judicial concurrence with sentencing guidelines july 1, 2006 – june 30, 2007 (preliminary)
Post on 19-Jan-2016
229 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES
July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007(Preliminary)
Number of Guideline Worksheets ReceivedFY1997 – FY2007
1936820506 19912
18455
20910
23956 2419922927 23508
2446026093
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fiscal Year
FY07 Guideline Worksheets by Type of Primary Offense
(N=26,093)
0.5%0.7%
36.4%
18.3%
10.7%
8.4%
5.6%3.9% 3.5% 3.4%
2.5% 1.9% 1.9% 1.2% 1.1%
Drug-1/2 Larceny Fraud Traffic Assault Drug-Other
Burg-Dwell
Robbery Burg-Other
Weapon SexualAssault
Misc Murder Rape Kidnap
Primary Offense Conviction
GENERAL COMPLIANCE
Overall Compliance Rate
Compliance79.2%
Mitigation10.0%
Aggravation10.8%
FY07 Judicial Agreement with Guideline Recommendations
General Compliance:
The degree to which judges agree with the overall guidelines recommendation.
FY0680%
Direction of Departures
Mitigation48.0%
Aggravation52.0%
FY07 Recommended vs. Actual Disposition
Dispositional Compliance:
The degree to which judges agree with the type of sanction recommended by the guidelines.
Recommended Disposition
Probation/No Incarceration
Incarceration <= 6 months
Incarceration > 6 months
Probation/No Incarceration 72.6% 23.5% 3.9%
Incarceration <= 6 months 11.2% 76.0% 12.8%
Incarceration > 6 months 5.9% 8.4% 85.7%
Actual Disposition
DEPARTURE REASONS
MOST FREQUENTLY CITED DEPARTURE REASONS
• Mitigating (10%)– Reason unclear
– Plea agreement
– Cooperative with authorities
– Good rehab potential
– Minimal circumstances
– Recommendation of Commonwealth/PO
• Aggravating (10.8%)– Reason unclear
– Plea agreement
– Flagrancy of offense
– Recommendation too low
– Jury sentence
– Poor rehab potential
COMPLIANCE BY CIRCUIT
Highest Compliance Rates:
Circuit 27 (Radford Area) 91%
Circuit 7 (Newport News) 86%
Circuit 28 (Bristol Area) 85%
Lowest Compliance Rates:
Circuit 29 (Buchanan Area) 64%
Circuit 15 (Fredericksburg) 71%
Highest Compliance Rates:
Circuit 27 (Radford Area) 91%
Circuit 7 (Newport News) 86%
Circuit 28 (Bristol Area) 85%
Lowest Compliance Rates:
Circuit 29 (Buchanan Area) 64%
Circuit 15 (Fredericksburg) 71%
Compliance VIOLENT VS. NONVIOLENT
CRIMES
Percentage of FY07 Sentencing Events Involving Violent Offenders (Current and/or Prior Violent Offenses as defined by §17.1-805)
Violent20%
Nonviolent80%
FY07 Violent Offender ProfileCurrent and/or Prior Violent Offense*
*Note: Violent offenses are defined by §17.1-805. Category 1 prior violent offenses have a statutory maximum of 40 years or more while Category 2 prior violent offenses have a statutory maximum of less than 40 years.
0.8%
1.9%
3.2%
5.2%
9.2%
Instant Violent Offense & MoreSerious Violent P rior (Cat 1)
Instant Violent Offense & LessSerious Violent P rior (Cat 2)
More Serious Violent P riorOnly (Cat 1)
Instant Violent Offense Only
Less Serious Violent P rior(Cat 2)
FY07 ComplianceCurrent and/or Prior Violent Offenses*
82.173.4
64.4 61.4 60.1
6.4 19.9
23.4 26.6 33.5 33.3
11.5 6.712.2 10.2 5.1 6.6
63.2
No Instant or P riorViolent
Less SeriousViolent P rior (Cat 2)
Instant ViolentOffense
Instant Violent &Less Serious
Violent P rior (Cat 2)
More SeriousViolent P rior (Cat 1)
Instant Violent &More Serious
Violent P rior (Cat 1)
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation
*Note: Violent offenses are defined by §17.1-805. Category 1 prior violent offenses have a statutory maximum of 40 years or more while Category 2 prior violent offenses have a statutory maximum of less than 40 years.
