Senate Judiciary holds public hearing on proposal to create 30/10 split sentences

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 43, a proposal to authorize judges to impose a 30-year sentence with a mandatory 10-year day-for-day term in prison followed by supervised probation, but the committee did not vote on the bill.

Representative Hill, the bill sponsor, told the committee, "This bill is 30 split 10," explaining that under current Alabama practice judges can impose a "20 split 5" and that HB43 would extend that approach so a 30-year sentence could be split to require a mandatory 10 years in the penitentiary. Representative Hill said that after the mandatory portion the defendant would remain under court supervision on probation and could be resentenced if they violated terms. When asked whether the 10-year portion would be served day-for-day, Representative Hill replied, "That is correct."

Supporters and opponents spoke at the hearing. Judge Jeff Kelly, representing circuit judges, said the provision "gives us another tool in the right cases to be able to dispense justice for the victims as well as to the defendants to give a known sentence." Judge Charles Elliott described splits as a way for the sentencing judge to provide "certainty" and contrasted local judicial control with release decisions by parole boards.

Opponents included Wanda Miller, executive director of Vocal Victims of Crime and Leniency, who said the bill alarmed victims and noted a recent multiple-homicide case in Birmingham as part of a broader argument that punishment has been "chipped away." Miller said her "phone has been ringing off the hook" with victims' concerns. Darlene Hutchison, who identified herself as a victim, said complex sentencing law already leaves victims uncertain about when offenders will be released. Angela Harris, who identified herself as the mother of a homicide victim and a longtime victim advocate, said she supported longer actual time behind bars and said she wanted to see violent offenders kept incarcerated longer.

Nettie Bloom of the Alabama Criminal Defense Lawyers stated the group supported the bill and asked the committee to consider retroactivity in narrowly defined circumstances; Representative Hill said he did not intend to make the bill retroactive. Committee members asked questions about existing sentence credit for time served in county jails and whether judges can later resentence defendants who violate probation. Several senators described the measure as giving judges a discretionary tool to ensure longer periods of incarceration in serious cases; others expressed concern about variability in sentencing and the potential for the law to complicate victims' understanding of outcomes.

The committee limited public comments to roughly two minutes per speaker and heard testimony from about a half-dozen speakers representing judges, victims, advocacy organizations, and the criminal-defense bar. The committee concluded the public hearing and did not take a vote on HB43 during the session. Committee members asked sponsors and interested parties to continue discussions before the bill returns to committee.

The hearing record shows the measure prompted sustained debate over sentencing certainty, victims' expectations, judicial discretion, and whether the measure should exclude certain offenses or be applied retroactively.