Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marijuana Resentencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marijuana resentencing bill debated after prosecutors warn it could broaden resentencing for other crimes
Summary
HB 26, which would allow hearings for people sentenced for marijuana-related offenses before July 1, 2026, drew support from reform groups and public defenders but opposition from the Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys concerned the bill’s paragraph b could permit resentencing of unrelated felonies when convictions occurred the same day.
Delegate Henson presented House Bill 26 as a targeted resentencing procedure for people convicted of marijuana-related offenses committed before July 1, 2026, describing a tailored process for incarcerated people or those on supervision to petition for a hearing to consider sentence modification. "House bill 26 creates a process for people convicted of marijuana related offenses... to receive a hearing to consider sentence modification," the sponsor said.
Support: Advocates and public defenders urged the subcommittee to pass the bill, saying it is a necessary component of legalizing marijuana and a fair way to address past convictions that continue to affect people’s lives. Chelsea Higgs Wise (Marijuana Justice) and public defenders described the prospect of restoring opportunity for clients who completed court-ordered terms but remain disadvantaged by legacy sentences.
Prosecutors' concerns: Brian Haskins, speaking for the Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys, objected strongly to paragraph b in the printed text, arguing the provision’s only nexus is the date of conviction and could allow resentencing for serious non-marijuana offenses because they were sentenced the same day. He said that could create opportunities to reopen cases where violent felonies were involved and urged the committee to reconsider that scope. The patron and counsel responded that judges retain discretion to decline to rehear cases and that the bill, as discussed, would include guardrails; committee counsel drafted language in concept to include juveniles and to clarify coverage of probation violations.
Outcome: The committee accepted in-concept amendments to broaden coverage to adjudicated juveniles and to add probation-violation language; members ultimately agreed to "pass by" temporarily so counsel could prepare an official substitute and post the language online for review before the full committee. The subcommittee did not take a final reporting vote on HB 26 during the session recorded here.
What to watch: Counsel will post the drafted substitute language; sponsors and opponents will want to review whether the finalized text addresses the Commonwealth's Attorneys’ concerns about the breadth of paragraph b and whether judges’ discretion and notification requirements provide sufficient safeguards.
