Arizona Truth-In-Sentencing Community Supervision Ad Hoc Committee report

              I
I ARIZONA
1 TRUTH- IN- SENTENCING
C
I COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
@ AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT
I DECEMBER 1994
t
C
REPORT ON TRUTH- IN- SENTENCING
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. LETTER FROM SAMUEL A. LEWIS, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, TO GOVERNOR SYMINGTON
11. LETTER FROM DUANE BELCHER, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF EXECUTIVE
CLEMENCY, TO GOVERNOR SYMINGTON AND POSITION PAPER
111. POSITION STATEMENT FROM BOB LEVY, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE OF THE COURTS
INTRODUCTION PAGE 1
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS PAGE 3
NECESSARY COMPONENTS OF A
RELEASEISUPERVISION PROGRAM
PAGE 5
ISSUES NEEDING FURTHER ATTENTION PAGE 10
PROPOSALS PAGE 12
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PAGE 20
1801 WEST JEFFERSON
PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007
( W) W2- 5! 538
SAMUEL A. LEWIS
DIRECTOR
R December 15, 1994
1/ The Honorable Fife Symington
Governor of Arizona
State Capitol
1700 West Washington, West Wing, Ninth Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85007 8 Dear Governor Syrnington:
In compliance with Truth- In- Sentencing, Chapter 255, Section 97, the Arizona Department 1 of Corrections ( ADC) met with the Administrative Offices of the Court and the Board of
Executive Clemency to " devise a plan for and implement the transition of community
C supervision services from the department to the court."
-
The following proposals and agency responses presuppose that the Truth- In- Sentencing
community supervision will be transferred to the Court January 1, 1996. The Arizona 8 Department of Corrections is not in agreement with this transfer and is pursuing a
Legislative initiative for the Department to retain the supervision function for Truth- In-
Sentencing offenders and not transfer that function to the Courts.
Given adequate funding, the Department of Corrections can provide effective and efficient
1 Community Supervision. The comparative projected costs indicate that ADC can provide Community Supervision at a lower cost. This is due in part to the systems currently in
place within the Department, which would need to be duplicated by the Courts. The
4 Department, since it's inception, has provided effective public protection through managing G the supervision of offenders released from prison under any form of Community
Supervision. 8 In the spirit of cooperation and with the clear intention of working with other criminal
justice professionals with the purpose of planning, devising and implementing the most 1 effective and efficient supervision process for the State of Arizona, Departmental staff
served on the Adhoc Truth- In- Sentencing Committee. The Committee identified key
components necessary to provide sound Community Supervision to offenders. Proposals 8 were developed which are included in the following report.
The Honorable Fife Symington C December 15, 1994
Page 2
I believe the Adhoc Truth- In- Sentencing Committee report does not clearly represent the
complexities of the system and the ramifications that will occur if the transfer is
implemented as currently mitten in the law. The Arizona Department of Corrections has
8 completed a position paper which I believe more accurately reflects the concerns associated
with the portion of the Truth- In- Sentencing law dealing with Community Supervision. A
copy of this paper is being forwarded to you under separate correspondence. Should any
of Four staff desire a copy of the report, please contact Mr. Ron hilayes, Legislative
Liaison, at 542- 3133.
8 Enclosure
cc: Members of the Legislature
Administrative Office of the Courts
Board of Executive Clemency
GOVERNOR
DUANE BELCHER, SR.
CHAIRMAN E MICHAEL D. GARVEY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1645 WEST JEFFERSON
SUITE 326
PHOEMX. ARIZONA 85007
( 602) 542- 5656
FAX ( 602) 542- 5680
December 16, 1994
MEMBERS
KATHRYN D. BROWN
TOM FREESTONE
EDWARD M. LEYVA
ANNA MAY RIDDELL
STAN F. TURLEY
DONNA FLANIGAN
E Fife Symington, Governor
State of Arizona
t 1700 W. Washington St., 9th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Governor S- y ming- ton: fi The 43rd Legislature recommended that involved organizations form
a committee to discuss the various options for the responsibility
1 for inmates released on Community Supervision.
rn As Chairman of the Board of Executive Clemency, I have participated
with that committee. I am in agreement with the proposals
8 submitted by that committee to you and to the Legislature with the exception of Proposal # I. This proposal reconunends that the same
agency responsible for supervising offenders upon release from
prison, also be responsible for imposing conditions of supervision
and the revocation process.
