Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Good morning. It is March 10. Many oh, yeah. Sorry. It's gonna fill up. Okay. We are, having our first committee meeting spec after, town meeting week, And we are speaking of S-one 181. We have alleged counsel here, but this is a short bill. But we have some witnesses here who will be testifying on it. And Michelle, the floor is always.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. So good morning. For the record, Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel, and we're looking at S-one 181 as introduced. So I know this committee has dealt with deferred sentences before in various ways, but I'll just give you a little kind of recap reminder about what deferred sentences are. So essentially deferred sentences is a sentencing option whereby a court defers imposition of the sentence, so there's an adjudication of guilt, but they don't impose the sentence and rather place the defendant off the agent. And so typically that's done between a written agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant. However, a court can do it without that written agreement between the parties in certain circumstances, but not for list of crimes. In both instances, a pre investigation is required. I'm sure some of the other witnesses can talk to you more about what's entailed in a pre sentence investigation. I'm sure the chair probably is more familiar than I am with it, but I also, but I do have some materials on from DOC that kind of outline the policy for PSIs and I can provide that link to Emory if you're interested on that. But essentially PSI is like an investigation that's done by DOC to provide background information to the court in making a sentencing determination. And so right now in the statute, you'll see when we walk through the language that, like I said, pre sentence investigation is required prior to imposing a deferred sentence. Just as a reminder, if the defendant successfully completes their term of probation, then adjudication of guilt is struck and, the person is discharged and the records related to that particular offense are expunged. That's that kind of one area that you didn't change last, well two areas was diversion and deferred sentences when you did your big ceiling bill last year. So deferred records related to an offense that somebody successfully completes the first sentence, is expunged. But if they violate probation, the court is required, it's shall language, it's required to impose this. So it's kind of like, here's your shot, you can apply for probation and certain conditions of probation that are related to your offense. If you do that, then you're discharged, your guilt is distraught, and your records are fixed by. If not, then you're going insert a sentence. So if you look at the language, as the chair mentioned, it's pretty short. So we're working in title 13 in the chapter regarding sentences, and so you see it's amendment to section seventy-forty one for deferred sentence. Subsection A addresses the default, usual circumstances where the court can defer a sentence if there's a written agreement between the defense and the prosecution, and you'll see it striking the language on line fourteen and fifteen of a requirement that there's a PSI done prior to imposition of the sentence. Subsection B is where I talked about the option for the court to still issue a deferred sentence even when there's not an agreement between the prosecution and the deferred, but the court can't do it in cases of listed crimes. And you'll see on page two in subsection B the language related to the PSI is struck, that's in subdivision three where the current requirements at the court orders of the PSI. And then subdivision five, that prior to doing the DEFERF and the forecast review of the DSI and the victim impact statement with the party. And I'm wondering whether or not it's a policy decision for you, but I don't think I had noticed before that the PSI and the Victims Impact Statement are there, so you left Victims Impact Statement in Subdivision 4, so you can remind me when I'm not describing so recent events investigate on line 11.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I noticed that earlier too.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thanks, sorry, I didn't catch that earlier. And then the rest of the changes there are just some little technical amendments that I added there for clarification.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Michelle, just to make sure the process is, understood here. This this would not apply to non sorry. This yeah. This wouldn't apply to listed offenses. This change. Right?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, you couldn't you couldn't do a deferred sentence for like, can't the court can't do it on its own for listed crimes. There can be an agreement between the prosecutor and the defense to if it was a listed crime. But this proposal here is taking out the PSI in both instances.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: For For the listed offenses as well, when?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No distinction subsection A around what can be if there's an agreement between the prosecutor and the defense. That's not limited to certain offenses. Alright, does that follow? And so, we can craft it however you want. But just this language right now is just taking out the requirement for a PSI at all circumstances prior to issuing the defer. The only distinction around like with listed crimes is that the court can't order one over the objection of the state's attorney for a lesbian crime. And then you have certain offenses in subsection C that are just out no matter what. So you could, you know, we could do, if you wanted to and you just made it, you could structure it so that you just say in terms of listed crimes, which again it could only be under subsection A. If it's listed crime there has to be the PSI and if otherwise you don't have assign it. Yeah,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: because I'm rereading it though. Back to me. So yeah, I would tend to lean in that direction that there would be the requirement for a PSI for listed offenses. Non listed offenses, After an adjudication, then the judge can impose a deferred sentence without requiring a GSI. That's what I was trying to get at.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, sure.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Morse, do you have a question?

