Utah Sentencing Commission

Gary R. Herbert Utah State Capitol Complex Governor Senate Bldg Suite E330 Salt Lake City UT 84114 (801) 538-1645$FAX: (801) 538-1024 Jennifer Valencia www.sentencing.utah.gov Director

AGENDA January 7, 2015 noon

Utah State Capitol Senate Caucus Room

I. Welcome and Approval of December Minutes Carlene Walker

Recognition of Departing Commission Member David Brickey Welcome new Commission Member Sheriff Tracy

II. Review for Approval: Review of 2015 Juvenile Disposition Guidelines for approval/publication Jennifer Valencia III. Review 2014 Annual Report Jennifer Valencia IV. Discussion of SC Position on Additional Anticipated Legislation for 2015 Jennifer Valencia Pam Vickrey Paul Boyden V. Election of Executive Committee Carlene Walker

Next meeting (Annual Meeting) April 1, 2015

8:00 – 4:00 p.m. Utah State Capitol, Senate Caucus Room

SENTENCING COMMISSION MINUTES

Committee Utah Sentencing Commission

Date Time Location

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Noon – 2 p.m.

Utah State Capitol, Senate Caucus Room

Members Present

Patrick Anderson, Shima Baradaran, Craig Barlow, Paul Boyden, David Brickey, Darin Carver, Mike Haddon for Rollin Cook, Sen. Gene Davis, Al Emery, Jesse Gallegos, Ron Gordon, Rachelle Hill, Judge Scott Johansen, Judge Thomas Low, Judge Julie Lund, Richard Mauro, Chris Roach, Senator Dan Thatcher, Judge Vernice Trease, Pam Vickrey, Carlene Walker, Christina Zidow

Members Excused

Chief Craig Black, Susan Burke, Judge Gregory Orme, Sheriff Tracy

Staff & Visitors

Staff: Jo Lynn Kruse, Dr. Ben Peterson, David Walsh

Visitors:

Agenda Item Welcome - Approval of Minutes Notes Carlene Walker called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. Jennifer could not attend today’s meeting so

Ron Gordon stands in for her. Judge Low made the motion to approve the December minutes. Craig Barlow seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Carlene recognized and thanked David Brickey for his many years of service to the Commission, 2006-2014.

Agenda Item Review of 2015 Juvenile Disposition Guidelines for Approval/Publication (tape 22:00) Notes Ron Gordon briefly reviewed the juvenile guidelines. The guidelines were emailed to the Commission after the last

meeting for review. The idea behind the revisions is to make sure the guidelines mirror current statute and policy. The last publication was in 2004 and the Juvenile Subcommittee previously determined that three areas of the guidelines were in need of significant revision to reflect current statute and policy: the prefatory language, the use of aggravating and mitigating factors in the matrix itself, and sex offenses specifically within the matrix. Discussions are still ongoing regarding the adoption of a new matrix to address both aggravating and mitigating factors as well as sex offenses more appropriately. The prefatory language has been agreed upon by the subcommittee and includes an updated philosophy statement, a comprehensive explanation of evidence based principles, an addendum, additional links, and the removal of outdated addenda. Ron asked the Commission if there are any plans to change form 1 (the matrix) and whether we should postpone publication until the matrix is redone also. Commission members noted that the matrix is the next item to address, but the discussions are still ongoing. There was general consensus that there is value moving the publication forward with the understanding that additional modification of the form(s) and the specific instructions for use of the new forms will occur in the coming year. Pam Vickrey made the motion to move forward with the publication noting it is a work in progress. Chris Roach seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Agenda Item Review 2014 Annual Report (tape 41:00) Notes Ron briefly reviewed the Sentencing Commission 2014 annual report. Projects worked on in 2014 include:

Updating the Adult Sentencing and Release Guidelines

Several members and staff of the Sentencing Commission devoted a great amount of time in coordination with CCJJ in developing a comprehensive set of recommendations intended to address significant reforms to the criminal justice system as a whole.

The Juvenile Subcommittee of the Sentencing Commission undertook the task of revising the Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines, last published in 2004.

The Justice Courts Subcommittee of the Sentencing Commission continued discussion on seeking to establish state-wide accreditation standards for all treatment professionals providing treatment to offenders in relation to a court-imposed sentencing order.

2015 recommendations include the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, Assault Re-Categorization, Sex Offender Registry Anomalies and Domestic Violence Pleading and Sentencing

2014 Penalty and Sentencing Policy Changes

Agenda Item Discussion of SC Position on Additional Anticipated Legislation Notes Paul Boyden discussed a legislative draft of Driving Under The Influence Sentencing Revisions. The bill modifies

provisions relating to sentencing requirements for driving under the influence violations. Highlighted provisions of the bill:

Provides that an impaired driving plea is not available to a person who has certain prior convictions;

Requires the court to impose, for a felony driving under the influence violation, an order requiring the person to obtain a screening and assessment for alcohol and substance abuse and treatment as

2

appropriate;

Requires the court to order the installation of the ignition interlock system, at the person’s expense, for all motor vehicles registered to that person and all motor vehicles operated by that person if a person is convicted of a driving under the influence violation within 10 years of a prior conviction;

Provides that a person who operates a motor vehicle without an ignition interlock system; and

Makes technical corrections The bill originates from a DUI subcommittee of USAAV at the request of UDOT. The issue for UDOT is that NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) has been looking at Utah’s statute to make sure our state complies with federal law. Our statute does not currently comply, meaning that Utah is not receiving its portion of federal highway safety funds. No vote was taken on the bill. Pam Vickrey mentioned that Senator Osmond is likely to run legislation specific to a number of juvenile justice issues. His concern stems largely from a case from Ogden involving 16 year-old Cooper Van Huizen, that was bound over to the adult system under the SYO (Serious Youth Offender) statute. The case raised issues as to our transfer laws in Utah. Van Huizen was sentenced to two 1-15 year prison terms, while the adults involved in the crime received probation. Carlene asked Pam to provide information to the Commission for the upcoming Monday Legislative Meetings.

Next Meeting The next meeting will be the Annual Meeting on April 1, 2015, Utah State Capitol Bldg, Senate Caucus Room Minutes prepared by Jo Lynn Kruse – Administrative Assistant, CCJJ

SENTENCING COMMISSION MINUTES

Committee Utah Sentencing Commission – Annual Meeting

Date Time Location

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

8 a.m. – 4 p.m.

Utah State Capitol, Senate Caucus Room

Members Present

Patrick Anderson, Chyleen Arbon, Shima Baradaran, Craig Barlow, Chief Craig Black, Paul Boyden, Susan Burke, Darin Carver, Rollin Cook, Al Emery, Scott Garrett, Rachelle Hill, Judge Scott Johansen,

Rep. Brian King, Judge Thomas Low, Judge Julie Lund, Richard Mauro, Judge Gregory Orme,

Senator Dan Thatcher, Judge Vernice Trease, Pam Vickrey, Carlene Walker, Christina Zidow

Members Excused

Senator Gene Davis, Ron Gordon, Rep. Marc Roberts, Sheriff James Tracy

Staff & Visitors

Staff: Jo Lynn Kruse, Cuong Nguyen, Sofia Nystrom, Jennifer Valencia, David Walsh, Doreen Weyland

Visitors: Susan Allred, Dan Blanchard, Anna Brower, Rob Butters, Julie Christenson, Glen Collett,

Len Engel, Jesse Gallegos, Mike Haddon, Brent Kelsey, Daniel Larsen, Geri Miller-Fox, Debra Moore, Doug Thomas

Agenda Item Welcome and Approval of Minutes, Introduction of New Members, Review of by-laws, Leadership Changes

Notes Carlene Walker called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. Carlene introduced new

members Rep. Brian King (replaces Rep. Jen Seelig), Scott Garrett (replaces David Brickey) and Chyleen Arbon, (replaces Jesse Gallegos) from the Board of Pardons.

