House Institutions committee backs convening a working group on second-look sentencing; S.109 victim-notification language to be reviewed

Committee members on April 24 discussed reviving a 2020 Sentencing Commission proposal for sentence reconsideration, sometimes called a “second-look” or sentence-reconsideration process, and agreed to ask a working group to draft recommended statutory language for other committees to consider.

The committee chair said the proposal had been supported by the Sentencing Commission in 2020, though not unanimously, and had not moved through the Legislature. The chair also said the defender general, Matt Valerio, had suggested reconstituting the effort and that the defender general’s office believes a second-look process could reduce the number of post-conviction relief petitions their office receives and help manage their caseload.

Why it matters: Committee members framed the idea as a way to revisit long sentences with participation from judges, prosecutors and defense counsel, and to reduce downstream post-conviction work. Several members emphasized including victim representation in any working group.

Discussion and next steps

Kim McManus, identified in the meeting as the legislative attorney for the Department of Sheriffs and State’s Attorneys, told the committee that state attorneys had concerns about a sentence-reconsideration proposal but were willing to engage in further conversation with other stakeholders. The chair said she had been contacted by Dr. Reese and by Jennifer Pullman, who listened to the morning testimony and asked to participate in a reconvened discussion.

Committee members generally supported forming a working group and drafting concept language. The chair proposed sending a high-level concept to staff (Ben or Eric) and to Martin, and asked the working group to meet over the summer and report back in January with recommended language. Multiple members stressed that the working group should include victims’ advocates; one member said they were “more concerned about having the victim's advocate than I am out-of-state entities.”

Related bill language: The chair also said Senate bill S.109 is being edited to include courthouse-related language and some victim-notification provisions that Jennifer Pullman had proposed. The chair said staff would circulate highlighted language from S.109 (with highlights removed in the circulated version) and that the committee would review and weigh in.

Formal outcome and limits

No formal vote on a bill was recorded in this committee meeting on the sentence-reconsideration concept. The chair characterized the move as a request to develop language and to convene stakeholders; any statutory proposal would be drafted and referred through the usual committee process.

Ending

Committee staff will circulate draft language and the highlighted portions of S.109 for member review; the committee agreed to consider a lightweight draft to hand to the appropriate jurisdiction (since sentencing policy may lie outside this committee’s core jurisdiction) and to reconvene stakeholder conversations over the summer with a report to the Legislature in January.