Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Court services officers back bill to simplify supervision terms; defense warns HB 26‑12 alters sentencing
Loading...
Summary
Supporters say HB 26‑12 would base probation supervision in multiple‑conviction cases on the longest term to simplify tracking; a criminal defense attorney said the change affects sentencing substance and could disadvantage defendants. No committee vote was recorded.
The Judiciary Committee received competing testimony on House Bill 26‑12, which would modify the criminal code’s treatment of supervision terms in cases with multiple felony convictions so that supervision is controlled by the longest supervision term imposed for any conviction in the case.
Molly Athon, a court services officer in Leavenworth County and legislative chair for the Kansas Association of Court Services Officers, told the committee the bill would reduce administrative complexity for probation officers and better align supervision with post‑release supervision rules. “This change will allow CSOs to continue to focus on public safety and rehabilitation rather than navigating conflicting statutory calendars,” Athon said.
Opponents, including criminal defense attorney Emily Brandt, said the bill reaches into sentencing—rather than merely supervision—and could expose defendants to longer exposure to incarceration if probation on the longest term is not successfully completed. Brandt cited State v. Wilson and other cases she said show the current framework is being applied consistently and cautioned the proposed text removes caps that protect defendants. She urged the committee not to work the bill without refinements.
Committee members asked the reviser and proponent witnesses clarifying questions about appealability language and whether the change should be characterized as sentencing or supervisory. Jason Thompson said the statute uses standard language to indicate the change is not treated as a departure for appeal purposes, but acknowledged the wording can be confusing in practice.
What happens next: the committee closed the hearing without recording a work session or a vote; members asked for clarification and further review before moving forward.
