Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Probation Discharges Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judges seek a ‘middle’ probation discharge; DAs and advocates warn of unintended effects
Summary
Assembly Bill 13 would create a third discharge category for probationers and allow civil actions to enforce unpaid restitution and fees. Chief Judge Lynn Jones urged judicial discretion for a ‘general’ discharge; prosecutors and defense advocates disagree on consequences for victims and eligibility for sealing.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard extensive testimony Thursday on Assembly Bill 13, a proposal that would allow Nevada judges to issue a new, "general" discharge for probationers who do not meet the current statutory standard for an "honorable" discharge but whose records commissioners say should not receive a full "dishonorable" label.
Chief Judge Lynn Jones of the Second Judicial District said the change would give courts discretion to recognize probationers who substantially complied with conditions even if they had technical or partial failures. "Hulk deserves an honorable discharge," Jones said in an illustrative example, arguing that some people who “brought it home at the end" deserve relief that current binary categories do not provide.
Jones also described a related provision in the bill that would allow an independent civil action to enforce fines, fees and restitution represented in a criminal judgment. She acknowledged the committee’s concern about who would bring that enforcement action and suggested that language could be refined to avoid shifting the burden to victims.
Opponents — including the Nevada District Attorneys Association — told the committee the bill is overly broad and could allow judges to “neuter” the dishonorable-discharge statute. "We are opposed to AB 13," John Jones, representing the Nevada District Attorneys Association, told the committee, saying the draft would let judges override the statutory conditions that currently require a dishonorable discharge for some cases.
Public defenders and fairness advocates also raised concerns. Paloma Maguero said judges already have discretion when deciding petitions for discharge and warned the new category could raise the standard for an honorable discharge, leaving people who are unable to pay fines and fees in a new, uncertain category. "I think that general discharge just gives the judges a way out when and kind of the opposite. It puts the honorable discharge at a much higher standard," Maguero said.
The Fines and Fees Justice Center voiced support for the bill’s intent to prevent punishment for inability to pay, but urged that financial-hardship paths should allow people to obtain an honorable discharge rather than create a third category. Nick Shepach, state director for the center, cited national research showing the adverse effects of court debt on basic needs and said creating a new discharge category could reclassify people who deserve full relief.
A family member of a person under supervision testified in support, describing barriers to reentry — obtaining IDs, Social Security records and steady employment — and the stress of large restitution amounts. "How is it reasonable to expect someone who is incarcerated for 4 years to immediately pay off thousands of dollars?" Veil Sverlund asked in support of the bill.
Committee members pressed for clarity on several practical points: whether a general discharge would allow a record to be sealed, who could bring the independent civil enforcement action, and how restitution priority under Marcy’s Law interacts with fines and supervision fees. Chief Judge Jones said restitution is prioritized under the state constitutional amendment sometimes called Marcy’s Law and that the bill’s language could be refined to clarify who may pursue enforcement.
No vote was taken at the hearing. Committee members and stakeholders indicated interest in further drafting to clarify who may bring enforcement actions, how the financial-hardship process will operate, and how sealing and collateral consequences should apply to the proposed general discharge.