Attached to this letter is the position paper that will be
@ submitted to the Truth in Sentencing Ad Hoc Committee which
contains my complete response on Proposal # I. In summary, it
states my belief that assigning revocation responsibilities to
another agency would be duplicative, not cost effective and could
raise what are, perhaps, valid issues of due process.
Sincerely,
Duane Belcher, Sr.
Chairman
attachments
1 cc: Kurt Davis, Executive Assistant to Governor
Sen. Patricia Noland, chair, Senate ~ udiciary Comm. I Rep. Tom Smith, Chair, House Judiciary Comm.
GOVERNOR C MICHAEL D. GARYEY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1645 WEST JEF~ ERSON
SUITE 326
PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007
( 602) 542- 5656
FAX ( 602) 542- 5680
DUANE BELCHER, SR.
CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS
KATHRYN D. BROWN
TOM FREESTONE
EDWARD M. LEYVA
ANNA MAY RIDDELL
STAN F. TURLEY
DONNA FLANIGAN
POSITION PAPER
ON
TRUTH IN SENTENCING AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT
I am in agreement with the proposals of this committee with the
exception of Proposal # l. My reasons for disagreement are as
follows :
1) Proposal 81 as it presently stands is duplicative if
revocations are to be heard by either the Court or the Department
of corrections. The Board and its Hearing officers presently hear
rescission and revocation cases. They will continue to have this
responsibility for all inmates that do not fall under Truth in
Sentencing; therefore, to duplicate this operation in another
agency is neither fiscally nor administratively sound.
2) Utilizing the Department of corrections to hold revocation
and rescission hearings is not sound correctional policy. The
issue of due process becomes cloudy under that type of an
arrangement, particularly when Morrissey v. Brewer ( a benchmark
U. S. Supreme Court case) directs that one of the minimum due
process requirements is that revocation hearings must be conducted
by " a ' neutral and detached1 hearing body such as a traditional
parole board." Further, a recent opinion by the Arizona Court of
Appeals ( Long v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles and Charles
Ryan) ruled that the Department of corrections was constitutionally
deficient in their process of returning appellant to custody by not
providing a hearing consistent with the requirements set forth in
Morrissey. ( See attached court decisions.)
Duane Belcher, Sr.
Chairman
Stanley G. Feldrnan STATE OF ARIZONA
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
POSITION STATEMENT
David K. Byers
Admtntstrat~ ve D~ rector
of the Courts
E The following statement is meant to clarify the Arizona Judicial Council ( AJC) and
Administrative Office of the Courts ( AOC) position on assuming responsibility for community
supervision, and to provide comments concerning some issues noted in the community
supervision committee proposal.
With legislative support over the past decade, the AOC has developed with the 15 I county adult probation departments a viable and highly respected decentralized system of
probation programs and services. Probation officers, who must meet required educational and
training standards, are stationed in communities throughout Arizona. Their primary mission
is to effectively supervise offenders in the community with an emphasis on public protection. ' To support this effort, and in addition to standard probation services, each department offers
a continuum of sanctions, such as intensive probation, specialized caseloads, treatment, literacy
education, community service and restitution. Probation emphasizes supervision, assistance
to the offender, recognition of victims rights, and collection of restitution.
An overwhelming majority of the criminal code ad hoc committee members, including
prosecutors, law enforcement, and legislators, endorsed the transition of community
d supervision to the courts and probation system. The legislature agreed with the ad hoc
committee and passed session law that provided for the transfer of community supervision to
the probation system on or before January 1996. Though the probation departments did not
pursue this assignment, they understand and agree with the logic and benefits of the change
the legislature made.
The A JC supports the legislative decision to have community supervision administered
by the AOC. The AJC understands the benefits of having only one agency supervise
offenders in the community through the adult probation departments. The AJC appreciates
1 timhep lewmoerkn taotfio nth. e community supervision committee in devising a transition plan for
fi The probation departments propose a model of supervision that will afford the highest degree of public protection and potential for success for the former inmates. In order to do
E so the AJC emphasizes adequate funding needs to be available to provide the correct level of
supervision. If the appropriate level of supervision is not available, the AJC suggests that the
transfer of responsibility should not occur.
