SENATE BILL REPORT

ESSB 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 Passed Senate, March 9, 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: Senate Committee on Human Services & Corrections (originally sponsored by Senator Hargrove).

Brief History:

Committee Activity: Human Services & Corrections: 2/17/09, 2/23/09 [DPS, w/oRec].

Passed Senate: 3/09/09, 48-0.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES & CORRECTIONS

Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5746 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.

Signed by Senators Hargrove, Chair; Regala, Vice Chair; Stevens, Ranking Minority Member; Brandland, Carrell and McAuliffe.

Minority Report: That it be referred without recommendation.

Signed by Senator Kauffman.

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:

Juveniles charged with a criminal offense and prosecuted in adult court must be prosecuted in adult court for any subsequent offense. This rule applies whether or not the juvenile was actually previously convicted in adult court.

There are three ways by which a juvenile accused of committing an offense can be prosecuted in adult court: discretionary decline hearing; mandatory decline hearing; and statutory exclusion.

Discretionary Decline Hearing. The prosecutor or the juvenile may make a motion requesting that the juvenile be transferred to adult court. The court will set the matter for a hearing on whether the juvenile court should decline jurisdiction in the case. The court may also, on its own motion, set the matter for a decline hearing.

Mandatory Decline Hearing. A hearing on whether a juvenile should be prosecuted in adult court must be held in the following instances:

After the decline hearing, the court may order the case transferred to adult court if it finds that adult court prosecution would be in the juveniles or the publics best interest.

Statutory Exclusion. Adult court jurisdiction is automatic when a juvenile is 16 or 17 years old on the date the alleged offense is committed and the alleged offense is one of the following:

Summary of Engrossed Substitute 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:

Juveniles prosecuted in adult court who are later charged with an offense that is not an offense for which there is an automatic or statutory adult court jurisdiction requirement could be prosecuted in juvenile court for the subsequent offense.

When the statutory exclusion of juveniles to adult court would apply, the prosecutor, the juvenile, and the juvenile's attorney may agree to juvenile court jurisdiction and waive the application of the statutory exclusion. The court must agree to the waiver of adult court jurisdiction and removal of the case to juvenile court. In determining whether to approve the removal to juvenile court, the court must consider the following factors:

A hearing on whether a juvenile should be prosecuted in adult court must be held in the following instances:

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.