Committee debates bill to clarify misdemeanor reduction for short felony sentences; votes 'do not pass'

The Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1059, which would clarify that a person convicted of a felony but sentenced to 360 days or less is reduced by operation of law to a class A misdemeanor and subject to class A misdemeanor penalties.

Tom Earhart, chief probation and probation officer for the North Dakota Probation and Pretrial Services Division of the North Dakota Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, testified in support of the bill. He told the committee that the relevant provision in statute is “North Dakota Century Code section 12.13202 and subsection 9” and explained the bill’s effect: “This section of code provides for a defendant convicted of a felony who is sentenced to imprisonment for 360 days or less to be convicted of a misdemeanor.” Earhart said the amendment would specify that the reduction is to a class A misdemeanor and “clarifies to the court that the penalties for which the defendant is subject would be those of a class A misdemeanor.”

Proponents said the change would reduce the length of supervised probation available after such reductions — moving the maximum from the supervised-probation terms associated with felonies to the class A misdemeanor maximums — and free probation officers to focus on higher-risk individuals. Earhart also noted that if probation is revoked the defendant’s original felony conviction and penalties would be reinstated.

Committee members pressed witnesses on how the change would affect judicial discretion. Senator Paulson asked whether the bill would limit a judge’s ability to impose longer probation for younger defendants, saying judges sometimes impose longer supervision so “we need to keep an eye on things.” Travis Fink, executive director of the Commission on Legal Counsel, said part of the confusion comes from the current operation of the law: “If you are sentenced on a case... the court could say you’re sentenced to 180 days... but they can place you on probation for up to 3 years,” and by making the reduced offense explicitly a class A misdemeanor the statute would limit the maximum supervised-probation period to the misdemeanor penalty range (two years) by operation of law.

Senators debated whether the amendment simply clarifies an existing rule or whether it removes sentencing options from judges. Senator Castaneda and others asked whether the change would prevent a judge from imposing three- or five-year probation terms in particular cases; witnesses said that, under the proposed language, the statutory maximum for supervised probation tied to a class A misdemeanor is smaller than for many felonies and that the prior mechanism permitting longer probation after a felony sentence of less than 360 days arose from the previous statutory structure.

After questions and testimony, Senator Brownberger moved a due-pass recommendation; that motion failed on the roll call. Senator Lueck then moved a do-not-pass recommendation, seconded by Senator Myrdal. The committee approved the do-not-pass motion on a 4-3 roll call. Senators voting in favor of the do-not-pass recommendation were Senator Paulson, Senator Lueck, Senator Myrdal and Senator Corey; Senators Brownberger, Castaneda and Chair Larson voted no. The committee appointed Senator Lueck to carry the bill as a do-not-pass from committee.

The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 1059 after taking the votes.