COMPLIANCE BY TYPE OF OFFENSE
Guidelines Compliance by Primary OffenseFY2007
85.1%82.3% 82.3% 81.8%
79.8%
73.9% 72.0%69.6% 68.0% 67.3% 67.2% 66.0% 65.5%
62.3% 61.7%
8.6%
7.7% 8.1%5.8%
6.8%
13.4% 15.3%15.3%
22.7%
15.3% 14.4% 16.5% 19.0%
18.5%
27.5%
6.3%10.0%
12.4% 13.4% 12.8% 15.1%
9.3%
17.3% 18.4% 17.5% 15.5%19.2%
10.9%9.6%12.7%
Fraud Drug-1/2 Larceny Drug-Other Traffi c Assault Bur-Other Weapon Rape Sexual Assault Kidnap Misc Bur-Dwell Murder/Hom Robbery
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation
Guidelines Compliance by Primary OffenseFY2007
85.1%82.3% 82.3% 81.8%
79.8%
73.9% 72.0%69.6% 68.0% 67.3% 67.2% 66.0% 65.5%
62.3% 61.7%
8.6%
7.7% 8.1%5.8%
6.8%
13.4% 15.3%15.3%
22.7%
15.3% 14.4% 16.5% 19.0%
18.5%
27.5%
6.3%10.0%
12.4% 13.4% 12.8% 15.1%
9.3%
17.3% 18.4% 17.5% 15.5%19.2%
10.9%9.6%12.7%
Fraud Drug-1/2 Larceny Drug-Other Traffi c Assault Bur-Other Weapon Rape Sexual Assault Kidnap Misc Bur-Dwell Murder/Hom Robbery
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation
Rape – Mitigation (23%)
Most frequently cited reasons:
•Plea agreement
•Victim request
Robbery – Mitigation (28%)
Most frequently cited reasons:
•Cooperation with law enforcement
•Plea agreement
•Recommendation of Commonwealth
•Age of offender/DJJ Sentence
80% or higher
NONVIOLENT RISK ASSESSMENT
NONVIOLENT RISK ASSESSMENT
• Drug, Fraud, & Larceny
• Purpose: To recommend alternative sanctions for offenders who are statistically less likely to recidivate
Percent of Nonviolent Cases by Primary Offense TypeFY2007
Drug I/II52.5%
Drug Other5.6%
Fraud15.5%
Larceny26.4%
Sentencing Guidelines Compliance Rates for Nonviolent Offenders Screened with Risk Assessment
FY2007 (n=6,937)
Fraud
Larceny
Cases 7%
9%
8%
Drug 6%
61%
73%
50%
59%
22%
9%
37%
24%
10%
9%
5%
11%
6,937
1,788
1,177
3,972
Offense Mitigation
Compliance
AggravationNumber of CasesTraditional Alternative
83%
82%
87%
83%
SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT
SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT
• Rape & Other Sexual Assault
• Purpose:
– To extend the upper end of the guidelines recommendation for sex offenders who are statistically more likely to recidivate
SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENTFY2007
Other Sexual Assault Risk Levels(n=490)
No Adjustment57%
Very High Risk3%
High Risk12%
Moderate Risk28%
Rape Risk Levels (n=194)
No Adjustment55%
Very High Risk2%
High Risk17%
Moderate Risk26%
Sentencing Guidelines Compliance Rates for Rape Offenders by Risk Assessment Levels
FY2007 (n=194)
Moderate Risk
High Risk
Very High Risk 25%
16%
23%
No Level 24%
50%
45%
60%
63%
25%
29%
15%
---
0%
10%
2%
13%
4
31
47
112
RiskAssessment Level Mitigation
Compliance
AggravationNumber of CasesTraditional Adjusted
75%
74%
75%
Sentencing Guidelines Compliance Rates for Other Sexual Assault Offenders by Risk Assessment Levels
FY2007 (n=490)
Moderate Risk
High Risk
Very High Risk 18%
23%
18%
No Level 13%
55%
61%
57%
63%
27%
14%
17%
---
0%
2%
8%
24%
11
49
120
310
RiskAssessment Level Mitigation
Compliance
AggravationNumber of CasesTraditional Adjusted
82%
75%
74%
JURY SENTENCING
PERCENT OF FELONY SENTENCING EVENTS ADJUDICATED BY JURIES
FY1986 – FY2007
6.4% 6.3% 6.5%
5.8%
5.2% 5.1%4.7%
4.2% 4.2%3.9%
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Parole System
1.4%
2.2%
2.7%
2.2% 2.1%1.7% 1.6% 1.7%
1.5% 1.7% 1.6%1.4% 1.5%
95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Truth-in-Sentencing
SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMPLIANCE IN JURY VS. NON-JURY CASES
FY2007
Jury Cases(N=379)
Aggravation50%
Mitigation15%
Compliance35%
Non-Jury Cases(N=25,714)
Compliance80%
Mitigation10%
Aggravation10%
NEW GUIDELINE OFFENSESFY2007
NEW GUIDELINE OFFENSES(effective 7/1/2006)
• Fraud Worksheet– Uttering public record FRD-2535-F4– Identity fraud, value >$200 FRD-2509-F6– False application, public assistance FRD-2700-F5
• Traffic Worksheet– Eluding police with endangerment REC-6624-F6
• Miscellaneous Worksheet– Extortion, threat by letter, etc. EXT-2106-F6– Arson, unoccupied dwelling ARS-2005-F4– Escape from correctional facility ESC-4921-F6
• Weapons Worksheet– Discharge firearm from vehicle WPN-5248-F5– Possess firearm on school property WPN-5252-F6– False statement on consent form WPN-5281-F5
IDENTITY FRAUD > $200FY2007 (N=40)