- - I The community supervision committee raised various issues for consideration and
response by the agencies represented. The AOC's positions are contained within that
1501 WEST WASHINGTON STREET PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007- 3327 602.542- 9300 ( TDD) 602- 542- 9545
committee's proposal. Those issues the AOC agrees with require no further explanation.
Some areas in the community supervision committee proposal requiring further comments by
AOC follow:
Issue 3 90 Day Temporary Release Disagree
This temporary release provision appears to be contrary to the Truth In Sentencing
concept.
Issue 4 Violation of Conditions of Supervision Neutral
The AOC supports the use of a continuum of intermediate sanctions with the
understanding that public safety is essential in the administration of community supervision.
When necessary, the releasee should be returned to prison to serve the remainder of the
community supervision term. Further legal research is needed to determine if an offender
may be returned to prison to serve the full term of community supervision, even after the
offender has completed a portion of the community supervision sentence.
More attention needs to be paid to due process. An Arizona Department of
Corrections ( ADC) revocation agent may not have the right or authority to independently
impose sanctions or return an offender to prison. If the probation departments assume
community supervision, revocations will be conducted either in court or through a court
administered hearing process.
Issue 6 Liability Limits
The AJC took no formal position recognizing that the voting public just rejected
liability limits.
Issue 9 Prerelease Programs Neutral
The AOC takes a neutral position on the funding of pre- release programs. The
funding of such programs depends upon the priorities set by the legislature.
In summary, the adult probation departments are prepared to adjust the current
system to include community supervision with the aim of protecting the public and offering
services to reintegrate released offenders into the community. Over time, as the new criminal
code applies to most offenders sentenced and released, the probation system would primarily
be responsible for the supervision of offenders within the community, and the ADC would be
responsible for inmates incarcerated in prison.
Submitted by,
@& k$ yy Robert N. Levy, Direc or
Adult Services Division
REPORT ON TRUTH- IN- SENTENCING
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FUNCTION
INTRODUCTION
As established by the Forty- First Arizona Legislature ( 1993), community supervision is
that portion of a felony prison sentence imposed by the Court that is to be served in the
community after completing a period of imprisonment [ A. R. S. $ 13- 105 ( 4)]. The term
of community supervision shall be served consecutively to the period of imprisonment and
shall be equal to one day for every seven days of the sentence or sentences imposed
( A. R. S. $ 13- 603 I). The conditions of community supervision shall be established and
modified by the Board of Executive Clemency [ A. R. S. $ 31- 402 ( C)( 5)].
As part of these conditions, the Board of Executive Clemency shall require the prisoner
to pay a monthly supervision fee of $ 30. Additionally the Board may impose any
conditions it deems appropriate to ensure that the best interest of the prisoner and citizens
of the state are served. These conditions may include:
1) participation in a rehabilitation program or counseling.
2) performance of community service work ( A. R. S. $ 31- 418).
Except for those who are sentenced to serve the full period of imprisonment, prisoners
are eligible to earn release credits of one day for every six days served towards the
starting date of their periods of community supervision [ A. R. S. $ 41- 1604.07 ( A)]. The
Arizona Department of Corrections is required to supervise community supervision
offenders until the period of supervision expires. The department may bring violating
offenders before the Board of Executive Clemency [ A. R. S. $ 41- 1604.07 ( D)]. If a
prisoner absconds from community supervision, any time spent before the prisoner is
returned to custody is excluded in calculating the remaining period of community
supervision [ A. R. S. $ 41- 1 604.07 ( F)] . The Truth- in- Sentencing Statute, Chapter 255,
Section 97 further states " Transition of community supervision duties On or before
January 1, 1996 the Administrative Office of the Courts ( AOC), the Department of
Corrections ( ADC) and the Board of Executive Clemency ( BOEC) shall devise a plan for
and implement the transition of community supervision services from the Department of
Corrections to the Court. "
To that end, representatives have worked together in a cooperative relationship toward
the successful implementation of the Truth- In- Sentencing legislation. Staff from AOC,
ADC and BOEC have met on a regular basis to discuss this legislation and identify areas
needing clarification. The working group has examined the areas which they believe will
be unnecessarily difficult to implement and they plan to present several recommendations
for modifications of the law, which are included in this report. This legislation is very
complex since it affects many agencies, thus the coordination of extensive details is both
laborious and crucial. The group has worked very diligently to develop this summary
report which includes: ( 1) Assumptions; ( 2) Necessary Components of Supervision
Programs; ( 3) Issues Needing Further Attention; and ( 4) Recommendations. The group
will continue to work for the smooth execution of the legislation before and after January
1, 1996.