Patrick Anderson made a motion to approve the January minutes. Richard Mauro seconded the

motion which passed unanimously.

Carlene Walker drew our attention to the by-laws, which were approved in June 2012. Carlene stated

that generally we hold election of officers at this meeting, and then announced the she is resigning as Chair of the Sentencing Commission and she and her husband will begin serving a mission in June for

the LDS Church in Frankfurt, Germany. The tradition on this Commission has been that a Governor’s appointee serves as Chair. So election of officers will be deferred until the June meeting. If any of

you are interested in serving as vice-chair, please do not hesitate to contact Jennifer Valencia. There

will be an extra meeting in May which Carlene will chair.

Agenda Item Legislative Update & Discussion (tape part 1)

Notes Jennifer reviewed the sentencing related legislative changes that took place this year. The summary

includes all the bills that passed this legislative session on which the Commission took a position. A

document will be posted on the Sentencing Commission website with those bills relevant to sentencing.

Four priority bills all passed: HB 348 Criminal Justice Programs and Amendments – This Bill, sponsored by Rep. Hutchings, was

signed yesterday by the Governor. We are still in process of finalizing a comprehensive list on traffic

misdemeanor reclassifications. Most are one-step reductions, and do not include DUI or release. Controlled substance reclassifications become effective Oct. 1, 2015.

The Sentencing Commission’s task is to revise the criminal history scoring to eliminate double counting

and focus on factors relevant to re-offense, and the Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health

directives are effective May 12, 2015. Jennifer reviewed effective dates of directives for DOC, BOP, Judiciary, CCJJ, DLD and Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health.

HB215 Sex Offender Registry Amendments, sponsored by Rep. Draxler

SB59 Domestic Violence Amendments, sponsored by Senator Weiler SB115 Assault Offenses Amendments, sponsored by Senator Thatcher

2

Bills we supported or supported in concept which passed:

HB74 Consent Definition for Sexual Offense HB184 Victim Restitution Amendments

HB353 Probation Amendments

SB136 Statute of Limitations for Criminal Fines, Fees, Restitution HB83 Crimes Against Health Care Providers in Correctional System

HB85 Peace Officer Training Amendments HB212 Wild Land Fire Liability Amendments

HB454 S02 Prison Development Amendments HB284 S02 Minor Alcohol or Drug Related Offenses and Driving Privileges

SB167 Juvenile Offender Amendments

HB146 DUI Revisions HB415 S05 Regulation of Electronic Cigarettes

SB146 Driving Privilege Amendments SB181 Driver License Modifications

SB265 S01 Abuse Deterrent Opioid Analgesic Drug Products

SB24 Department of Financial Institutions Amendments SB109 Removal from Database Amendments

SB141 S01 Judiciary Amendments SB214 Veterans Court

Bills We Opposed Which Passed:

HB131 S03 Tobacco Shop Amendments

HB340 Voter Preregistration Amendments SB82 S01 Forcible Entry Amendments

SB119 S01 Prescription Database Revisions SB150 DUI Sentencing Revisions

Financial Bills: HB24 S03 Insurance Modifications

HB378 S02 White Collar Crime Registry SB93 S02 Uniform Commercial Code Filing Amendments

SB207 S06 Political Activity Amendments

Sexual Offenses:

HB252 Human Trafficking Amendments HB277 Statute of Limitations for Sexual Offenses

SB113 Sex Offender Testing Amendments SB238 Prostitution Amendments

Exemptions: HB72 S01 Ballot Publishing Amendments

HB104 S02 Cow-Share Program Amendments HB140 Sovereign Lands Around Bear Lake

HB158 Drill Status Travel Amendments

SB79 Impeachment Amendments

Animal Offenses: HB254 Livestock Branding Amendments

HB261 Horse Tripping Amendments HB317 Destruction of Livestock

SB134 S03 Game Fowl Fighting Amendments

SB163 Wildlife Modifications

2015 Penalty Changes One new 1st degree felony, Five new 3rd degree felonies, eleven new Class A misdemeanors, 15 new

Class B misdemeanors, 39 new Class C misdemeanors, 156 new infractions and 9 new fines or fees.

3

Agenda Item Implementation of HB348, Introduction of Implementation Coordinator, Technical Assistance (tape 1:22)

Notes Jennifer showed a short video titled The Growth of Incarceration in the U.S. available for viewing at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-kFNDlzL9k. This video shows the findings of the NRC report The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Our nation's reliance on imprisonment has not clearly improved public safety and may have had large unwanted consequences for society. The report urges policymakers to reconsider sentencing policies and to seek crime-control strategies that are more effective, with better public safety benefits and fewer unwanted consequences. Jennifer introduced Doreen Weyland from CCJJ as the Justice Reinvestment Initiative Coordinator. Doreen will insure that deadlines are met and will monitor the incentive grants. Carlene introduced and thanked Len Engel, the Managing Associate for Policy at the Crime and Justice Institute at CRJ, for his countless hours of work and support on this issue. Carlene pointed out the 2015 JRI Implementation Timeline and Meeting schedule included in the handouts. Carlene asked the Commission to view Form 1, the matrix, and to have a preliminary vote on it, with a final vote at the August meeting. Paul Boyden made the motion to accept the Form 1 matrix. Patrick Anderson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Agenda Item Data & Update from Department of Corrections (tape Part 2)

Notes Mike will not doing a data presentation today, because so many changes have been made as a result of HB348. Mike gave an overview of the DOC’s initial assessment of JRI implementation issues for the

Department of Corrections. It has only been a couple weeks since the legislative session has ended and DOC is in the beginning stages of assessment and evaluation. The DOC has taken sections of

statute and brought together leaders of various organizations and began brainstorming. The following is a rough draft of work to be done:

Presentence Investigation – Possible new PSI format, change from LSI-R to LSI-RNR, changes in sentencing/release guidelines, and initiate case action plan

Case Action Planning (CAP) – Streamline CAP process, coordinate with BOP to identify programs for earned time credit, track/notify earned time credits and develop transition process

Probation & Parole – Develop/implement sanctions and rewards matrix, develop credit tracking for earned credit and develop/coordinate tracking of incarceration days

Standards/Certification of Treatment Services – Collaborate with DSMH & USAAV to develop

treatment standards, collaborate to develop treatment certification process, and develop/coordinate tracking of incarceration days

Agenda Item Data & Update from Department of Human Services (tape 39:30 part 2)

Notes Doug Thomas reviewed provisions required by HB 348:

Define criminal risk factors and require these factors be considered in providing mental health

and substance abuse treatment through governmental programs to individuals involved in the criminal justice system

Establish standards for mental health and substance abuse treatment and for treatment

providers, concerning individuals who are incarcerated or who are required by a court or BOP to participate in treatment

Track performance and outcome data and make that information available to the public

Analyze specified programs and practices, and provide recommendations to the legislature

Require that the DOC in collaboration with CCJJ, the Division of Substance Abuse and Mental

Health, and UAC to gather information related to treatment and program outcomes, and

provide the information to CCJJ. Doug also discussed DSAMH directives and proposed formula allocations.

Agenda Item Recognition of Departing Commission Members (tape 52:00 part 2)

4

Notes Jesse Gallegos and Chris Roach were recognized for their years of service on the Sentencing

Commission. Jesse as BOP Representative (2012 – 2015) and Chris as Juvenile Justice Services Representative (2014). The Commission also thanked Carlene for many years of service (2009 – 2015)

to the Commission as Chair. Thank you all for your dedication and time.

Agenda Item Subcommittee Updates & Pending Projects (tape part 3)

Notes Jennifer gave updates on the subcommittees’ work.

