Committee backs transparency changes for sentence‑reduction hearings, requiring notice to victims and agencies

A House Judiciary subcommittee reported House Bill 3597 favorably after discussion about adding procedural protections when a solicitor seeks a court‑ordered sentence reduction based on an inmate's substantial assistance.

Representative Robbins, who spoke for the bill, said the measure does not create a new crime but provides notice and openness when the state asks the court to reduce a final sentence. "This statute was already in existence. It just did not have a real procedure for how these hearings should take place," Robbins said, describing the bill's goal as adding transparency so law‑enforcement agencies, prosecutors and victims receive notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The bill requires solicitors to verify in writing that an inmate provided substantial assistance, to notify the arresting agency and victims, and to hold any hearing in open court with a written order explaining factual findings. Supporters said the change addresses situations where sentence reductions were handled without notice to victims or arresting agencies.

Members pressed on whether the bill permits reductions below mandatory minimum sentences and if that could produce perceived unfairness. Robbins and other proponents said providing judicial discretion in extraordinary cases is necessary, and that the trial judge remains the arbiter of any reduction. "If the prosecution felt like this was helpful ... they could do it," Robbins said in response to a question about co‑defendants and exculpatory information.

On roll call, the committee reported HB3597 favorably; the transcript records the vote as 18 in favor, 0 opposed, and 7 not voting. Supporters said the change simply aligns the process with victims' rights and improves transparency; critics urged care about how far courts may deviate from mandatory minimums.