Commission staff explain 'omnibus' enhancement policy and seek guidance applying it to two recent laws

Commission on Sentencing staff described the omnibus enhancement policy the commission placed in the eighth edition and discussed how staff plan to apply it to two recent legislative mandates.

Staff said the omnibus enhancement was designed as a placeholder so that when the General Assembly enacts a new sentencing enhancement not otherwise provided for in the guidelines, the commission can apply a consistent, automatic adjustment: increase the base offense gravity score (OGS) by one level so the enhancement becomes effective on the statute's effective date rather than waiting months for a guideline amendment and public process.

Staff walked members through two recent examples. First, Act 5 (year not specified in the transcript) requires an enhancement where a defendant is a mandated reporter and convicted of the course‑of‑conduct offense of corruption of minors; staff said the underlying OGS for that offense is 10 and that applying the omnibus would move it to 11 when the mandated‑reporter status applies.

Second, Act 18 of 2024 created a new hands‑free mobile device vehicle offense (33 16.1) and directed enhancements for homicide by vehicle and aggravated assault by vehicle when 33 16.1 is violated. Staff noted long precedent of enhancing vehicle homicide or aggravated assault when specified aggravating factors are present (for example, DUI, work‑zone offenses, possession/use of a deadly weapon) and that some homicide/aggravated‑by‑vehicle enhancements already exist in the offense listing. Staff asked the commission for guidance on whether to treat the new device‑related enhancement simply as +1 OGS under the omnibus policy or to slot the new enhancement into the existing grouping and cap structure used for other vehicle enhancements.

Commission members discussed the tradeoffs. Staff said the simplest and most consistent approach would be to apply the omnibus +1 increment at the time the statute becomes effective, and then, if the commission later chooses to revisit the eighth edition, it could amend the offense listing to add a different adjustment (for example +2 or conditional groupings). Several members expressed support for applying a +1 OGS in order to be responsive to the legislature and to avoid delays in programming and in the courts' ability to apply the new statutory enhancement.

Ending: Staff said they will proceed with a programmatic implementation that reflects the commission's guidance and will return to the commission if further policy decisions are needed when the commission considers targeted amendments.