Preliminary data: eighth‑edition sentencing guidelines show lower standard‑range conformity in early sample

Commission staff presented preliminary analyses comparing sentencing under the newly effective eighth‑edition guidelines with historical seventh‑edition data.

Staff cautioned the analysis uses a partial sample — 10 months of eighth‑edition sentences representing roughly 60% of expected annual volume — and may underrepresent more serious cases that take longer to process. "We still don't have a lot of eighth edition sentences yet ... so what I'm confident we've been waiting and waiting that this little snapshot will give you a first look," a staff presenter said.

In the 2025 sample through October, staff reported that about 41% of eighth‑edition sentences were within the standard range recommendation, and about 70% were within the guideline band when adding aggravated and mitigated cells (compared with roughly 63% and 80% respectively for the seventh edition sample). Staff observed most guideline recommendations still fall into lower sanction levels (probation and county confinement) and that state confinement recommendations represent about 10.7% of cases; imposed state confinement in this sample was lower (6.8% vs. 11.2% under the older edition), a difference staff said could reflect sampling or changing trends rather than the guidelines alone.

Staff proposed further analysis once more data are available to profile departures by offense type and to test hypotheses about whether narrower ranges produce tighter distributions of imposed sentences around recommended values.

Commissioners acknowledged the cautionary approach and asked staff to revisit conformity and distribution analyses at a future meeting when the dataset is larger.