Committee moves to advance proposal creating sentencing-reconsideration working group

The House Corrections and Institutions Committee on an April meeting took a 10-0-1 straw vote to advance language that would create a Sentencing Reconsideration Working Group and add it to the judiciary miscellaneous bill (H.109).

Ben Novogratzky of the Office of Legislative Council presented the draft language, saying the working group would be “aimed to review Vermont's laws concerning the criminal sentencing review process and to propose any changes to current law or practices.” He described membership, a report deadline and an expiration date for the panel.

The draft calls for the chief superior judge (or a designee) to chair the group and originally listed six members: the chief superior judge, the defender general (or designee), the commissioner of the Department of Corrections (or designee), the executive director of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs (or designee), the executive director of the Center for Crime Victim Services (or designee), and an executive director identified in the draft as “Dr. Reese.” Novogratzky told the committee that an additional request from “the network” would be added to create an odd number of members.

Under the draft, the working group would study Vermont’s sentencing-review laws, including current sentencing guidelines, relevant statutory and case law (the presentation referenced 13 V.S.A. §7042 as the statute governing the 90-day reconsideration window), the resources and procedures of the judiciary and Department of Corrections, victim impact and any role victims or victims’ families should have, and the viability of a “second look” review process. The panel would have the assistance of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs and must file a report in the form of proposed legislation by Nov. 15 to the House committees on Corrections and Institutions and Judiciary and the corresponding Senate committees. The draft limits the group to no more than six meetings and sets its termination date as Feb. 15, 2026.

Committee members asked how a second-look process would relate to existing post-conviction relief (PCR) procedures. Novogratzky said PCR and second look are different avenues: PCR can address new evidence or jurisdictional errors, while the second-look proposals discussed in past drafts have focused more on factors such as age or medical condition. He cautioned that how much PCR filings would decline, if at all, is uncertain and that some state’s attorneys had been unsure whether the change would reduce their office’s workload.

Members discussed victim notification and referenced existing systems, including VINE (the victim notification network). Novogratzky said victim notification language — notifying victims on a 90-day cycle if they opt in — had been drafted and that related language was under review by a subcommittee.

A committee member moved and another seconded (names not recorded in the transcript) to recommend the language move forward for final discussion; the committee then took a straw vote, recorded as 10 in favor, 0 opposed and 1 abstention. The chair and staff said the straw vote would be communicated to staff drafting the judiciary bill and to staff member Eric Fitzpatrick for coordination. Novogratzky and committee members stressed this was a procedural step to move the draft language to the next stage of deliberation, not final approval.

The committee’s next steps include incorporating the suggested addition of “the network” to the membership list, circulating updated language to staff and interested legislators, and reviewing related victim-notification language in a subcommittee. The working group, if created as drafted, would produce proposed statutory language by Nov. 15 for future committee consideration.