SENATE BILL REPORT

SB 5746

This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent.

As of March 4, 2009

Title: An act relating to sentencing provisions for juveniles adjudicated of certain crimes.

Brief Description: Modifying sentencing provisions for juveniles adjudicated of certain crimes.

Sponsors: Senator Hargrove.

Brief History:

Committee Activity: Human Services & Corrections: 2/17/09.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES & CORRECTIONS

Staff: Jennifer Strus (786-7316)

Background: In juvenile offender matters, prior felony adjudications count as one point each on the juvenile disposition grid. Each prior violation, misdemeanor, or gross misdemeanor adjudication counts as one-fourth point. A violation may include any act or omission, which if committed by an adult, that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and is punishable by sanctions that do not include incarceration.

Taking a Motor Vehicle Without Permission – First Degree. If a juvenile is adjudicated of the above offense, the court must impose the following minimum sentence:

Theft of Motor Vehicle or Possession of Stolen Vehicle. If a juvenile is adjudicated of one of the above offenses, the court must impose the following minimum sentence:

Taking Motor Vehicle without Permission – Second Degree. If a juvenile is adjudicated of the above offense, the court must impose the following minimum sentence:

Summary of Bill: The standard sentence ranges are changed for the following offenses.

Taking a Motor Vehicle Without Permission - First Degree. If a juvenile is adjudicated of the above offense, the court must impose the following minimum sentence:

Theft of Motor Vehicle or Possession of Stolen Vehicle. If a juvenile is adjudicated of one of the above offenses, the court must impose the following minimum sentence:

Taking Motor Vehicle without Permission - Second Degree. If a juvenile is adjudicated of the above offense, the court must impose the following minimum sentence:

Appropriation: None.

Fiscal Note: Available.

Committee/Commission/Task Force Created: No.

Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony: PRO: The largest part of this bill is clarification of some of the changes made during the 2007 session in the Omnibus Auto Theft bill. After that bill passed, and juvenile court administrators and courts implemented the changes affecting juvenile offenders, they discovered that the implementation of the bill was not uniform across the state. For example, the portion of the sentence that would require that a juvenile be committed to JRA requires that the juvenile be supervised upon his or her release from JRA. The bill clarifies that the supervision be parole supervision and not community supervision because it is the parole officers that should be doing the supervision not community probation folks. The portion dealing with the use of home detention was interpreted differently across the state. Generally, home detention is not used with juveniles and is understood to mean electronic monitoring or house arrest when applied to adults. Only about half the counties use electronic home monitoring because of a variety of reasons; therefore, in those counties that do not, juveniles were sentenced to incarceration in the juvenile detention facilities and in other counties, juveniles were electronically monitored. The result of this implementation was that some juveniles were treated more strictly than others for the same offense. This bill would assist in making sure the implementation is more uniform across the state.

CON: The juvenile justice system is to be concerned with rehabilitation, and mandatory minimum sentences in the Juvenile Code go against that philosophy. The portions of the bill requiring home detention should remain in the bill and the portions about electronic home monitoring can be removed.

Persons Testifying: PRO: Pete Peterson, Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators.

CON: Don Pierce, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs; Michael Kahrs, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.