Juvenile Subcommittee – The 2015 Juvenile Disposition Guidelines were published (first republication since 2004); addressed revisions to prefatory language; revisions to the matrix itself are

still pending; incorporation of sex offenses also still pending. SB167 address multiple issues characterized as addressing “overly aggressive prosecution” of juvenile offenders, stopping the “school

to prison pipeline,” and comprehensive reform referred to as “Juvenile Justice Reinvestment.” JJS

currently engaged with CSG in comprehensive reform efforts. Jennifer asked Pam Vickrey to act as Chair for the juvenile subcommittee if we continue.

Justice Courts Subcommittee – Have begun development of misdemeanor sentencing guidelines; identifying nature of misdemeanor offenses warranting specific identification for imposition of jail time;

developing recommendations for limited use of jail time for all others. HB348 addressed treatment

provider certification and standards as well as less serious traffic offense re-categorization. SB115 & SB59 originated from this subcommittee. Jennifer asked Senator Thatcher and Judge McCullagh to co-

chair if continued. Anomalies Subcommittee – Coordinated with CCJJ on HB348, which addressed drug free zone

enhancements, drug penalties, and evidence based practices generally. Met with Senator Hillyard and AOC, but could not reach agreement on collateral consequences of convictions notice. HB252

addressed human trafficking. Subcommittee also met with Rep. Ray regarding HB11, but could not

reach agreement on death penalty legislation. Guidelines Subcommittee – Coordinated with CCJJ on HB348 on incorporation of evidence-based

practices generally and revisions to the guidelines. Philosophical approach statement has not been updated. Prefatory language to include evidence based practices updated with brief statement needs

further elaboration consistent with HB348. Significant revisions anticipated consistent with HB348.

AP&P Guidelines/Matrix Subcommittee – HB348 addressed this issue in detail. Implementation pilot in 2nd District April 1 – June 30; feedback to Board of District Court Judges expected at July

meeting.

Agenda Item Research & Projects Update U of U Criminal Justice Center (tape 1:03 part 3)

Notes Rob Butters, Assistant Professor, College of Social Work, University of Utah, spoke about three studies

conducted during this last year that are relevant to the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (Early Case Resolution, Program Evaluation Process and Correctional Program Checklist). They will be evaluating

eight DORA programs this next year.

Rob talked about Risk Principle and how we need to target those offenders with a higher probability of

recidivism, and provide the most intensive treatment to those higher risk offenders and how intensive treatment for lower risk offenders can actually increase recidivism. Treatment is much more effective

than punishment and we need more rigorous outcome evaluation. Not all treatment programs are equal. Most treatment providers are not good at identifying criminogenic needs and the treatment

community needs more education and training. Rob’s studies reveal that Utah lags in our use of offender assessment, cognitive behavioral therapy and quality assurance.

The goals of ECR are: Faster case processing, provide “same justice sooner”, access to treatment services, and reducing recidivism. Lesson learned from the ECR study is that in order to improve

outcomes and reduce recidivism, cost and increase public safety, we must have brief screenings, good assessments and evidence-based treatment resources for offenders. The full report on Evaluation of

Early Case Resolution is available at http://ucjc.utah.edu/adult-offenders/ecr.

Agenda Item Data & Update from Juvenile Justice Services (tape part 4)

Notes Susan Burke, Director of Juvenile Justice Services, spoke about Juvenile Justice: Past, Present Future. There are four core principles for reducing recidivism and improving other outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system.

5

Core Principle 1: Base supervision, service, and resource allocation decisions on the results of validated

risk and needs assessments. The majority of youth admitted to detention are not due to felony offenses

Youth’s treatment needs are not assessed fully or in a resource efficient manner

Lengths of stay in secure facilities are not based on the time needed for effective treatment

and efficient use of resources

Lengths of stay in community placements are based largely on service provider discretion

Core Principle 2: Adopt and effectively implement programs and services demonstrated to

reduce recidivism and improve other youth outcomes, and use data to evaluate the results and

direct system improvements. Few evidence based services are available to youth in the community

Resources are not being maximized to ensure youth receive effective services

Core Principle 3: Employ a coordinated approach across service systems to address youth’s needs. Key opportunities for JJS and juvenile court collaboration going unrealized

Core Principle 4: Tailor system policies, programs, and supervision to reflect the distinct

developmental needs of adolescents. High reliance on residential placement as a response to contempt offenses

Three Key Recommendations: 1. Invest in evidence-based community services

2. Establish evidence-based program models for all secure facilities and community placements 3. Use objective criteria to improve supervision and service decisions

Over the new few months, the CSG Justice Center will support JJS to form a working group of JJS staff and other system stakeholders and establish an action plan to advance key policy and practice

changes.

Agenda Item Discussion & Prioritization of Master Study List (tape 37:00 part 4)

Notes Jennifer drew attention to the 2015 Potential Study Items handout and asked the Commission to

review and come prepared to discuss in June. Also decide what subcommittee you fit into. Patrick would like to reevaluate property crimes. Judge Low would like to discuss jail as a condition of

probation matrix and revise Form 5. Paul Boyden would like to look at locating the diagnostic unit somewhere other than the prison, shock incarceration study and reducing the 25 to life sentence for

sex offenses.

Agenda Item Designation of Active Subcommittees & Charge (tape 33:00 part 4)

Notes The Commission agreed to keep the juvenile subcommittee active and request that Scott Garrett

replace David Brickey, Susan Burke replace Chris Roach, Cuong Nguyen replace Reg Garff and Pam Vickrey to serve as Chair. Al Emery made the motion to accept all. Craig Barlow seconded the

motion which passed unanimously.

Next Meeting The next meeting will be on June 3, 2015, Utah State Capitol Bldg., Senate Caucus Room Minutes prepared by Jo Lynn Kruse – Administrative Assistant, CCJJ

SENTENCING COMMISSION MINUTES

Committee Utah Sentencing Commission

Date Time Location

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Noon – 2 p.m.

Utah State Capitol, Senate Caucus Room

Members Present

Patrick Corum for Patrick Anderson, Chyleen Arbon, Craig Barlow, Paul Boyden, Darin Carver, Judge Michele Christiansen, Mike Haddon for Rollin Cook, Ron Gordon, Rachelle Hill, Rep. Brian King, Judge Thomas Low, Judge Julie Lund, Rep. Marc Roberts, Peter Stirba, Senator Dan Thatcher, Sheriff Tracy, Judge Vernice Trease, Pam Vickrey, Christina Zidow

Members Excused

Shima Baradaran, Chief Craig Black, Susan Burke, Sen. Gene Davis, Al Emery, Scott Garrett,

Judge Scott Johansen, Richard Mauro

Staff & Visitors

Staff: Jo Lynn Kruse, Holly Langton, Dr. Ben Peterson, David Walsh, Doreen Weyland

Visitors: Dan Becker, Len Engel, Gerri Miller-Fox, Judge Fuchs, Meriam Greenland, Marina Lowe (ACLU),

Judge McCullagh, Debra Moore, Tanja Schaffer (UPAN), Gary Syphus, Alex Tarbet

Agenda Item Welcome – New & Departing Members - Approval of Minutes - Elections Notes Peter Stirba called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. Jennifer recognized and thanked Judge Gregory

Orme for his many years of service to the Commission, 2002-2015 and introduced Judge Michele Christiansen who replaces Judge Orme. Jennifer then introduced the Governor’s new appointee, Peter Stirba, as Chair and citizen representative to the Sentencing Commission. Peter replaces Carlene Walker. Jennifer opened the nominations for Chair and indicated that the citizen representative appointed by the Governor is traditionally nominated as the chair. Sheriff Tracy made the motion to nominate Peter Stirba as Chair. Senator Thatcher seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Craig Barlow made the motion to approve the April minutes. Judge Low seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Jennifer recognized and thanked Paul Boyden for his longstanding service to the Commission as Vice Chair. Elections are normally done at the annual meeting, but had to be postponed due to Carlene Walker’s departure in June. Jennifer opened the floor to nominations for vice chair. Senator Thatcher made the motion to retain Paul Boyden. Craig Barlow seconded the motion. Darin Carver made the motion to nominate Pam Vickrey as vice chair. Rachelle Hill seconded the motion. Paul Boyden noted that he has served as vice chair for many years and

conceded that this presents a great opportunity for someone else to serve and that Pam would do well as vice chair. Pam agreed to take on the responsibility of vice chair. A vote was taken and passed unanimously to approve Pam Vickrey.