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, think you made a decision. So what this is saying is upon adjudication of guilt and so forth, for the non listed offenses, even though the state's attorney and the defense has agreed upon this, can a judge in his or her own power still say, no, we're going go with the PSI anyways, I'm on the PSI. Does that still give them

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: the ability to do that?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You know, that would probably be a question for the court. And look, I would think that they could, that there's no reason why they couldn't request one, but I'm not entirely, you probably want to talk to the practitioners about the regularity for PSIs, that sort of thing.

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: Because it says to be able to host a clinic it's a requirement, but

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: still to sit. Right.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: Thank you.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. And I was gonna say just based on the chair's question there about that, you you might want to just put something in there even if it is something that the court can, you know, ask for anyway. You might just want to put something affirmatively in there with the removal of this language.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, that's one thing I was thinking. But really, the underlying point is to try to allow a bit more discretion for a judge to impose a deferred sentence without necessarily requiring a waiver from the state's attorney after the case is over and after all the evidence of the scene. Because, well, I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I think it's something that just clears up a little bit of the bureaucracy for the lack of justice, when a judge may see that a deferred sentence is appropriate. Any other questions, Michelle?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, so let me just review with you what I think that you want in the amendment and item of guidance from witnesses, which is just a clarification, so on subsection A what I'm going to do is break it out, is that PSI would only be required for listed crimes. Yeah. When there's an agreement between the defense and the prosecution. Subsection B, it would still be out as it is on page two in subsection B, although I would on subdivision five just unstrike and the victims of that statement with parts and something like that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I'll add something just clarifying that the court is on

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the square feet. Excellent. You. Next up we have John Zona.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. Good morning, Judge.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Tom Zone, Chief Superior Judge. The bill S-one 181, I've listened to the testimony and your questions. It's important to keep in mind that if you go forward the way it's written, which and senator Norris, you asked the question. Yes. The judge can still require it. In fact, under 28 VSA section two zero four, there are specific requirements for judges being able to order PSIs. There's also components that you don't have to order one. Oftentimes, the parties will agree to move forward without a PSI, and in this situation, you're talking about, for instance, listed crimes. Well, stalking is a listed crime, as is domestic assault, and so they're misdemeanors, but a judge could still require a PSI. However, if you went forward the way your draft is, parties could say, look, we don't need a PSI, we don't need, DOC is busy, we don't need them to do this, we have enough information, it's an agreement to a deferred sentence, we don't need a PSI. And so I would just, I think it's a policy decision for the committee and the legislature, but the fact that you don't require it doesn't mean that it's never gonna happen. A judge can say, I want one. As far as the second section, subsection B, that came in years ago when the legislature made a policy decision to allow courts to be able to impose deferred sentences over the objection of the state for certain crimes that were not listed crimes, and so you cannot impose a deferred sentence for a listed crime unless both parties agree. The practical import of how the changes under the bill would affect that section, I think, can be best illustrated by comments that were made during my retention in 2019. In 2019, I sitting up, I was up for retention, and one of the evaluations pointed out that, it was a DOC employee apparently, said something like, I work for DOC, and it said nice things about me. It said, but he orders PSIs for misdemeanors, and we don't need to be doing PSIs for misdemeanors. And senator Benning looked at me and smiled and said, did you order PSIs for misdemeanors? And I said, yes, and I can tell you why. And it was because of this statute, because what was happening was the court I was in, there was difficulty sometimes between the parties moving ahead with cases. There was the potential from the facts that someone might well be a situation where they would possibly qualify for a deferred sentence after a sentencing hearing. And sometimes, oftentimes, the state would say, no, we're not going to agree to waive the PSI. We're gonna require DOC to do the PSI. And so DOC would have to do a PSI for cases of unlawful trespassers, things like that. And so DOC was saying, Why are we doing that? And the simple answer was because it was required for the court to be able to consider this. The court could not get to a potential deferred without that. And so, you know, I I take no issue with these changes. I think that the changes provide flexibility to the court. It has the potential to actually assist judges in moving the backlog in ways that we can't now because a deferred sentence is something that if the parties are willing, if the judge is going to consider it and the state won't agree to it, we don't sometimes need a PSI depending on the specific facts of the case if the parties can get the court sufficient information. And in the cases where the judge believes there's questions and wants additional information, having it as a requirement to be filed does not remove, again, the ability of the judge to order it.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. That's helpful. So I guess the one question I'll ask is with the proposed changes that we were just discussing. Well, first it sounds like you may not need that affirmative language based on what you just got to find, the affirmative language saying that the judge can still request a PSI.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: That's my I think that, you're correct. Under rule 32 of the rules of criminal procedure, there's provisions there that talk about, pre sentence investigations. And again, under title 28, section two zero four, the law does talk the statutes do talk about PSIs. And so you have to read them all together. And the fact that this doesn't require it, I don't read that it means that the judge can't order it under the other statutes and we still can move ahead.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. And the second question, with the other proposed changes, generally speaking, do you think that the bill would create more efficiency in the courtroom to help clear the fact when the other changes were implemented?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: When you say other changes, are you talking about that you still need one for the