Compliance87%
Mitigation8%
Aggravation5%
ELUDING POLICE WITH ENDANGERMENTFY2007 (N=421)
Compliance71%
Mitigation16%
Aggravation13%
FALSE STATEMENT ON WEAPON CONSENT FORMFY2007 (N=66)
Compliance67%
Mitigation30%
Aggravation3%
Most Frequent Mitigating Reasons:
•Minimal circumstances
•Plea agreement
•Lack of serious prior record
•Recommendation of Commonwealth
SENTENCING REVOCATION REPORTS & PROBATION VIOLATION
GUIDELINES
Preliminary FY2007
Sentencing Revocation Report
For all felony violations:
•Probation
•Good Behavior
•Suspended Sentence
Number of Sentencing Revocation Reports Received by YearFY2004 – FY2007
8646
9436
1092511362
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Pre-Probation Violation
Guidelines
Number of Sentencing Number of Sentencing Revocation Reports (SRRs) Revocation Reports (SRRs)
Received by CircuitReceived by Circuit
Technical & New Law Violations
Probation, Suspended Sentence, Good Behavior, etc., Violations
Current & Old Forms
Circuit 4 (Norfolk) +152%Circuit 4 (Norfolk) +152%
Circuit 15 (Fredericksburg Area) +42%Circuit 15 (Fredericksburg Area) +42%
Circuit 17 (Arlington) +55%Circuit 17 (Arlington) +55%
Circuit 27 (Radford Area) +43%Circuit 27 (Radford Area) +43%
PROBATION VIOLATION GUIDELINESFor NON-NEW CONVICTION PROBATION Violators
FY2007
Apply50%
Do Not Apply50%
FY2007 PROBATION VIOLATION GUIDELINESDO GUIDELINES APPLY?
(N=11,362)
Reasons Probation Violation Guidelines Do Not Apply
1.9
4.8
28.1
82.9
MisdemeanorOriginal
Parole Case
Not SupervisedProbation
New Conviction(Felony/Misd)
Probation Violation Guidelines
Number of Probation Violation Guidelines Received by YearFY2005 – FY2007
46434860
5584
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
1.8
5.8
11.9
38.7
41.8
Other
Traffic
Person
Drug
Property
Non-New Conviction Probation Violators by Type of Original Offense*
FY2007 (n=5,584)
3.4% Sex Offenders
8.4% Other Person
*Offense categories taken from “Appendix E: Offense Types” in the 3rd Edition of the Sentencing Revocation Report & Probation Violation Guidelines manual.
0.4
0.8
3.9
4.0
10.9
19.9
26.2
37.7
41.6
55.7
50.0
Use, possess, etc., firearm
Fail to allow PO to visit
Use alcohol to excess
Fail to report arrest to PO
Fail to maintain regular employment
Move without permission
Special court-imposed conditions
Abscond from supervision
Fail to report to PO as instructed
Fail to follow instructions
Use, etc., controlled substances
Conditions Cited in Non-New Conviction Probation Violator Cases* FY2007 (n=5,584)
Restitution/court costs12%Substance abuse treatment 6%Alternative programs 3%Report for probation 1%Community service 1%Sex offender restrictions 1%
*Percentages do not total 100% because there may be multiple violations cited for each defendant.
34.5%47.1% 46.3% 49.2%
19.4%
29.0% 30.2% 24.5%
46.1%
23.9% 23.5% 26.3%
FY05 FY06 FY07 Prelim FY08
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation
Overall Probation Violation Guidelines Compliance and Direction of Departures
(FY2005 – FY2008)
N = 4,643 N = 5,584N = 4,860 N = 327
Probation Violation Guidelines Dispositional Compliance and Direction of Departures
FY2007
Actual Disposition
TotalRecommended Disposition Probation Jail <= 12m Prison >=1y
Probation 40.1 43.5 16.4 1223
Jail <= 12m 17.2 68.9 13.8 1887
Prison >=1y 14.3 34.5 51.3 2357
Total 21.1 48.4 30.5 5584
Median Jail
Sentence = 6 mos
Median Prison
Sentence = 22 mos
Compliance49.5
Mitigation32.0
Aggravation18.6
Probation Violation Guidelines Durational Compliance and Direction of Departures*
FY2007
Median Below9 mos
Median Above9 mos
*Includes cases recommended for jail or prison incarceration only.
DEPARTURE REASONS
Probation Violation Guidelines Most Frequently Cited Departure Reasons
FY2007
Mitigation
• 789 of 1,685 have written departure reasons
• Most frequently cited:– Progress in rehabilitating– Recommendation of CA/PO– Guidelines too high– Alternative sentence
• Treatment• Drug Court• Detention/Diversion
– Mental/physical health– Substance abuse problem
Aggravation
• 591 of 1,312 have written departure reasons
• Most frequently cited:– Prior record
• 2nd/subseq revocation– Rehabilitation
• Failed given opportunity• Needs rehab through jail
– Substance abuse problem– Guidelines too low– Fail to follow instructions– Absconded
top related