The intent of this report is to:
Describe the critical components the committee believes are essential in a
Community Supervision program.
Identify projected caseloads of Truth- In- Sentencing offenders for the next ten
years.
Determine what objectives can be agreed upon by working grouplagency members
and identify areas of disagreement.
Identify the Community Supervision areas of the Truth- In- Sentencing legislation
which require either clarification or further action by the Legislature.
Identify an agency person who may be contacted to acquire a position paper on
Truth- In- Sentencing proposed modifications from each agency.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
The goal of community supervision is the successful integration of the offender back
into the community while maintaining the community's safety.
Community supervision refers to those offenders whose committing offense occurred
on or after January 1, 1994 and who are subsequently released from prison and
supervised in the community. On or after January 1, 1996 all community
supervision offenders will be supervised by a program administered by the Supreme
Court and implemented by the probation departments.
The Legislature's intent of community supervision was to assist released offenders
to successfully reintegrate into the community by providing them appropriate
services and supervision.
The Legislature will adequately fund the agencies responsible for pre- release and
community supervision in order for these agencies to monitor, supervise and
provide resources to the released offender while safe guarding the community.
Pre Truth- in- Sentencing releasees ( under BOEC, statutory or Administrative
Release) will continue to be supervised by ADC. Offenders sentenced under Truth-
In- Sentencing statutes who are released to community supervision between January
1, 1994 and December 31, 1995 will continue to be supervised by ADC, unless they
have more than 6 months of supervision as of January 1, 1996.
Offenders serving overlapping sentences ( Pre and Post Truth- in- Sentencing) will be
supervised by the community supervision agency.
Supervision of Interstate Compact probationers will be assumed by the probation
departments.
Once the Truth- In- Sentencing inmate is released from imprisonment on any type of
release ( sentence expiration, Earned Release Credit, Temporary Release), the term
of Community Supervision will begin.
The supervising agency will assume all aspects of the community supervision
program to include establishing the conditions of community supervision and
revocation proceedings.
The periods of community supervision will be of sufficient length to provide
meaningful service to the offender and motivate the offender to successfully
participate in the supervision plan.
A continuum of intermediate sanctions will be developed to address administrative
violations of community supervision.
Funds designated for community supervision will be used specifically for
community supervision.
NECESSARY COMPONENTS OF A RELEASE/ SUPERVISION PROGRAM
The following components are necessary in order for a Community Supervision program
to work effectively, by protecting the public and positively impacting the offender, thereby
increasing the likelihood of a successful transition into a crime free community life:
A pre- release class should be available in every prison as mandatory
programming for each offender prior to release.
The curriculum should be standardized and include but not be limited to the following
information:
Overview of Truth- In- Sentencing law
Release process
Release dates
Placement information
Employment
Level of supervision
Counseling/ transitional referrals
Standard and special conditions
Cost of supervision fees
Restitution
Child Support
Substance abuse monitoring
Length of supervision calculation
Violation/ sanctions
Due Process/ return to custody
Supervising officer assignments
Life skills class
A release packet of information should be compiled by ADC staff and
forwarded to the supervising agencylarea 5 months prior to release. The
information should include at a minimum:
Current inmate photo - two copies.
Pre- Release Information Sheet, ADC Form # 7050 1 1 1 15.
Summary Admission Report, ADC Form # 4050000 1 ( Computer generated).
Board of Executive Clemency conditions, if available, one copy.
Conditions of Supervision, ADC Form # 70501071 - one signed copy.
Pre- Sentence investigation report which includes the sentencing document -
one copy.
Criminal History record information.
Warrant and attached information on any type of release revocation within
the past two years - one copy.
Authorization to Release Medical Information, ADC Form # 70400088.
Information related to whether a packet has been initiated and sent to another
state from an institution, requesting transfer out of state under the Interstate
Compact for the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers.
Conditions of Supervision ( standard and special) be imposed prior to release,
which are specific to the offender, to enhance reintegration and community
safety.
A central coordinated system is essential in order to track all release packets
sent from varying prison localities around the state, to the supervising agency.