Agenda Item Juvenile Subcommittee Update (tape 13:15) Notes Pam presented a Draft Research Based Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Specific to Sex Offenders. Pam

stated that a smaller working group, led by Krista Airam at the Administrative Office of the Courts has begun comparing aggravating and mitigating factors for sex offenders with factors used in the risk assessment tools for juvenile sex offenders. There are some very specific tools that are used in assessment. One is the JSORRAT (Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool II); another is the ERASOR-II (Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism); another is the J-SOAP-II (Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II). The group has contacted Rob Buttars at the U of U Criminal Justice Center to determine whether further research assistance is needed or whether we can proceed without further research. As soon as we have that information, we will meet one more time as a small group before meeting again as the full juvenile subcommittee to discuss next steps. We revised the prefatory language to the juvenile guidelines last year and the next step is revisions to the matrix itself. We want to target risk and need in an evidence-based approach, while also recognizing that aggravating and mitigating factors are not intended to replace the validated tools in use.

Agenda Item Update on Sentencing Commission Implementation of HB348 (tape 21:00) Notes Issues remaining in prefatory revisions (Group 1) – Jennifer thanked Commission members for attending

numerous subcommittee meetings and extended the invitation to the Commission as a whole to review all the revisions that have been made and to contact her with any additions or revisions. Chyleen Arbon, Dan Blanchard and Mike Haddon emailed Jennifer a number of edits. The area of concern still in dispute is the issue of “zero tolerance” and “revoke and reinstate” practices. We have included on page 6 a fairly specific statement that says “The use of conditions often referred to as “zero tolerance” or “revoke and reinstate” are inconsistent with these evidence-based practices. It is the recommendation of the Commission that the use of such practices be discontinued.”

2

Several ideas were put forth about the paragraph, from adding a page of definitions to writing about proximate and distal behavior or deleting the first word of the paragraph (the) and adding “past”. Jennifer stated that she would keep working on the draft and circulate options to the Commission to review. Issues remaining in review of current forms (Group 2) – Craig Barlow talked about modifications made to Form 1. There are some changes in the recommended months or years of a sentence. There is also a change in the counting factors, the primary change being the “prior person crime convictions” used to be just prior convictions. Some of the same changes were carried over to 1a, “prior person crime convictions” is now a category. Changes also were made to “prior juvenile adjudications within past 10 years”. There was some uncertainty if those convictions were measuring duration or numbers. The intent is to eliminate double counting wherever it exists in the current forms and focus on factors relevant to risk to re-offend, consistent with the directives from HB348. As for Form 3, “prior person crime convictions” in the upper right corner were adjusted similarly to forms 1 and 1a. Judge Trease noted that on the “prior juvenile adjudications within past 10 years” should be the same as Form 1 and should say (three Class A misdemeanor adjudications). Mike Haddon noted in the instructions we have added that status offenses should not be counted and that only a “secure care” commitment, not any secure detention facility counts. Patrick Corum suggested removing “secure care” altogether. Pam Vickrey made the motion to tentatively remove “secure care” until we receive some statistics from Dr. Ben Peterson to find out the average number of priors for juveniles who are committed to secure care. Judge Lund seconded the motion. No vote was taken and the Commission agreed to wait for a vote until we receive statistics from Dr. Peterson.

Issues remaining for addition of new forms (Group 3) – Form 5 - Jennifer noted we were concerned about county input on form 5 and will likely need input beyond what we can incorporate for this year’s form 5. This draft is the third proposal, which does not change the upper range that is available from our current form 5. We added a zero to whatever as a range of possible jail time is available and we added the explanatory language to indicate that the upper number is a maximum available to the judge, but not what should be the initial recommendation from AP&P. If the box is white, it is a presumptive probation sentence, but we still have numbers in those boxes so some AP&P agents recommend these as though they are the starting point. It is somewhat of a conflicting recommendation to have both “presumptive” probation and an incarceration period indicated. The basis for creating form 5 was initially to establish more uniformity statewide in the use of jail as a condition of felony probation and Judge Low indicates it is probably the most utilized and useful form to him as a judge. It has also created a situation where the counties financial reimbursement for “COP” days for “state” inmates has become an issue. We will still circulate the draft of the guidelines to the counties for further input, but it may be a discussion which will need to continue in the next year to fully resolve. Judge Low suggested changing the asterisk comment to say: Numbers in shaded cells are presumptive probation sentences, meaning jail time is NOT “necessarily” recommended. Also say, alternatives to incarceration and GPS and community service may be most appropriate in that bottom right hand quadrant. Ron Gordon wanted to clarify that the starting point should not be jail. Judge Low added that the supervision history on all of these forms we have a -1 on successful completion of probation and he is happy with that. But there is no number or point for unsuccessful completion. Mike Haddon suggested changing negative one to none on form 1 under prior adjudications within the past 10 years. Judge Low would have us add one point for unsuccessful completions in the supervision history. Ron disagreed. Judge Low made the motion to approve form 1,1a, 3 and 5 with prior juvenile adjudications to be amended to be class

A’s, to remove secure care and to include supervision history of a point for unsuccessful completion of probation. Darin Carver seconded the motion. Ron Gordon countered with a substitute motion to approve 1, 1a, 3 and 5

with the clarifications about class A’s, no additional points for unsuccessful completion of probation. Craig Barlow seconded the substitute motion. The motion passed with one no vote from Judge Low.

Agenda Item Group 3: New Forms Discussion (tape 1:38) Notes Darin Carver briefly reviewed the work of Group 3. You will find on page 29 of the current draft of the Adult

Sentencing and Release Guidelines, Form 6, the Supervision & Treatment Level Matrix. Jennifer wondered if this form should be in the addendum section rather than a form, because it is more conceptual in nature and may be duplicative of the LS/RNR which will be utilized by AP&P in the future. Further discussion may be needed regarding the use of this document as a form or as an addendum. Form 7 – Decision-Making Authority Matrix, is a decision tree approach that includes many factors but is intended to be less complex than the version of the Response and Incentive Matrix currently being piloted. This form incorporates evidence based practice and assures the judiciary what violations will be reported to them (and the BOPP). Sheriff Tracy added that we need to be aware that the counties may have their own probation departments/agencies and that whatever forms are developed need to keep in mind county and private probation agencies will also be using them. They need to specify that we want the counties to follow the same tools and also be written broad enough that it’s not just written for AP&P exclusively. Group 3 will meet again on June 18

th.

Anyone interested should be there as there are likely to be additional revisions which will be incorporated and addressed in these meetings and via email since the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Sentencing Commission on August 5 will be to finalize the guidelines for publication.