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: List defense.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: List of defenses?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Unless the state agrees to waive it, yeah.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: I think it would. That removes a whole category of cases that you have to have it done by statute. So I think the more of a requirement that you take away, the greater flexibility for the parties to take care of the cases in a more timely fashion based on the specific facts of the case. Because again, every case is not a one size fits all model that requires a PSI. The parties may know the individual. There may be under title 28, section two zero four, if there's been a PSI done a year or two before in a case, you're not required to have a PSI in a case, but here it would still require it you're saying you still have to do it, even though everyone agrees what we just didn't want a year ago, we don't need another one.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, actually one last question. So before sentencing, is it fair to say that a judge would have all of the information that they need to determine whether or not a deferred sentence is appropriate without necessarily needing the PSI?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Sometimes. There are circumstances where I think the parties would agree that they have sufficient information and they're comfortable going forward, not all the time. And in those circumstances, the judge would be able to say, No, I think that we need a PSI.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Maybe any questions for Judge Silane? Thank you judge.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Thank you have a great day take care.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Morning. Morning.

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: Hi. Hey. Bob, it's Matt. Don't know what you want me to say about this. I know a lot about this particular section of the law, because during my twenty five years in this, it's been amended four times, five times. The way it currently sits is a result of compromises over a period of years where, you know, when when I was first the the purchases of the rapper eons. So that's not a that's nothing new. Every most every state, I think every state has something similar to it. They call it something different. But, you know, effectively, how you plead to something, you might be already run probation or no supervision at all and for a period of time, you don't do anything wrong, the charge gets dismissed and the record is, either sealed or expunged. Many states have the opportunity to request one of, either the the current sentence or something like it over, you know, without consent of the state's attorney. When I was first DG and when I was practicing regularly in the courts, the law did not have that option. And over the years, it was one of the things that where the statute was amended to allow a defense to request a file a motion with the judge to request that the court oppose a deferred sentence over the objection of the state's attorney, and then the court could decide whether it was appropriate or not. There was a lot of consternation over about a five year period as opposed to whether that should occur and under what circumstances, what cases, what things might be excluded. And you see some of that in the statute. And one of the things that previously, there was never a requirement with a deferred sentence that there'd be there were no exclusions, number one. And number two, there were there was no requirement that p PSI ever occur. But as part of the compromise, ultimately legislatively, because I don't think that the over the time, the state's attorneys never consented to having, you know, the consent decree of the state's attorneys ever. But to kind of draw them a bone, the so what if we give you you know, what if we require a PSI in in cases? That's one of the things that was put in there, that there were certain things that were excluded. So historically, if you go back, you know, more than twenty five years, deferred sentences didn't require BSI. But it was something that has came came in during the course of this evolution of the deferred senate statute, to what we have now. What I am understanding, and I don't wanna speak for the state's attorneys or at least all state's attorneys, but both sides, prosecution and defense, understand that there are some cases where you just don't need a PSI to to do a a deferred sentence. And requesting one just, you know, increases the likelihood that the plea agreement might fall apart. It, you know, takes a long time for now it's even worse for Department of Corrections to produce PSIs, given their shortage and, you know, stabbing and the like. And again, I'm not speaking for all states attorneys or any per se, but I know I've had personal conversations