HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 684

BYRepresentatives Cooper, Holm, Patrick, Valle, Ballard, Crane, Lewis, Zellinsky, Schmidt, Haugen, Hargrove, Heavey, Bristow, Winsley, Todd, Allen, Rasmussen, Kremen, Baugher, Beck, Sanders, P. King, Moyer, Amondson, Brough, Fuhrman, L. Smith, Betrozoff and Rayburn

Revising provisions relating to criminal sentencing.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:     The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (9)

     Signed by Representatives Armstrong, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Appelwick, Hargrove, Heavey, Niemi, Scott, Wang and Wineberry.

Minority Report:     Do not pass.  (1)

     Signed by Representative Brough

House Staff:Bill Perry (786-7122)

Rereferred House Committee on Ways & Means/Appropriations

Majority Report:     The second substitute bill be substituted therefor and the second substitute bill do pass.  (22)

     Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Allen, Belcher, Braddock, Brekke, Bristow, Ebersole, Fuhrman, Grant, Grimm, Hine, Holland, McLean, McMullen, Nealey, Niemi, Peery, Sayan, Silver, H. Sommers, Sprenkle and B. Williams.

House Staff:    Jim Lux (786-7152)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS/APPROPRIATIONS

MARCH 7, 1987

BACKGROUND:

The Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) generally provides for presumptive and determinate sentences for convicted felons.  That is, sentences imposed by judges are to fall within statutorily established ranges, and are to run for a definite period of time known to the defendant at the time of sentencing. The presumptive sentence for a particular conviction is determined by the ranking of the crime as to its seriousness and by the criminal history of the defendant.

An exceptional sentence outside the presumptive ranges is authorized if mitigating or aggravating circumstances exist, and written justification for the sentence is given by the judge.  Sentences (except for orders of restitution) cannot, however, exceed the statutory maximum for the crime even in an exceptional sentence.  The maximum sentence is five years for a class C felony, ten years for a class B felony and life for a class A felony.

Various statutory rules in the SRA determine how much a particular prior conviction counts for purposes of criminal history.  If the current offense for which an offender is being sentenced is escape, only prior convictions for escape count as criminal history.  Only certain serious traffic offenses count for purposes of criminal history.  Those offenses are vehicular assault or homicide, and felony hit and run.  Other-state and federal convictions count as criminal history under the SRA only when they are violent offenses.

Alternatives to imprisonment, such as community supervision or partial confinement, are available as part of an exceptional sentence and also for first time non-violent offenders.  "Violent offenses" include all class A felonies, and certain other felonies.

Multiple sentences for multiple current convictions under the SRA are generally served concurrently.  Also, if the crimes for which an offender is being sentenced are found to "encompass the same criminal conduct", then the crimes are treated as one for purposes of establishing criminal history.  The common law "merger doctrine" prevents separate conviction and sentencing for a lesser crime that is by definition part of a more serious crime for which an offender is being sentenced, when the two offenses were committed in furtherance of the same act.  For example, an offender who is convicted of first degree rape and who kidnapped the victim in order to commit the rape, cannot also be convicted of kidnap because kidnapping is one of the elements of first degree rape.

SUMMARY:

SECOND SUBSTITUTE:  Eluding a police officer is added to the list of "serious traffic offenses".  All prior criminal history, not just prior escape convictions, counts in sentencing for a current escape conviction.  Only prior escapes or failures to return count in sentencing for failure to return from furlough or work release.

Judges are authorized to impose restrictions on an offender's contact with other persons for up to the maximum sentence for the crime of conviction.

Judges are authorized to order school or work release as a part of a sentence of partial confinement.  The sentence may include a requirement to comply with the rules of the school or work release facility.  A violation of the rules may result in immediate transfer to total confinement without court order.

All other-state or federal convictions for felonies count as criminal history under the SRA.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The substitute removes various provisions from the original bill.  The original bill would have defined first degree robbery as a "serious violent offense" which would have increased its weight for determining criminal history.  The original bill would have made the sentences for persons convicted of Level I felonies the same as for Level II felonies if the offender had a certain criminal history.  The original bill made no distinction between escape and failure to return in counting prior convictions.  The original bill would have allowed no contact orders for up to ten years.

SECOND SUBSTITUTE COMPARED TO FIRST SUBSTITUTE:  The second substitute removes several provisions from the first substitute.  The first substitute would have defined certain serious drug law violations as "violent offenses".  The first substitute would have allowed single counting of multiple current convictions only if those convictions merge as a matter of law.  The first substitute also would have authorized inpatient treatment as part of a sentence of community supervision.

CHANGES PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS/APPROPRIATIONS:  Second substitute proposed.

Fiscal Note:    Requested March 7, 1987.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:     (Judiciary)  Art Curtis, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; David Boerner (in part for).

Substitute:  (Ways & Means/Appropriations)  Mike Redman, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

House Committee - Testified Against: (Judiciary)  David Boerner (in part against).

Substitute:  (Ways & Means/Appropriations)  None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:     (Judiciary)  The bill closes various gaps in the sentencing law.  It provides appropriately greater sentences for certain crimes.

Substitute:  (Ways & Means/Appropriations)  Testimony before the committee supported that given in the Judiciary Committee for the first substitute bill.

House Committee - Testimony Against: (Judiciary)  The Sentencing Guidelines Commission should have been given a chance to work on the bill.  The bill will have a large fiscal impact.

Substitute:  (Ways & Means/Appropriations)  None Presented.