3

Form 8 – Revocation Matrix currently states that the guidelines are for technical violations only and that criminal conduct should be addressed through a criminal proceeding and is not considered a technical violation. Please provide any suggestions you may have to Jennifer, as this is a significant issue we need to decide. There will be a meeting immediately following this meeting to further discuss this issue with AP&P, the AOC and the BOPP. Further input and participation is welcome. Judge McCullagh reviewed the current proposal for misdemeanor forms/misdemeanor guidelines. It is still in development and they are anticipating four sets of guidelines: Traffic, Property Crimes, Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse. There will be at least two more focused group meetings before we present to the Commission at the July 20 meeting. Debra Moore indicated that there is a lot of discussion about sentencing of misdemeanor substance abuse offenders since the passage of HB348 and probably something that should be addressed.

Agenda Item BOP/AP&P Review of Standard Conditions (tape 1:41) Notes Chyleen Arbon discussed changes to the BOP Parole Agreement. The case action plan will drive supervision. On

the second page, Supervision Notices changes are: C- My parole and supervision will include the standards and requirements of the Response and Incentive Matrix as created by the Utah Sentencing Commission pursuant to Utah Code §63M-7-404. E – Pursuant to Utah law [Utah Code §77-27-6(3)], I will reimburse AP&P, as restitution, the costs incurred arising out of my stay at an AP&P community center. Offenders may be able to be terminated early and the changes are restitution oriented. Please give any feedback on this to Chyleen.

Next Meeting The next full meeting of the Sentencing Commission will be on August 5, 2015 at noon, Utah State Capitol Bldg, Senate Caucus Room. The next Interim meeting will be on July 20, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., Utah State Capitol, Senate Building, Copper Room.

Minutes prepared by Jo Lynn Kruse – Administrative Assistant, CCJJ

SENTENCING COMMISSION MINUTES

Committee Utah Sentencing Commission

Date Time Location

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Noon – 2 p.m.

Utah State Capitol, Senate Caucus Room

Members Present

Patrick Anderson, Chyleen Arbon, Craig Barlow, Paul Boyden, Susan Burke, Judge Michele Christiansen,

Rollin Cook, Sen. Gene Davis, Al Emery, Scott Garrett, Ron Gordon, Judge Thomas Low, Judge Julie Lund,

Richard Mauro, Rep. Marc Roberts, Peter Stirba, Judge Vernice Trease

Members Excused

Shima Baradaran, Chief Craig Black, Darin Carver, Rachelle Hill, Judge Scott Johansen, Rep. Brian King,

Senator Dan Thatcher, Sheriff James Tracy, Pam Vickrey, Christina Zidow

Staff & Visitors

Staff: Jo Lynn Kruse, Holly Langton, Sofia Nystrom, Ned Searle, Doreen Weyland

Visitors: Susan Allred, Judge Mark Andrus, Dan Blanchard, Nathan Brady, Len Engel, Gerri Miller-Fox, Mike Haddon, Judge McCullagh, Debra Moore, Rick Schwermer

Agenda Item Welcome – Approval of Minutes Notes Peter Stirba called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. Richard Mauro made the motion to approve the

June minutes. Patrick Anderson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Agenda Item Review & Approval of 2015 Adult Sentencing Guidelines Notes Jennifer reviewed the changes made to the guidelines, most of which have been approved by previous vote.

Judge Low took issue with the lack of funding available for treatment. Doreen Weyland, JRI Coordinator for CCJJ, spoke about an RFP for a grant, in which county sheriffs are encouraged to apply, that was released on Monday, August 3. There are 4.5 million dollars appropriated for local authorities for treatment. More information should be available by the end of September. Rollin Cook and Gerri Miller-Fox spoke about the difficulties of JRI implementation on October 1

st without receiving funding until after the next legislative session, approximately this

time next year. Judge Trease made the following motion to change wording under Presentence Investigations, on page ten,

to read: Ideally, pursuant to best practices, presentence investigations by AP&P would be conducted on offenders convicted of a felony level offense or Class A offense and identified as moderate or high risk to reoffend by a validated screening tool such as the LSI-SV. The presentence investigation would then include administration of a validated risk and needs assessment tool such as the LS-RNR and other assessment(s) as appropriate to assist in structuring supervision and treatment accordingly. If an offender is identified as low risk on the LSI-SV, a full validated risk assessment is generally not warranted, either by AP&P or another supervising agency (as supervision services should generally not be targeted towards low risk offenders). Craig Barlow seconded the motion which passed with one no vote from Rollin Cook.

Judge Michele Christiansen made the motion to approve the 2015 Utah Sentencing Guidelines. Ron Gordon seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Ron thanked the Commission for their diligent work on the guidelines and particularly to Jennifer who has spent countless hours on this endeavor. This has been a monumental task.

Agenda Item Prioritization/Discussion of Legislative Issues/Anomalies Subcommittee (tape 1:07) Notes Judge McCullagh noted the following matrixes: the DUI matrix, the general/traffic matrix, the Drug and ETOH

(other than DUI) matrix and the Domestic Violence Matrix. The Judge stated that where the only term of a sentence is a fine, probation is inappropriate. Sufficient avenues exist to collect criminal accounts receivable. The threat of jail should not be used to coerce collection of a criminal accounts receivable. The Commission recommends that the legislature remove criminal accounts receivable from probation terms under 77-18-1, with the exception of court ordered restitution. Judge McCullagh will work with Senator Thatcher on this legislation. Paul Boyden discussed H.B. 240, Judicial Discretion In Sentencing Amendments, sponsored by Rep. Kay McIff. Paul stated that the words “shall not” have been changed to “may not” on lines 39 through 41 as stylistic clean up. The changes to 77-18-4 are a very serious policy change as they allow the court to reduce the minimum term of imprisonment by as much as 50%. This is of concern to prosecutors as it would allow a judge to sentence a person to prison with a minimum term of six months on a second degree felony when the court could sentence to jail for twice that long as a condition of probation. This would also reduce the minimum terms in sex offenses against children in a confusing fashion. There is an effort by CCJJ to work with Rep. McIff on the several issues raised by this bill including the related issue of a diagnostic unit.

2

Paul also presented Criminal Law Amendments, a SWAP discussion drafted 8-3-15. It deals with several issues pending after HB348, including language corrections for leaving the scene of an accident, the affirmative defense for trespass, restricted person status for persons on probation for simple possession of marijuana, and eligibility restrictions for DORA funding. An Anomalies subcommittee meeting should be scheduled to discuss these bills. Jennifer will send out a doodle poll so that a date can be set for the meeting.

Next Meeting The next full meeting of the Sentencing Commission will be on October 7, 2015 at noon, Utah State Capitol Bldg, Senate Caucus Room.

Minutes prepared by Jo Lynn Kruse – Administrative Assistant, CCJJ

SENTENCING COMMISSION MINUTES

Committee Utah Sentencing Commission

Date Time Location

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Noon – 2 p.m.

Utah State Capitol, Senate Caucus Room

Members Present

Patrick Anderson, Judge Mark Andrus, Chyleen Arbon, Craig Barlow, Paul Boyden, Debbie Whitlock for Susan Burke, Darin Carver, Rollin Cook, Sen. Gene Davis, Al Emery, Scott Garrett, Rachelle Hill, Rep. Brian King,

Judge Thomas Low, Judge Julie Lund, Richard Mauro, Rep. Marc Roberts, Peter Stirba, Sheriff James Tracy, Judge Vernice Trease, Pam Vickrey, Christina Zidow

Members Excused

Shima Baradaran, Chief Craig Black, Judge Michele Christiansen, Ron Gordon, Senator Dan Thatcher

Staff & Visitors

Staff: Jo Lynn Kruse, Cuong Nguyen, Doreen Weyland

Visitors: Krista Airam, Susan Allred, Anna Brower, Dan Blanchard, Mike Haddon, Kent Hart, Marina Lowe, Senator Aaron Osmond, Chris Packard, Dawn Marie Rubio, Gary Syphus, Ray Wahl

Agenda Item Welcome – Approval of Minutes Notes Peter Stirba called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. Patrick Anderson made the motion to approve

the August minutes. Richard Mauro seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Agenda Item Brief Update on Implementation of JRI – 2015 Adult Sentencing Guidelines and Recognition of 2nd District AP&P for Implementation Pilot of the RIM

Notes Jennifer gave a brief update on what has been happening since the last meeting on August 5th

. Jennifer has given approximately 15 presentations on the guidelines to AP&P agents throughout the state, the Judicial conference, Salt Lake Legal Defenders, and municipal prosecutors. Jennifer presented AP&P Northern Region 2

nd District an

award for their dedicated work and implementation of RIM (Response and Incentive Matrix).