with individual states attorneys who are like, don't need this. It's really just kinda tying things up because we're waiting on PSIs that we really don't need. We know what we need to know about the case and we wouldn't be doing this going forward in the past now. So I think as a practical matter, there's some level of agreement. I don't like, don't wanna speak for state's attorneys that between lawyers who do these cases that PSIs are not required in every case. And as I got the end of judge testimony, he says, we're, you know, one size doesn't fit all, and there are cases where you don't need it. That having been said, judge can always order a PSI anytime he or she wants one. So there would be nothing preventing a PSI from being ordered by the court if the court says, I before I send this plea agreement, I want more information. And the parties can, you know, do what they need to do to either support the plea agreement or argue their motion or they overturned objection states turning. So, you know, from my perspective, this is all this is doing is kind of going back to historically what we we had. You know, there was, you know, the arguments at the time, and I understand people, you know, carving out their political space in these in these discussions. You know, state attorneys talked about, you know, the whole system's gonna grind into the hall. Pencilers are gonna file the request for deferred sentences in every case, blah blah blah. And, you know, a bunch of other arguments and none of that that pertained to the past just because, you know, I mean, we haven't said at the time, you know, we have motions to dismiss and suppress that are available to us all the time. We don't file those in every case. You know, we file in the cases where it's appropriate. Then there are some that are close cases and that's what we litigate about. That's what employers are there for. None of that actually happened. So these these kind of incentives or kind of political bones that were thrown to satisfy some of the concerns early on. The concerns have been in the past, I don't see a reason why we can't go back to what we had. In fact, state's attorneys, some of whom who I have spoken to have also agreed to kind of let the lawyers do the lawyer and and make a decision about what's a good resolution in the case and the judge approves it and understands of what what an ex side is saying to for a case to have a deferred sentence. There's some number of cases that don't require a sentence investigation. So I don't have any problems with the bills. And to me, it's, really just going back to you know, it it goes back to the time when I was practicing regularly or being interested in the courts. And and so, you know, I I always say that, you know, September August 2001, my career went into suspended animation. So I remember everything that happened before, you know, August of of two thousand one, and everything that happened after that is like what happened to the legislature since then. To me, this is just going back to the way I used to practice, And I was comfortable with that. And at the time, I wasn't picking legislatively at all. I was just like, okay. That's the law I want to do is. And and that's the way we've worked. States attorneys didn't have any issues with it at the time, but, you know, I don't and I I regret it. You know? It's funny for her to testify, I don't know what they can say. But I to me, this is just going back to the way I was used to practicing it seems to represent a recognition that it wasn't a good liability to decide to resolve cases and that they see appropriate. And if the judge has concerns about it, they can always say, no, I really want be a silent case. So it doesn't limit any options to the court. It gives flexibility to the parties, and it goes back to something that has historically been done for decades. So I don't see a problem.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Makes sense.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: for your time. Much. Quick question. Matt, so you said you wouldn't have any problem with Bill. Is it fair to say you support the book? Sure. And I

[Matthew Valerio (Defender General)]: will say too, as things are right now, there's nothing terrible going on. This just kind of tweaks it. I think gives a little more flexibility to the parties to do what they want to do with cases and doesn't really take anything from the courts, power, ability to get more information with a PSI if they want to.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Any any other questions? Okay. Great. One quick second. Sorry. It's one quick second. It's my can you reach out to Kayla Summers and see if anybody on probation or parole might be able to testify on this. That would be amazing, but if not, just at some point within the week, if there's availability, we'll carve out twenty or thirty minutes somewhere. It's okay, sorry about that. Laura's opening this.

