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 for
other purposes.
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 in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
|
SPONSOR: |
Martinez |
DATE
TYPED: |
2/05/03 |
HB |
243 |
||
|
SHORT
TITLE: |
Mandatory
Sentencing of Habitual Offenders |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Chavez |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated Additional
Impact |
Recurring or Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Narrative |
Recurring |
General Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate
Expenditure Decreases)
Conflicts
with HB 117 and SB 16
Administrative
Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
Adult
Parole Board (APB)
New
Mexico Corrections Department (CD)
Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC)
LFC
Files
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House Bill 243 amends Section 31-18-17 NMSA 1978
providing for a suspension or deferment of an otherwise mandatory sentence upon
a finding by the court that justice will not be served by imposing a mandatory
sentence of imprisonment and that there are substantial and compelling reasons,
stated on the record, for departing from the sentence imposed. The bill allows for the suspension or
deferment of a violent felony.
Additionally, the bill allows the use of prior convictions regardless of
their age. The effective date of the
provisions of this act is July 1, 2003.
Significant Issues
Significant
issues addressed by the Corrections Department (CD) include:
1.The bill could result in a reduction in the number of persons
sentenced to department prisons which would translate into a reduction in costs
to the department because of the lesser number of prison commitments and
smaller prison population.
2.
If a significant number of persons with prior felony convictions are not
sentenced to prison the result may be a lack of deterrence and a continuance of
additional crimes against the general public.
Consequently, this could lead to longer prison sentences and result in
increased cost to various other criminal justice agencies, including the
police, prosecuting agencies, the public defender and the courts. It is possible that mandatory prison terms
for habitual felony offenders have contributed to the recent reduction of crime
rates.
3.
Of particular concern to the CD is that the bill could be interpreted to allow
inmates who are convicted of committing certain felonies while in prison to
receive a sentence that would not involve additional prison time.
The
bill creates more judicial discretion by providing flexibility to suspend or
defer what would otherwise be mandatory sentences.
FISCAL
IMPLICATIONS
The bill contains no appropriation. There will be minimal administrative cost for
statewide update, distribution, and documentation of statutory changes.
The CD indicates costs could be reduced if the
court suspends or defers the imposed sentence.
The Administrative Office of the Courts states
the fiscal implications on the judiciary will directly follow the amount of
hearings generated by this amendment.
The Administrative Office of the District
Attorney (AODA) feels the fiscal impact will be significant on the criminal
justice system. If a repeat offender is
no longer facing mandatory time under the Habitual Offender Statute, there will
be fewer reasons for that person to enter a plea, thus forcing more cases to go
to trial. This would increase the needs
of the prosecutors, public defenders and courts for more personnel to handle an
increased trial load. As the number of
cases set for trial increase, it will take longer for cases to be resolved, possibly
resulting in longer pre-trial confinement, thus impacting jails throughout the
state. Even if a defendant were to enter
a plea, under this bill, there would be the need to have a sentencing hearing
so that both sides can present evidence and/or argument to the court about the
types of sentence the defendant should receive.
Under the current statute, such a hearing is not necessary as the
sentence is mandatory. However, the
removal of the ten year requirement for prior felonies would help reduce the
costs of determining when a sentence was completed.
ADMINISTRATIVE
IMPLICATIONS
The administrative implications
on the CD depends on the frequency of judicial discretion providing for
the suspension or deferment of sentences.
The AODA indicates it would need additional FTE’s to handle an increasing
caseload of offenders with prior convictions.
If crime continues to rise, the number of FTEs will need to increase
over time.
CONFLICT
House Bill 117 and Senate Bill 16 conflict with
this bill because they amend different language within Section 31-18-17 NMSA
1978.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
FC/ls