These release packets should be logged, assigned to the appropriate district
office with due dates established. The results of the pre- home investigations
and proposed release paperwork should be returned to the central area upon
completion, in order for the central coordinating facility to inform ADC who
will authorize a release. ADC will then inform the prison records staff of the
authorized release. The prison staff will notify the supervising agency of the
release date.
It is necessary to establish a system for rerouting the pre- release packets, on
placements recommended for denial, to the central coordinating area to be sent
to another jurisdiction.
Those offenders with no placement or no pre- approved placement should be
identified and monitored so that appropriate special conditions can be imposed
prior to release. The offender will be instructed to sign those special conditions
prior to exiting prison to insure that the offender is aware of reporting
instructions and what behavior constitutes violations. If the offender does not
agree to follow and sign conditions of supervision, the offender will not be
released from imprisonment until the offender's Community Supervision End
Date ( CSED), which equals 15% of the sentence imposed. The Truth- In-
Sentencing community supervision release ( either TR, ERCD or SED) is a
conditional release.
Pre- home investigations should occur prior to release from prison to the
community for the purpose of protecting the public, reducing obvious liability
to the state and increasing the likelihood of a successful transition for the
offender.
Pre- home investigations assure that " special relationships" are not allowed or
created in residential and employment placement. Without pre- home investigations,
offenders, for example, may be living with past victims and/ or childlsex abusers
may be living with children. Further, by completing pre- home investigations and
criminal history checks of the sponsor and other residents, sound correctional
judgement is utilized to disallow involvement with people who possess criminal
backgrounds or the return of an offender to an inappropriate environment. Special
conditions of supervision should be imposed on offenders released with no pre-approved
placement to reduce potentially dangerous situations from occurring which
may increase risk to the public and liability to the state.
Substantive supervision programs have, as standard operation, the completion
of some type of risk and needs assessment instrument which identifies high risk,
high need offenders and establishes minimum levels of contact and supervision
standards for all offenders. This allows officers to utilize their time most
effectively by spending more time with higher risk offenders. This risk assessment
should be completed during the initial contact, and on a regular basis thereafter.
The prison staff shall notify the agency responsible for supervision in every
instance the day an offender is to be released to the community. This
notification allows the field officers to pursue a Warrant of Arrest if needed, should
the offender abscond.
Any effective supervision model includes utilizing and applying a variety of
sanctions prior to completing a warrant of arrest for violations of conditions of
supervision, revoking the offender's release and returning the offender to
prison. In spite of budgetary constraints, a comprehensive list of intermediate
sanctions must be developed, if not already in place, prior to any agency
assuming supervision responsibilities.
A comprehensive, sound community supervision system should include pre-releaselhalf-
way house utilization for both initial transition into the community,
particularly for those offenders who do not have pre- approved placements, and
for those who violate conditions of supervision and require placement in a half-way
back program. These facilities would allow offenders greater support in
programming, detoxification, and a general time out from the mainstream,
which diminishes the number of offenders needing to be returned to prison.
Lack of appropriate community facilities require most agencies to return the
offender to prison since public protection is always a top priority. However,
most individuals change in incremental ways and transitioning is more
successful, if given one or more opportunities to remain law abiding. Utilizing
half- way houses in this manner allows for the optimum use of scarce prison
beds.
A warrant system must be developed to assure that offenders are served a
warrant when necessary.
A system to complete and coordinate due process and revocation hearings must
be developed.
A courierlmail service system must be established to route release packets from
each institution to the supervision agency's central coordinating facility for
distribution to the field supervision offices.
The supervising agent should have access to the information available in the
Adult Information Management System ( AIMS) within the Arizona Department
of Corrections. Although release packets will be sent to the county( ies) when an
offender is released to a placement in that County, some current information which
is available on AIMS is- not currently in the release packets. Officers must have
access to a system whereby, on a need to know basis, they can access inmate
information such as prison discipline, movement history, medical issues, intelligence
etc.
A system needs to be established to manageltransport absconders and other
violators to jail or prison who are arrested in Arizona or out of state on an
Administrative warrant.
A system must be established to track offenders released to detainers to insure
the completion of their community supervision term.