[Ms. McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Oh, well. Good morning, everyone. For the record, Jim McFinnett's Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. Thank you for having us in on S1E1. I'm gonna echo the last statement, I believe, that the defender general just made. We don't know what the problem is out there. We agree that KSI's are not even for all of the non listed offenses, and that's why we often will agree not to need one. And that's currently in statutes that we can meet the requirement for the PSI. We're not aware of this issue that we're demanding these and unreachable in excess. The state's attorney believes that the PSI is needed, there's a reason for that. And so, we're unaware of what the issue is. One thing we did wanna highlight for the committee is a reminder that our listed offenses, and we've created this list historically around offenses. Outside of our big 14 are our most heinous crimes in terms of personal victim injury, but there are a number of statutes that fall outside of the, that fall into this non listed category. We just wanted to remind the committee of that. A few of them, I don't mean this to be sensational, certain non listed offenses are misdemeanors, sorry, not misdemeanors and felonies, domestic terrorism, possession and use of weapons of mass destruction, willful and malicious, injured by explosives, the entire chapter 64 of sexual exploitation of children, which is possession of child one, use for child and a sexual performance, etcetera, etcetera. So those are offenses that would fall into this, that potentially deferred could be offered without the pre sentence investigation. As Judge Soni testified and the Defender General testified, the court could of course, follow order of that. But we just don't understand why we would want to take away the state's attorney's discretion there. Again, if the state's attorneys are probably aware that a PSI is needed, then they will waive it. But if they haven't waived it, they have a reason. And so just this override of that discretion, we do oppose that. And again, without knowing a reason why, take it away. The other piece, and I was comforted by what Judge Zone said, for his interpretation of the first section, Section A, this would be for all the listed offenses. This is when the prosecutor and the defense are bringing on this that implicit in that agreement, the PSI could be part of that agreement, if that's required. So we don't believe that any further language is needed there. If you take, currently it strikes the filing of the PSI, with this assumption being made, and again, based on what Jim and I said that, that wouldn't preclude a PSI from being needed as part of that agreed treatment, if that makes sense.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think so. Let me just say it back, just so I fully understand it. So the, What you're saying is that the PSI could still be ordered if both of the parties agree that the PSI could be ordered.

[Ms. McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: It's needed for the agreement to move forward, which I would think so. I just wouldn't want to inadvertently And I think that was what you were raising earlier of this is somehow accidentally taking out the ordering of a PSI for a list of offenses. And I don't believe it is. I don't believe that's to be a 10.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No, the I mean, I think that if both of the parties came to an agreement that they wanted the PSI as part of the deferred sentence, I mean, I don't want to speak for the judges, but I don't suspect that they would say no, they're not going to have the PSI.

[Ms. McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: And similarly on the flip side, again agreeing with both the judiciary and the defender general, there are instances of certain listed offenses where if the parties agree, they may know the background really well of that decision, then they could agree to move forward with the deferred without the PSI. And I think that made sense. It's important for that flexibility of the practitioners. The other thing I just wanted to highlight for the committee just to consider when they're looking at this. With the deferred, just a reminder that when the PSI is done upfront, so to speak, we have it. The deferred is imposed, meaning the defendant is now on probation with conditions. That PSI report often will help craft what those conditions are, what DOC believes are the appropriate conditions, and sometimes we're arguing over those probation conditions, so a report can be very helpful with that. The other piece is if, say, six months into that probationary period, the individual violated their probation, and that court finds that they violated, and then go to an imposed sentence. The PSI's already done, so then impose that sentence. We don't have to have a delay on the back end if at that point the court wanted more information. When earlier said that this could help with the backlog, maybe. But again, remembering that if the court wanted, that they don't, for misdemeanors, the court doesn't need those particular requirements for a PSI, court felony it does, but the court may want that information before closing sentence, and that would cause a delay on the back end. And if we already have the report done, again, if it's circumstances where the state's attorney believes that it's needed, why would we wait without being able go right to start the second at the end? So, we don't believe we need to remove the discretion. We appreciate the content that potentially is making things more flexible for the practitioners. I think implied in that is that there is some inflexibility happening from the state's attorney's department. But again, we are not sensitive to any specific examples of that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. Committee, any questions?

