JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

50
JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

Transcript of JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

Page 1: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES

July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007(Preliminary)

Page 2: 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

Page 3: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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

Page 4: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

GENERAL COMPLIANCE

Page 5: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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%

Page 6: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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

Page 7: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

DEPARTURE REASONS

Page 8: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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

Page 9: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

COMPLIANCE BY CIRCUIT

Page 10: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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%

Page 11: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

Compliance VIOLENT VS. NONVIOLENT

CRIMES

Page 12: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

Percentage of FY07 Sentencing Events Involving Violent Offenders (Current and/or Prior Violent Offenses as defined by §17.1-805)

Violent20%

Nonviolent80%

Page 13: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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)

Page 14: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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.

Page 15: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

COMPLIANCE BY TYPE OF OFFENSE

Page 16: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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

Page 17: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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

Page 18: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

NONVIOLENT RISK ASSESSMENT

Page 19: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)
Page 20: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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%

Page 21: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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%

Page 22: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT

Page 23: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)
Page 24: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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

Page 25: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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%

Page 26: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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%

Page 27: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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%

Page 28: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

JURY SENTENCING

Page 29: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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

Page 30: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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%

Page 31: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

NEW GUIDELINE OFFENSESFY2007

Page 32: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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

Page 33: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

IDENTITY FRAUD > $200FY2007 (N=40)

Compliance87%

Mitigation8%

Aggravation5%

Page 34: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

ELUDING POLICE WITH ENDANGERMENTFY2007 (N=421)

Compliance71%

Mitigation16%

Aggravation13%

Page 35: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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

Page 36: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

SENTENCING REVOCATION REPORTS & PROBATION VIOLATION

GUIDELINES

Preliminary FY2007

Page 37: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

Sentencing Revocation Report

For all felony violations:

•Probation

•Good Behavior

•Suspended Sentence

Page 38: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

Number of Sentencing Revocation Reports Received by YearFY2004 – FY2007

8646

9436

1092511362

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

Pre-Probation Violation

Guidelines

Page 39: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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%

Page 40: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

PROBATION VIOLATION GUIDELINESFor NON-NEW CONVICTION PROBATION Violators

FY2007

Page 41: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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)

Page 42: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

Probation Violation Guidelines

Page 43: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

Number of Probation Violation Guidelines Received by YearFY2005 – FY2007

46434860

5584

FY2005 FY2006 FY2007

Page 44: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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.

Page 45: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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.

Page 46: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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

Page 47: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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

Page 48: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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.

Page 49: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

DEPARTURE REASONS

Page 50: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)

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