Agenda Item The Juvenile Justice System and the Sentencing Commission’s Role (tape 6:40) Notes Review of SB167 – Senator Osmond stated that this bill was intended to ensure that the individual circumstances

of juveniles sent to adult courts are taken into consideration. One of the biggest changes from SB167 was to the SYO (Serious Youth Offender) portion of statute by adding additional criteria associated with transfers. The bill also addresses the incarceration of youth upon a prison commitment from adult court and allows the judge to place the juvenile in a juvenile facility until age 18 which may be determined more appropriate at the time of sentencing. A presumption against shackling was also established, but the Judicial Council was given latitude to develop the specific rules for the use of restraints in court. Pam Vickrey also commented on the bill indicating that in addition to the transfer of jurisdiction from juvenile to district court and routine shackling of juveniles in court, the bill also addressed the issue of appointment of counsel for youth. This has probably been the area with most questions and concerns since its passage because a knowing and voluntary waiver is required for felony offenses. The initial proposal was to apply it to all offenses, but due to county budgetary concerns and data from the AOC, a compromise of felonies only was reached. Jennifer distributed a written summary of the data, research and discussion regarding SB167. Jennifer reviewed the purpose and duties of the Sentencing Commission as stated in 63M-7-404: (1) The purpose of the commission shall be to develop guidelines and propose recommendations to the Legislature, the governor, and the Judicial Council about the sentencing and release of juvenile and adult offenders in order to: (a) respond to public comment; (b) relate sentencing practices and correctional resources; (c) increase equity in criminal sentencing; (d) better define responsibility in criminal sentencing; and (e) enhance the discretion of sentencing judges while preserving the role of the Board of Pardons and Parole and the Youth Parole Authority. Utah’s juvenile guidelines have not been updated since 2004 and the matrix itself is actually from 1997. In 2014, the Commission tasked the Juvenile Subcommittee with revising the prefatory language, reviewing and updating aggravating/mitigating factors especially as they relate to sex offenses, and reviewing and updating the matrix itself. Revising the prefatory language was completed in 2014. Tasks remaining are to review the guidelines/dispositional matrix and aggravating/mitigating factors. Summary of 2014 Legislative Audit of JJS – The Legislative Audit of JJS indicates that Utah has a higher

recidivism rate (53.1%) than three other states (Colorado - 28.7%, Idaho – 30.4% and Arizona – 33.4%). Summary of 2014 University of Utah LOS Report – Optimal lengths of stay is defined as: To the extent that the

goal of criminal justice agencies is rehabilitation and avoidance of greater harm in the juvenile delinquent population, the appropriate LOS for youth is properly defined as the minimum amount required for rehabilitation (which is determined by a myriad of factors that include type, duration and intensity of programming that is matched to a delinquent youth’s level of risk).

2

The correlation between the YPA guideline and actual LOS was only .441, indicating that the guideline only explained 19.5% (.441

2) of the variance in actual LOS. If the guidelines were closely followed for release

decisions, we would expect these values to be closer to 1.0 and 100% respectively. The fact that they are not closer to these values is not necessarily troubling, however, because several contextual factors influence the results in the direction of longer actual lengths of stay relative to the YPA guidelines

9.

There were recommendations to the YPA guidelines. The quantitative component of this study indicated that the relationship between the guideline and actual LOS was relatively weak. Also, the guidelines do not effectively serve their intended purpose. Without taking into account the typical range of time youth with similar histories take to demonstrate rehabilitation, the guidelines will continue to be inaccurate, and will serve instead to set only a lower-bound for LOS. Summary of Council of State Governments 2015 Report - Susan Burke summarized much of this information

during her presentation to the Commission in April 2015. In Utah’s juvenile justice system, probation is juvenile court operated, whereas the long-term state community placements and secure facilities are operated by JJS. Detention and early intervention services are operated by JJS as well. Principle number one of the Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice system, i.e. is basing supervision, service, and resource allocation decisions on the results of validated risk and need assessments. That is also consistent with what has been discussed with regard to JRI in the adult system. CSG found that the majority of youth admitted to detention are not due to felony offenses, and that lower risk youth are staying longer than the high risk youths. Recommendations were made to use objective criteria to improve supervision and service decisions. Also concerning is that few evidence based services are available to youth in the community. Thirty five states have implemented the “big 3” EBP’s (MST, FFT, MTFC) at scale statewide. Utah is not among them. Findings included that forty percent of recidivism events occurring in the year after release from residential placement occur within the first three months; resources are not being maximized to ensure youth receive effective services; and there is a high reliance on residential placement as a response to contempt offenses. There is a need to use objective criteria to improve supervision and service decisions. The Sentencing Commission was not included in the collaborative effort with CSG. Jennifer has inquired of CSG as to why the Sentencing Commission was not included and why the guidelines were not specifically analyzed. They indicated that they did not perceive the juvenile guidelines had any actual impact on placement or release decisions. Update from Juvenile Justice Services – Debbie Whitlock, Deputy Director for JJS, reported for Susan Burke.

Debbie noted that JJS was working on systematic changes that needed to be made to the system before the assessment and LOS study was done and then the economic downturn and budget cuts of 2008 occurred. JJS piloted an in-home O & A project in 3

rd District Juvenile Court and has re-bid their residential contracts with out-of-

home treatment centers for youth. JJS is now in the process of awarding new contracts for treatment services. JJS has implemented a certification process for all their program directors, supervisors, and case managers. They must certify on JJS’ case planning model, centered on “what works”. JJS also implemented two new evidence-based curricula into their long-term care facilities. The long-term secure unit for girls has moved to Farmington Bay. JJS has also adjusted the “dosage” on low risk offenders and is now using evidence-based practices there. Adjustments have also been made to the work-camp program. JJS would like to hire a medical director in the future. Update from Youth Parole Authority on LOS Matrix – Chris Packard, Administrative Officer, Youth Parole

Authority, discussed changes to the Length of Stay matrix. The YPA was established in 1986 and has the authority and responsibility for parole release, rescission, revocation, and termination for youth offenders who have been committed to the division for secure confinement. The authority determines when and under what conditions youth offenders who have been committed to a secure facility are eligible for parole. The LOS matrix was originally modeled after the adult system and has mostly remained unchanged until this time. Based on the University of Utah Length of Stay study, the YPA has identified a need for the matrix to be refined and changed to accurately reflect the direction that the Juvenile Justice Services is going. YPA has also increased the training available to YPA members both through a statewide conferences, online training, and annual meetings. YPA developed a Secure Care YPA rating scale. Prior to that, all youth we rated poor, moderate, good or excellent. A group was formed to develop a more objective rating. The new model is much more consistent than those previously used. New training starts this month and should be fully implemented by the end of the year. Other changes being made are changing review cycle to a 90 day cycle. Revisions have been made to reflect more of a range of time available, rather than a specific amount. Update from Juvenile AOC – Dawn Marie Rubio, Juvenile Court Administrator, distributed a flyer which

describes Utah Juvenile Court operations generally and a second handout titled Time Line of the Implementation of Evidence Based Practices in the Utah Juvenile Justice System. Dawn Marie first talked about the implementation of EBP. In 1999 a risk assessment was adapted and implemented for the juvenile justice system. A case planning model was devised in 2001, to include use of the Stages of Change and adopting the “What Works” principles. Since 2007, the juvenile court has utilized the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC). Juvenile court delinquency referrals have declined by 38% from fiscal year 2008 to 2015. Utah’s decline appears to track a national trend and research statistics indicate that delinquency cases dropped 27% from 1997 to 2010. They expect that referrals will continue to decline over the next few years. The decline in referrals presented