ISSUES NEEDING FURTHER ATTENTION
1 The Interstate Compact ( ISC) for the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers, ARS
3 1- 46 1 is not addressed in the Truth- In- Sentencing legislation. During FY 1993-
1994 ADC supervised a total of 1711 offenders from other states under ISC
supervision of which 1206 were probationers. The end of July 1994, 1276 ISC
probationers were being supervised by ADC. Further, approximately 2648 Arizona
probationers were being supervised in other states. During FY 1993- 1994, 922 ISC
probation and parole cases were denied for supervision in Arizona. A
determination must be made as to which agency will be responsible to
investigate, acceptldeny and supervise offenders coming from other states to
Arizona under ISC. That identified agency will also be responsible to coordinate
the application process and paperwork submitted by offenders desiring to leave
Arizona under community supervision to be supervised in another state. ADC has
opened discussions, through this committee, with the Administrative Office of
the Courts and the Counties to propose the transfer of the Interstate Probation
function from ADC to the Counties. ADC would retain Interstate parole, and
Interstate Agreements on Detainers ( IAD). Additionally, a new ISC rule was
adopted September 10, 1994 which clarifies the number of Deputy Administrators
a state may utilize. The rule as enacted defines that there may be one Administrator
per state and two Deputy Administrators, one for parole and one for probation.
Currently, ADC is responsible for the community supervision of offenders under
Truth- In- Sentencing, once they are released from imprisonment, until the offenders
reach a community supervision end date ( CSED). This function transfers to the
Administrative Office of the Courts on January 1, 1996. The Director of the
Department of Corrections may grant a Temporary Release ( TR) up to 90 days
prior to an inmate's release date, Earned Release Credit Date ( ERCD) or, in some
cases, a Sentence Expiration Date ( SED). The Department is responsible to
supervise offenders on Temporary Release. It appears to be both inconsistent and
impractical for the supervision of these offenders to be split between two agencies
and, as such, this issue warrants further review by the Legislature.
ADC received the following Attorney General's opinion in response to a question
they asked, " If an offender receives multiple sentences, can the court impose a term
of community supervision equal to the sum of all sentences imposed or to the
longest sentence imposed? "
" Pursuant to A. R. S. § 13- 708, multiple sentences imposed by the court must run
consecutively, unless the court directs that they run concurrently and sets forth on
the record its reason for doing so. When the court orders multiple sentences to run
consecutively, the term of community supervision will equal fifteen percent of sum
of all sentences imposed. When the court orders multiple sentences to run
concurrently, the term of community supervision will equal fifteen percent of the
longest sentence imposed. "
There are still questions related to detainers and the community supervision term.
If an offender completes a term of imprisonment and has a detainer lodged by
another jurisdiction, that holds the offender in custody, does the community
supervision term attached to the offender's Arizona sentence run concurrent to the
prison or jail time being served by the offender in the other jurisdiction? Based on
the opinion of the Attorney General, it appears that the community supervision term
would run concurrently to the jail or prison term imposed by the other jurisdiction.
The only instance when the offender would serve the community supervision term
in Arizona, would be if the term of imprisonment and any community supervision
imposed by the other jurisdiction was shorter in length than the community
supervision term imposed by Arizona. In that case, the offender would return to
Arizona under supervision until the offender met a Community Supervision End
Date. This situation needs to be clarified as there will be many cases similar to this
example.
An ombudsmen group should be established to resolve any problems which may
arise between the courts, various counties, ADC and BOEC.
The supervising agency should implement a 24- hour central communication system
to respond to law enforcement inquiries i. e. warrant information, extradition
matters, placement of jail holds, etc.
The Legislature considered legislation to limit the State's exposure to liability
related to Community Supervision ( Senate Bill 1305).
There are several possible solutions to the escalating problem of lawsuits against the
state. One consideration may involve using an existing victims board and system
that could be authorized to make determinations regarding the payment of damages
in appropriate cases.
PROPOSALS
1. The same agency responsible for supervising offenders upon release from prison
shall also impose Conditions of Supervision and complete the revocation process
utilized for those offenders.
Agree Disagree Neutral
Arizona Department of Corrections X
Administrative Office of the Courts X
Board of Executive Clemency X
2. Those offenders being supervised by the Arizona Department of Corrections
prior to January 1, 1996 will remain under supervision with ADC until their
supervision expires unless an offender in this category has more than six
months of supervision left to serve. Those cases will be transferred to the
Court for Community Supervision.
