HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1457

BYRepresentatives Appelwick, Schmidt, Dellwo, Patrick, Braddock, Belcher, Sayan, Locke, Wineberry and P. King; by request of  Office of Financial Management

Regarding the indeterminate sentencing review board.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:  Do pass with amendment.  (15)

      Signed by Representatives Appelwick, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Belcher, Dellwo, Inslee, P. King, Locke, R. Meyers, Moyer, H. Myers, Patrick, Schmidt, Scott, Van Luven and Wineberry.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (2)

      Signed by Representatives Padden, Ranking Republican Member; and Tate.

House Staff:Pat Shelledy (786-7149)

Rereferred House Committee on Appropriations

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (19)

      Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Grant, Vice Chair; H. Sommers, Vice Chair; Appelwick, Belcher, Braddock, Brekke, Dorn, Ferguson, Hine, May, Peery, Rust, Sayan, Spanel, Sprenkle, Valle, Wang and Wineberry.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (7)

      Signed by Representatives Silver, Ranking Republican Member; Youngsman, Assistant Ranking Republican Member; Bowman, Holland, McLean, Nealey and Padden.

House Staff:      Jack Daray (786-7136)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS MARCH 2, 1989

BACKGROUND:

When the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) was enacted in 1981, Washington changed from an indeterminate to determinate sentencing scheme. Under the indeterminate scheme, the board of prison terms and paroles had jurisdiction over the committed offenders and would decide when the person would be paroled and under what circumstances the offender's parole could be revoked.  The judge would recommend a minimum term but other responsibilities rested with the board. In 1986, the board of prison terms and paroles was redesignated the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board.  The indeterminate sentence review board assumed the responsibility of supervision, parole, and revocation of those persons sentenced to felony offenses prior to July 1, 1984 which was the effective date of the SRA.  The legislature contemplated phasing out the indeterminate sentencing review board as more and more prisoners were sentenced under the SRA.  In 1986, the legislature provided that the board would cease to exist on June 30, 1992 and that all of its powers, functions and duties involving persons sentenced under the indeterminate sentencing scheme would be transferred to the superior courts of Washington state.  The sentencing judge of the county in which the person was convicted would assume jurisdiction over the person.  Prior to this transfer, the indeterminate sentencing board was required to prepare a report on each offender and make recommendations to the superior court regarding the offender's suitability for parole and appropriate parole conditions.  The board was also to provide a detailed implementation plan to the legislature by 1990.  The department of corrections was to assist the judiciary in assuming responsibility for the offenders.

The indeterminate sentence review board currently does not set minimum terms for persons incarcerated under mandatory life sentences.

SUMMARY:

BILL AS AMENDED:  This bill delays until 1998 the termination of the indeterminate sentence review board.  The board will make decisions on terms of confinement, including those relating to persons committed under mandatory life sentences.  The board will fix the duration of confinement, considering what the person would receive for the same offense if the person had been convicted under the SRA, except for those persons committed for life without the possibility of parole.  The board shall also consider the statements of the sentencing judge, prosecutor, victim, and investigative law enforcement officer.  The board will prepare a report on each offender.  The bill eliminates the transfer of the offenders to the superior court judges.  Instead, the bill provides that the governor, through the office of financial management, shall develop alternative recommendations for carrying out the board's duties.  The recommendations must be presented to the legislature by 1997.

AMENDED BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The original bill required the board to obtain the sentencing judge's and prosecutor's updated statements when the board considers setting a person's minimum term.  The amended bill also requires the board to consider any submitted victim's impact statement and the investigative law enforcement officer's statement.

CHANGES PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS:  The substitute bill requires the board to consider statements of victims or their representatives and law enforcement in setting terms of confinement, and adds an appropriation of $316,000 from the general fund.

Appropriation:    (Added by Appropriations) $316,000 to the Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board from the general fund.

Fiscal Note:      Available.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    (Judiciary) Judge Harold Clarke, Spokane County Superior Court Judge; Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor; Donna Schram; Judge Anne Ellington, King County Superior Court Judge; David Boerner; Tana Wood, Department of Corrections; Bob Stalker (in part), Evergreen Legal Services.

(Appropriations)  Kathyrn Bail, Chair, Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board; Donna Schram.

House Committee - Testified Against:      (Judiciary) Bob Stalker, Evergreen Legal Services (in part).

(Appropriations) None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    (Judiciary) Continuing the ISRB until 1998 will help a smooth transition of prisoners held under the old system into the new system.  The ISRB is better equipped than the superior court judges to continue to perform the functions of the ISRB, particularly regarding the violent and serious offenders still incarcerated under prior law.

(Appropriations)  Supported bill as reported from Judiciary Committee; approach to bill was from executive, not Board initiated.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (Judiciary) An alternative option is to convert all minimum terms to determinate terms.  This option would be cheaper, merge the two systems sooner, and add a degree of certainty to inmates.

(Appropriations) None Presented.