[1]NOTE:
As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the
standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative
Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information
in this report when used in any other situation.
Only the most recent
FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the
LFC’s office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
|
SPONSOR: |
Sanchez |
DATE TYPED: |
02/05/02 |
HB |
431 |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Serious Youthful Offenders Age Designation |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Dunbar |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY02 |
FY03 |
FY02 |
FY03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$956.0
(See Fiscal & administrative Implications) |
Recurring |
General Fund |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure
Decreases)
Children Youth and Families Department (CYFD)
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
Attorney General’s Office (AGO)
Public Defender
(PD)
NM Corrections Department (NMCD)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House
Bill 431 amends the Children’s Code NMSA Chapters 31, 32 and 32A to change the
definition of a “youthful offender” and “serious youthful offender” (these are
generally the children charged with the more serious crimes subject to adult or
juvenile sanctions) to include a child from age thirteen to eighteen rather than age fifteen to eighteen. The
specific sections of the code relating to fourteen year olds are deleted. (NMSA
31-18-15.2 B.3 and 32A-2-3 I.2)
Significant
Issues
The Public Defenders Office reports that lowering the age of adult penalty would expose younger juveniles to the significantly more expensive adult venues and trials.
There is no
appropriation in the bill.
The Public Defender ‘s estimates personnel cost
of $606.0 (see administrative implications below) plus added contractual costs
of $200.0 and expert witness costs at $150.0.
NMDC states that
the bill could result in minimal increases in costs to the Department as a result
of the additional commitments to Department prisons and probationary
supervision.
The private prison annual cost of incarcerating an inmate based upon Fiscal Year 01 actual expenditures is $22,787 per year for males. The cost per client to house a female inmate at the privately operated facility in Grants is $24,480 per year. Any net increase in inmate population will be housed at a private facility.
The cost per client in Probation and Parole for
a standard supervision program is $1,381 per year. The cost per client in
Intensive Supervision programs is $4,785 per year. The cost per client in Department-Operated
Community Corrections programs is $5,558 per year. The cost per client in Privately-Operated
Community Corrections programs is $10,746 per year.
The Public Defender’s Office indicates that they
would need to hire at least ten new PD 3 attorney slots (one for each office
and appellate).
Youthful
offender cases can be some of the more difficult cases addressed by the
juvenile justice system. To the extent that more children are charged as
“youthful offenders” or “serious youthful offenders,” this may increase the
workload for the juvenile justice system.
The AGO reports
that the bill could impact the Criminal Appeals Division by increasing the
number of appeals from adult dispositions of youthful offenders and serious
youthful offenders. The impact would
probably not be substantial.
The bill
could result in an increased administrative and program burden for NMDC due to
the larger prison population and higher probation caseloads. Also, NMDC could be required to provide some
sort of special counseling or protection to juveniles at the age of thirteen
(13) or fourteen (14) years of age.
CONFLICT
AOC notes that HJM 46 proposes to study the entire Children’s Code, and perhaps the issue addressed in this bill could be best included in that study. There may be substantive issues raised to include a child of thirteen in the definition of “youthful offender” and “serious youthful offender” because of their young age. For example, it may be wise to study the possibility of including special review procedures for periodic review of a case involving a thirteen-year-old found to be a serious youthful offender.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The Public Defenders
Office indicates that juveniles are entitled to special
protections and leniencies under the law precisely because their maturity and
decision making development are not that of an adult.
The PD Office suggest that an interim
legislative committee should study the issues as they are presented in New
Mexico and that the committee should recommend policy changes - if they are
needed. Corrections oversight and
criminal Justice committee or the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Coordinating
council may be able to assist this committee.
[1]Begin typing on the * in replace mode. Do not add or delete spaces.