Agree Disagree Neutral
Arizona Department of Corrections X
Administrative Office of the Courts X
Board of Executive Clemency X
PROPOSALS ( continued)
3. The 90 day Temporary Release ( TR) as defined by statute is an important tool
utilized by the Arizona Department of Corrections to manage the behavior of
inmates. If an offender is released on an Earned Release Credit Date ( ERCD)
or a Sentence Expiration Date ( SED) ( for those who do not earn good time
credits) and is granted a TR by the Director of ADC, it will extend the term of
any Community Supervision by up to 90 days.
Agree Disagree Neutral
Arizona Department of Corrections X
Administrative Office of the Courts X
Board of Executive Clemency X
4. If an offender under Community Supervision ( TIS) violates Conditions of
Supervision, the revocation agent may impose a continuum of intermediate
sanctions including revocation and the return of the offender to serve a term
of imprisonment equal to the term of Community Supervision.
Agree Disagree Neutral
Arizona Department of Corrections X
Administrative Office of the Courts X
Board of Executive Clemency X
PROPOSALS ( continued)
5. Modify Truth- In- Sentencing Statute to allow the term of Community
Supervision to be adjusted to reflect a more easily calculated Community
Supervision term as follows:
If a person is convicted of a felony offense and the court sentences the
person to a term of imprisonment, the court at the time of sentencing shall
impose on the convicted person a term of community supervision. The term
of community supervision shall be served cons. e . c utively to the period of
imprisonment.
In the event the person is
sentenced to more than one period of community supervision, the offender
will serve the period of community supervision that is the longest. Periods
of community supervision will not be served consecutively.
2. If the offender has been sentenced to prison for a nondangerous felony, the
court shall impose the accompanying period of community supervision:
a. For a class 2 felony, 12 months
b. For a class 3 or 4 felony, 9 months
c. For a class 5 or 6 felony, 6 months
If the court imposed on aggravated prison sentence, the court may increase
the term of community supervision up to six months.
3. If the offender sentenced to prison for multiple nondangerous felonies or one
nondangerous felony with one or more historical prior convictions, the court
shall impose the accompanying period of community supervision:
a. For a class 2 felony, 18 months
b. For a class 3 or 4 felony, 12 months
c. For a class 5 or 6 felony, 9 months
If the court imposed an aggravated sentence or the offender was convicted
of three or more felonies or one or more historical priors, the court may
increase the period of community supervision up to 12 months.
PROPOSALS ( continued)
4. If the offender has been sentenced to prison for a dangerous offense or
multiple dangerous offenses or a dangerous offense with one or more
historical prior convictions, the court shall impose the accompanying period
of community supervision:
a. For a class 2 felony, 24 months
b. For a class 3 or 4 felony, 15 months
c. For a class 5 or 6 felony, 10 months
If the court imposed an aggravated sentence or the defendant was convicted
of one or more historical dangerous prior convictions, the court shall increase
the period of community supervision up to 12 months.
5. If the offender has been convicted of a dangerous crime against children in
the first or second degree or murder, the court shall impose a lifetime period
of community supervision. If at any time, the offender's community
supervision is revoked, the offender may be returned to the prison for a
period of an additional imprisonment of 5 years, followed by the remainder
of the offender's lifetime period of community supervision. Each subsequent
revocation may result in an additional 5 year period of imprisonment
followed by the remainder of the life time period of community supervision.
A 5 year period of imprisonment may be levied in addition to a term
imposed as a result of a new criminal conviction.
Agree Disagree Neutral
Arizona Department of Corrections X
Administrative Office of the Courts X
Board of Executive Clemency X
PROPOSALS ( continued)
6. Propose legislation to limit the amount of liability for criminal justice officers
when they are carrying out their Community Supervision duties so that they
have qualified immunity.
Agree Disagree Neutral
Arizona Department of Corrections X
Administrative Office of the Courts NO POSITION
Board of Executive Clemency
7. Transfer the responsibility of Interstate Compact Probation Supervision from
the Department of Corrections to the Court.
ADC will continue to supervise post- prison offenders from other states accepted
under the Interstate Compact for the supervision of Parolees and Probationers and
coordinate the process for post- prison offenders requesting transfer of their
supervision from Arizona to other states. Further, ADC will administer the
Interstate Agreement on Detainers. The court will supervise probationers accepted
under the Interstate Compact for the supervision of Parolees and Probationers
coming from other states to Arizona and coordinate the process for probationers
requesting transfer of their probation from Arizona to other states. This separation
allows each agency to manage the population with whom they are most familiar and
most prepared to effectively impact.