3

opportunities for the juvenile court and its probation staff to fully transition. Dawn Marie spoke about the 2008 budget reductions which still have not been restored. The Juvenile AOC is working on the development of an incentives and sanction matrix for technical violations of probation and violations of court order. About a year ago, the juvenile court began the process of developing a formalized incentive and sanctions matrix for technical violations of probation and JJS joined us about six months ago in that effort, again with the idea of having the same response to youth system-wide. The chief probation officers are in the process of vetting the matrix internally with supervisors and staff. The matrix will be presented to the Board of Juvenile Court Judges in the Spring and would then be incorporated into juvenile court probation policies and then implemented state-wide by the Summer of 2016. Dawn Marie did not indicate the Sentencing Commission or any other organizations would be included in the development or approval of the matrix. The JAOC is also looking into including substance abuse and mental health screening assessments in the juvenile court process. Currently the chief probation officers have been tasked with recommending a specific screening instrument such as MAYSI-2. JAOC is also reviewing their case planning curriculum. “Comprehensive Strategy” – Darin Carver, Clinical Practice Administrator, Weber Human Services, spoke

about developmental pathways to serious and violent delinquency. There are three pathways to become a serious violent and chronic offender: Violent pathway (minor aggression, physical fighting and violence), Authority Conflict (stubborn behavior, defiance/disobedience, and authority avoidance) and Serious Property Pathway (minor covert behavior, property damage, moderate serious delinquency and serious delinquency). Onset starts early and progresses over time. Darin also spoke about Principles of the Comprehensive Strategy, and Graduated Sanctions/Responses, developed over years of research by Wilson & Howell. One slide in the presentation showed Distribution of SPEP Scores (Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol) across JJ Programs in Arizona. The SPEP Score is based on four areas of information: service category, quality of service delivery, amount of service, and risk level of youth served. Programs that scored 50 or higher were better at preventing recidivism. The 20-year study showed that over time, serious and violent juvenile offenders will desist in offending for the most part, but there are a lot of victims along the way, and cost to taxpayers. By using the tools (the comprehensive strategy) a good graduated sanctions matrix and aligning programs that prove what works, can actually change the trajectory of the “age/crime curve” for an entire state. Discussion/Prioritization of Items for Juvenile Subcommittee – Pam Vickrey is the chair of the Juvenile

Subcommittee. She indicated that the subcommittee would like the Commission to give them some direction because they have been discussing a lot of ideas for over a year but is not really sure what steps to take next. One discussion centered on the use of the PRA or the PSRA as the validation tool for the level of risk. Pam asked the Commission if this is something we should be tackling and to what degree? Darin Carver stated that we need to make sure that services are in place to help youth from coming back or reoffending more. Restoring funding is an issue. Pam noted that the guidelines refer to programming which has been lost due to budget cuts. When revising the guidelines, restoring funding is a high priority. Funding is needed for in-home services. Senator Davis, who is on the Child Welfare oversight committee stated he will work on putting a light on this issue. Should we get funding, would corresponding services be available? Darin said that the needs for funding and qualified programs that actually reduce recidivism are essential. Craig Barlow brought up the subject of a shortage of college students interested in the juvenile justice system. Paul Boyden discussed the issue of paying for counsel for juveniles (SB167) and the fact that some parents are concerned because they want their child to be held accountable and not have an attorney (knowing and intelligent/voluntary waiver of counsel). A report on indigent defense will be released in two weeks. Richard Mauro said that there are similar issues in the adult system and asked if the subcommittee would address that. He indicated that it is hard to imagine that if it is an issue in the adult system that a recommendation to move in a different direction for juvenile offenders would be appropriate. Pam also mentioned that the use of detention for status offenders is an issue and we need to look at how we are addressing status offenders. Peter Stirba made the motion that the Commission direct that the Juvenile Subcommittee come back to our

December meeting with a recommendation that the Commission can vote on with respect to the guideline dispositional matrix. Craig Barlow seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Peter Stirba made the motion (referencing the statutory references and aggravating and mitigating circumstances

that relate to sex offenses in the juvenile system) that the Juvenile Subcommittee would also come back to our December meeting with their recommendation that we can vote on with respect to those factors. Craig Barlow seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Peter Stirba made the motion that they come up with any legislative priorities that are relevant to this

Commission that are important that the Commission consider, that they would also come back to us in December with their recommendation as to legislative priorities for the 2016 legislative session and for a vote. Al Emery seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Next Meeting The next full meeting of the Sentencing Commission will be on December 2, 2015 at noon, Utah State Capitol Bldg, Senate Caucus Room.

Minutes prepared by Jo Lynn Kruse – Administrative Assistant, CCJJ

SENTENCING COMMISSION MINUTES

Committee Utah Sentencing Commission

Date Time Location

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Noon – 2 p.m.

Utah State Capitol, Senate Caucus Room

Members Present

Patrick Anderson, Judge Mark Andrus, Chyleen Arbon, Craig Barlow, Paul Boyden, Debbie Whitlock for Susan Burke, Darin Carver, Judge Michele Christiansen, Mike Haddon for Rollin Cook, Sen. Gene Davis, Al Emery,

Scott Garrett, Ron Gordon, Rachelle Hill, Rep. Brian King, Richard Mauro, Rep. Marc Roberts, Peter Stirba,

Sheriff James Tracy, Judge Vernice Trease, Pam Vickrey, Christina Zidow

Members Excused

Shima Baradaran, Chief Craig Black, Judge Thomas Low, Judge Julie Lund, Senator Dan Thatcher

Staff & Visitors

Staff: Jo Lynn Kruse, Cuong Nguyen, Dr. Ben Peterson, Ned Searle, David Walsh, Doreen Weyland

Visitors: Krista Airam, Susan Allred, Dan Blanchard, Judge MCullagh, Dawn Marie Rubio, Melanie Scarlet

Agenda Item Welcome – Approval of Minutes Notes Peter Stirba called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. Richard Mauro made the motion to approve the

October minutes. Judge Andrus seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Agenda Item Distribution of JRI Coins (tape 17:20) Notes Ron distributed JRI Challenge Coins which CCJJ developed to recognize those who have participated in JRI and

also as a reminder of the underlying purpose and goals of JRI. Ron and Jennifer thanked the members of the Commission for the significant amount of time and work already provided by the Commission pursuant to HB348.

