Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Sentencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House substitute would require judges to state when sentences are consecutive or concurrent
Summary
First substitute House Bill 99 removes a statutory presumption of concurrent sentences when an order is silent and directs judges to specify on the record whether sentences run consecutively or concurrently; it also lists general factors judges should consider, including number of victims.
Representative Ty McCartney moved to substitute House Bill 99 with the first substitute, saying the change addresses problems with the existing statute. He said the first substitute removes the presumption that multiple sentences are concurrent when an order is silent and requires judges to state on the record whether sentences run consecutively or concurrently; it also statutorily lists general factors judges should consider — including number of victims.
Floor members praised the measure’s aim for clarity in sentencing but asked technical legal questions. Representative Curtis asked whether substituting the language that refers to a 'clarified order' instead of an 'amended order' could create appealability or procedural issues; Representative Daniels and others discussed whether the term is a term of art and how it could affect appeals. Representative McCartney said staff could clarify the drafting as needed and reiterated the bill's need.
Members also discussed the fiscal notes: a fiscal note of $600,000 was referenced for House Bill 99, but the sponsor said the first substitute carries a $0 fiscal note for the initial year. Summation was waived and voting was opened on the first substitute.