[Ms. McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Okay. Thank you. Thanks. How

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: do we, feel generally about this bill?

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: I missed Judge Zomme's testimony. Can we characterize that?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I would characterize it as, Judge Zommey suggests that it would be helpful in clearing the backlog. It's not like a

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: Big deal.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, it's not a magic pill that's gonna fix everything, but it is one pretty minor and narrow that could clear up some of the workload that gets imposed on DLC and having to do these pre sentence investigations for pretty minor offenses. Unless the state's attorney waives it. So that's yeah. So

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: it would make it would not be the default to have a PSI. It would be more like in an unusual instance or in the subset of cases that Ms. McMahon just talked about domestic terrorism, etcetera. The judge could order of the SI in those cases and this wouldn't prohibit that. Correct. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I mean, was contemplating attaching this to the miscellaneous judiciary bill because I think it's pretty narrow, but there are opposing opinions and also it's hearing that it's a better idea to if there's a bill, keep it in the bill form. That way it's also easier for the public to follow what's getting done. So, I also, we're gonna try hearing from DOC, hopefully sometime in the next week

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or two

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: to see if they just want to provide us with twenty, thirty minutes of testimony as to their thoughts on this because they're the ones who have to actually do the work. I also know they're quite overworked, so, you know, if this is something that helps them out a little bit, that'd be good. Yeah. Any other thoughts on this?

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: So basically, the bill in general just simply eliminates the requirement of the PSI and makes it optional to the courts and or the state's attorneys in the Defense Attorney. Right now the way it's listed in the statute, it's required.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It's a requirement unless it is waived by the state's attorney.

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: Right, yeah. So required, unless.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, so this limits your requirements. Yeah, but it would still apply to listed offenses. Yeah. That's the change that we

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: mean, conceptually, I favor it.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any other? Yeah. If you feel the same. Okay. All right. There were some minor changes that we had requested and

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll just get Oh, yeah. If that's okay up here.

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: Oh, yeah. Do we have copies? Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Is

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: there a new draft or?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, I just did the walkthrough before you came in. So what we talked about after we had a debate, everybody had a discussion about it. I'll go through, and I think I kind of want some clarity on the listing crimes. Subsection, so subsection A is the one where there's an agreement between the prosecution and the defense, And you'll see there on line 14 is that there's a requirement for the pre sentence investigation. My question for you there is do you want to break it out and so like have maybe a subdivision two that says for offenses that are listed crimes the court shall review a pre sentence investigation prior Okay, sorry. Oh, prior to, unless we find the state's attorney.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes, yeah, that's what I'm trying to get at.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And And so, it would eliminate the requirements for the non listed crimes, but the court will still have the authority to be able to ask for one if they feel they need that information.

[Senator Robert “Bob” Norris (Vice Chair)]: For the residuals requirement for the listed crimes?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes. Yep. And court, and there would still be a PSI based on what we just heard, there would still be a PSI for the non listed offenses if both of the parties agree that there should be a PSI. Sure. Right. That's, yeah. And I think that what we heard is that that's already baked into this. I understand.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then the one other change is on page two in subdivision 65. On line 11, I'm gonna unstrike the court reviews and on strike, and the victim's statement with the parties, because I should have just struck the words, the pre sentence investigation and, because it encompasses the two things and you still have the victim's fact statement up there, so. Great. All right,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: well, that's easy and hopefully we can hear from probation of parole within the next couple of days and just to cross that off the list, but you know, we can get those changes, I guess before Friday.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, get on to it as soon as I can. Things are moving fast this So week, I I will, sometime today or tonight, will send something to Emery for you so that he can pass it along to DOC before they testify as well.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Fantastic. And we'll credit them both for a vote. If you've got a couple of blocks of free time that will, shouldn't take very long to wrap this up as long as there's no new issues that arise on top of that. So you. So, committee, we have S-one 186 at eleventh office. And we're five minutes early, so let's take five minutes