Agree Disagree Neutral
Arizona Department of Corrections X
Administrative Office of the Courts X
Board of Executive Clemency X
PROPOSALS ( continued)
8. Funds appropriated for Community Supervision can only be utilized for the
administration of supervision or treatment activities and may not be transferred
or spent for any other purpose.
Agree Disagree Neutral
Arizona Department of Corrections X
Administrative Office of the Courts X
Board of Executive Clemency X
9. The Legislature fund a pre- release prison program that will enable ADC to
implement policy requiring all inmates to participate, prior to being released
under community supervision.
Agree Disagree Neutral
Arizona Department of Corrections X
Administrative Office of the Courts X
I Board of Executive Clemency X
10. Pass legislation and allocate funds for the supervising agency to utilize
community transtional programs for the reintegration of offenders into the
community upon release, and for offenders who violate conditions of
1 supervision and require placement in a more structured program.
. -
Agree Disagree Neutral
8 Arizona Department of Corrections X
I Administrative Offlce of the Courts X
Board of Executive Clemency X
PROJECTED CASELOAD POPULATION
rP ORT SOURCE: ADC - JULY 1994
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
CASES
TOTAL
ISC ISC TOTAL
AZ// ISC
OLD CODE
PAROLE
T. I. S.
PROBATION CASES CASES
COMMITY SUPER VISION CASE LOAD PROJECTIONS
5570
5838
6050
6169
6405
6730
7061
7398
7744
PREPARED BY:
DAR YL R. FISCHER, PH. D.
RESEARCH MANA GER
PLANNING B UREA U
DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT
503
543
583
623
664
704
744
785
825
1021
1052
1083
1114
1138
1169
1200
1230
1261
3965
3480
2755
1631
1039
797
590
406
255
81
763
1629
2801
3564
4060
4527
4977
5403
I
REQUESTS FOR FURTHER
I INFORMATION OR AGENCY POSITION
I PAPERT ON
TR UTH- IN- SENTENCING
I
I CONTACT:
I
I ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS:
Ron Mayes, Legislative Liaison, 542- 3133
t ADMINISTTRATTIZ OFFICE OF THE COURTS:
1 Debra Hall, Program Specialist, 542- 9461
Rick Rager, Program Specialist, 542- 9461
I
1 BOARD OF EXECUTTIZ CLEMENCY:
Duane Belcher, Chairman, 542- 5656
t
TRUTH- IN- SENTENCING
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION COMMITTEE
Duane Belcher Chairman of the Board Phone:
Arizona Board of Executive Clemency FAX:
1645 West Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Audrey Burke Bureau Administrator Phone:
Offender Services Bureau FAX:
1601 W. Jefferson, Rm. 122
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Gary Graham Court Administrator's Office Phone:
Superior Court in Maricopa County FAX:
101 West Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Debra Hall Program Specialist Phone:
Administrative Office of the Courts FAX:
Adult Services Division
1501 West Washington, Suite 344
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Nancy Hughes Bureau Administrator
Community Supervision
363 N. 1st Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone:
FAX:
Marty Krizay Chief Probation Officer Phone:
Yuma County Adult Probation PAX:
145 South Second Avenue
Yuma, Arizona 85364
Bob Levy Division Director Phone:
Administrative Office of the Courts FAX:
Adult Services Division
1501 West Washington, Suite 344
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION COMMITIlEE
Page 2
Carl Nink
Rick Rager
Assistant Director Phone:
Community Corrections Division FAX:
363 N. 1st Aveune
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Program Specialist Phone:
Administrative Office of the Courts FAX:
Adult Services Division
1501 West Washington, Suite 344
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Hon. Ron Reinstein Presiding Criminal Judge Phone:
Superior Court in Maricopa County FAX:
101 West Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Hon. Mike Ryan Superior Court Judge Phone:
Superior Court in Maricopa County FAX:
101 West Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Don Stiles
Dave Storie
Chief Probation Officer Phone:
Pima County Adult Probation FAX:
110 West Congress Street, Eighth Flr.
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Chief Probation Officer Phone:
Pinal County Adult Probation FAX:
P. O. Box 767
Florence, Arizona 85232
Mary Walensa Division Director Phone:
Maricopa County Adult Probation FAX:
201 West Jefferson, 7th Floor
Phoenix, Arizon- a 85003