Agenda Item Dissolution of Inactive Subcommittees/Establishment of Executive Committee (tape 6:00) Notes Peter proposed the dissolution of the following committees which have either completed their work or have no

pending assignments: AP&P Subcommittee, Guidelines Subcommittee, and Anomalies Subcommittee. Paul Boyden and Patrick Anderson indicated that the Anomalies Subcommittee should be retained and had one pending issue yet to be resolved, which is the discrepancy for jurisdiction of restitution between probationers and parolees, as identified in State v Poole. Senator Davis made the motion to dissolve the AP&P Subcommittee and the Guideline Subcommittee. Craig Barlow seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Peter noted that the Justice Court subcommittee has requested to be renamed the Misdemeanor Subcommittee, to better reflect that misdemeanors are not limited to Justice Courts alone. The Juvenile Subcommittee also requested they be renamed the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee, to better reflect the purpose and scope of the subcommittee. Richard Mauro made the motion to change the name of the Justice Court Subcommittee to the Misdemeanor Subcommittee. Judge Christiansen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Christina Zidow made the motion to change the name of the Juvenile Subcommittee to the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee. Rep. Brian King seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Peter proposed that pursuant to the by-laws and in anticipation of the coming legislative session, the Commission create an Executive Committee. Peter noted that the Executive Committee has previously been composed of Paul Boyden and Patrick Anderson in addition to the Chair (Carlene Walker). Peter proposed that the composition of the Executive Committee should be more inclusive of those who are most impacted by sentencing and release decisions for adult and juvenile offenders, as that is the Commission’s statutory charge. While prosecution and defense perspectives are important, the perspectives of the Board of Pardons and Parole, the judiciary, the Department of Corrections, treatment providers, and the juvenile justice system should also be included. Paul Boyden objected indicating the practical concerns in coordinating meetings and attendance with so many people. Paul also objected to the inclusion of two defense attorneys. Jennifer explained that meetings of the Executive Committee occur every Monday during the legislative session, with the Sentencing Commission Executive Committee meeting before noon in her office and then attend the larger CCJJ meeting at noon. Jennifer indicated that if the Executive Committee is composed of a larger group, we will likely need to meet in a room on the first floor of the Senate Building instead of her office and that she would be willing to facilitate a conference call for those who cannot attend in person and also distribute proposed bills prior to the Monday meeting. Jennifer indicated it will likely require more work on her part, but she is willing to do so if that is the will of the body. Peter would speak on behalf of the Commission at the CCJJ noon meeting. Pam would speak on behalf of the Commission in his absence as the Vice Chair. Jennifer would then attend the legislative hearings during the week to speak as a representative of the full Commission on any bills the Executive Committee decides to support or oppose. Jennifer would not speak if we take no position on a bill or where the bill is beyond the scope of our Commission’s purpose. Senator Davis made the motion to approve the following persons proposed by Peter to serve on the Executive

2

Committee: Peter Stirba (Chair of the Commission); Pam Vickrey (Vice Chair of the Commission and Bar Commission juvenile defense attorney); Rollin Cook (Director of Department of Corrections or his designee, Mike Haddon); Chyleen Arbon (Board of Pardons and Parole designee); Judge Trease (Third District Court Judge); Darrin Carver (Juvenile Offender Rehabilitation Provider); Scott Garrett (Juvenile Prosecutor, Statewide Association of Prosecutors); and Patrick Anderson (Director of Salt Lake Legal Defenders). Richard Mauro seconded the motion which passed with one no vote from Paul Boyden.

Agenda Item Report from Juvenile Justice Subcommittee (tape 20:24) Notes Guidelines Proposal – Pam Vickrey stated that the current matrix doesn’t reflect what the sentence actually is

and then discussed the new matrix under discussion. Although the matrix has been under discussion since April of 2014 and the subcommittee is making progress, they are not yet prepared to request approval from the full Commission for actual publication. Pam has meetings scheduled to attend the Board of Juvenile Court Judge’s meeting, the Juvenile Probation Officers’ meeting, and the State Board of Education, all of which are intended to solicit feedback and input before moving forward. Craig Barlow asked what is wrong with the current matrix and whether we really need a new one. Darin Carver said that the new matrix is a more evidenced-based tool and the old one contains boxes like “drug related” or “non drug related” which don’t make a lot of sense to anyone. Pam also explained that aside from juvenile probation, prosecution and defense attorneys don’t actually use the current matrix. The new version is more reflective of what actually occurs in a juvenile disposition hearing. The current one doesn’t even account for all of the risk and needs assessment tools that are in use and the aggravating and mitigating factors were developed in 1997 and updated slightly in 2004. Sometimes an offense takes into account an element of a crime (such as a weapon), and then the matrix counts it again, and then the aggravating factors potentially count it a third time. HB348 didn’t require that we look at the juvenile delinquency history scoring in addition to the adult criminal history scoring, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to critically review the adult guidelines and ignore juvenile guidelines with similar issues. The focus in HB348 was to eliminate double counting and focus on factors relevant to re-offense. That has been the focus of many of the revisions in the new matrix and the aggravating/mitigating factors which Krista Airam’s smaller working group has been working on. There has been a lot of work invested already, but we are still in need of further collaboration, as this could potentially have major impacts system-wide. Pam asked the Commission to delay a vote on the approval of the new guidelines and to instead allow the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee to continue working on the new matrix. The next Juvenile Justice Subcommittee meeting is on January 22, which is after the next full Sentencing Commission meeting so we will likely not have anything for approval until our April Annual Meeting. Legislative Item: incarceration of status offenders - Pam also discussed the issue of status offenders and the

elimination of the valid court order exception (VCO). There will be a meeting to discuss this with the Judges on Dec. 11

th. The reauthorization of the OJJDPA is pending at the federal level and will likely tie future funding to the

elimination of incarceration for juveniles in this situation.

Agenda Item Legislative Items Identified During Revision of Guidelines (tape 6:40) Notes Judge McCullagh, Jennifer Valencia and Dan Blanchard reviewed the following:

Reclassification of traffic, boating and other regulatory Class C’s (retain public safety violations)

Strike FTA & Bail Jumping Offenses

Domestic Violence: add intimate partner definition; allow judicial discretion in ordering treatment; ensure due process in jail release agreements/orders

Supervision: extend “supervised” probation standards to county and private providers; create consistency of standards; clarify modification of terms consistent with Form 10

Restitution: codify State v. Robinson and clarify criminal accounts receivable

Judge McCullagh, Chair of the Misdemeanor Subcommittee, discussed several proposals including substantial revisions to the restitution and supervision statutes. We could propose very specific revisions to address the issues which have been identified during the guideline revision process. We could also streamline both restitution and supervision statutes, which are currently located in multiple different statutes and are somewhat confusing unless one is familiar with the historical development of the Utah Code. Several concerns have been raised that we don’t want any unintended consequences without significant collaboration as to the intent and purpose of such major revisions. Jennifer will follow up with Gary Scheller to determine if a resolution can be reached for this year’s session. Dan Blanchard, Deputy Director of AP&P, explained that “supervision” services in the Code is interpreted by most judges to only apply to AP&P. With the expansion of supervision services to county providers through priority C of the CPIP grant funds under JRI, there is some confusion as to whether other providers will be held to the same standards of evidence-based practices that AP&P is ordered to utilize. In addition, DUI probation/parolees are currently ineligible for earned time credits. They don’t have the incentive other probation/parolees have. Providing some sort of incentive for compliance appears consistent with JRI. Paul Boyden expressed concern regarding NHTSA funds and indicated the DUI Subcommittee of USAAV would follow up on that issue. Jennifer also indicated she would contact Linda Hull and would attend the next CCJJ meeting in order to obtain additional

3

feedback before moving forward on these issues. Jennifer discussed the domestic violence issues identified during the revision process. The guidelines have added intimate partners as a higher degree of severity than other cohabitants. The code currently does not distinguish, but during the revision process we indicated we would pursue a legislative amendment consistent with the guidelines. In addition, mandated domestic violence treatment is an ongoing concern which limits judicial discretion and is also inconsistent with evidence based practices. Christina Zidow made the motion to consider the DV revisions as a priority item. Al Emery seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Jennifer will attempt to locate a legislative sponsor. The remaining issues will be

addressed at our next meeting. Please contact Jennifer with any suggestions and/or feedback on legislative items for discussion at our January meeting.

Next Meeting The next full meeting of the Sentencing Commission will be on January 6, 2016 at noon, Utah State Capitol Bldg, Senate Caucus Room.

Minutes prepared by Jo Lynn Kruse – Administrative Assistant, CCJJ