Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mandatory Minimums topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mixed testimony on HB 2,256: sponsors cite certainty for victims and judges; advocates warn of major costs
Summary
Representative Barry Hovis presented HB 2,256 to impose fixed minimums for prior offenders and to increase certainty in sentencing. Supporters argued certainty aids victims and plea bargaining; opponents cited a fiscal note estimating up to $875 million and warned of rising incarceration costs and family harms.
Representative Barry Hovis (District 146) presented House Bill 2,256 as a measure to provide "truth in sentencing" by setting clear minimums for prior offenders and by standardizing how minimums are applied across felony classes. Hovis said the goal is to give judges, prosecutors and victims a reliable way to know how much time an offender will serve.
"If you have a prior felony... and you get convicted again... you're gonna serve 50% of that time," Hovis said in presenting the bill as a simple, straightforward change intended to reduce uncertainty and repeat offenses.
Supporters included sheriffs and a state public advocate who said transparency helps victims and courts understand the consequences of convictions. Roy Cole, sheriff of Webster County, testified the public and jurors need to know "what's actually happening" when a sentence is pronounced.
Opponents, including Gwen Smith Moore of Empower Missouri and Kanika Harper of Justice for All, urged caution. Smith Moore cited a fiscal note released to the committee that estimated costs exceeding $875 million by FY 2027 and projected the possible need for additional prison capacity; she argued the state cannot absorb that cost while proposing other tax changes. Harper described the bill as broadly expanding mandatory time‑serve rules and warned it would destabilize families and crowd out funding for reentry and treatment.
Representative Hovis acknowledged the fiscal note’s figures and said the impact would be gradual, that judges still set the sentence within statutory ranges and that some implementation options exist. He also indicated openness to amendments such as a look‑back period for prior convictions.
The committee heard three in‑favor and multiple opposing witnesses under a four‑minute time limit for testimony; no vote on HB 2,256 was recorded in the transcript.
