during the hearing. The bill will return to committee for further consideration and possible amendment.