H.B. 94 Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments: transcript

Chair, if I could present from here? Absolutely. Okay. Um, thank you fellow committee members. Uh, this bill is a cleanup bill for my court finds bill that I ran last year, um, was following the implication of how this bill worked through the courts. Um, and, uh, a lot of, uh, people were able to access and, and utilize, um, uh, a credit against their court finds. But there was a wrinkle in that judges did not know whether or not, uh, they could apply credit for treatment or classes against mandatory court finds. And I got a lot of text messages about it, and it's an ambiguity, and, uh, there was no clarification. And so I Uintah the court. So I Uintah the prosecutors, Uintah the defense attorneys to try to find a solution. And, uh, we worked something out. Uh, what this bill proposes is that a, um, uh, a credit can be applied towards mandatory fines. Uh, however, if it's against the interest of justice, the prosecutor can object and also it's, uh, discretionary based on the judge. And so they don't have to do that. There's two mechanisms in which, uh, if it's outside of what is appropriate, um, the judge can decline to do so, and the prosecutor can also, uh, uh, uh, ask the judge to decline to do so. Also, uh, there is something here that, uh, swap pointed out that, uh, I want to, uh, point out to the, uh, committee here. There is a change of credit here from, uh, $12 an hour, from $10 an hour, that is an adjustment consistent with law. Last year, uh, we passed a bill to modify, uh, 76 dash three dash, uh, 3 0 1 0.7. Um, compensatory service, uh, went up to $10 to $12. So this makes, uh, this part of the statute consistent with what we did last year. And with that Mr. Chair, I will, uh, yield the questions.

that conclude your presentation? It Does. Perfect.

Yes. Thanks for allowing me back, uh, briefly just to say that we, uh, at SWAP have appreciated, uh, working with Representative Miller. Uh, we admire his, uh, dedication to his indigent clients and to all of the indigent, uh, clients around the state. We appreciate that he's, uh, asked for our input and that he's incorporated our input into this bill and it's one that we now proudly support. Thank you.

Maryanne Christians an Executive Director of Utah Legislative Watch, and I also appreciate the bill. A lot of people end up incarcerated because they are economically depressed and heaping fines on them is just kicking 'em when they're down. I'm pretty sure that $12 an hour is a lot less expensive than keeping 'em incarcerated, so it's a good bill. Thank you very much.

Yeah, I'm Seth Stewart, uh, from American Fork representing myself. Um, just like to point out in sub three, there is a new provision that was added relative to at least the original version of it. Um, the line 59. If a prosecuting attorney obje objects to the court allowing satisfaction or reduction because the satisfaction or reduction is not in the interest of justice, the court may deny the defendant the opportunity to satisfy or reduce the criminal counts receivable. Um, this seems like an unjustified loophole right here because, um, the prosecutor's essentially taking it on, on his own hands to decide what constitutes, um, justice being satisfied. And it introduces a new lever into the paradigm that, uh, really doesn't seem like it could be fair to a lot of, uh, particularly indigent defendants. So if they, if the prosecutor can just press a switch and say, Hey, you, you're not allowed to actually perform service or, or have some other, uh, hardship relief here, I'm, we're still gonna hold you for the, uh, for the financial, uh, payments and so on. So, uh, again, I think that's a determination to be made by a jury. That's something that could totally be done to the satisfaction of justice by reasonable people with a conscience, uh, who are actually weighing the facts of the case. So, um, I would object to it on those grounds. Thank you.

I'd like to make a motion to adopt the third substitute

I'll waive. Okay.

uh, I'll, uh, waive.

I'd like to make a motion to Fab favorably recommend HB 94 criminal accounts receivable amendments to the full body

Wait. Well I was, it's all right. Just know what I'm gonna talk about later. Okay. I mean, Say what you want on a record. I I'm not trying to, it's okay. I, I happen to like what our last, um, online commenter had to say and I think made a lot of sense. So, um, I'm hoping that the sponsor will take those into account and, and be willing to, to look at that, but as of right now, I think I'm a no thank you.

Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, once again, this is a, mostly just a cleanup bill to, um, uh, modify or not modify, but clarify, uh, whether or not we could credit, um, compensatory service or, uh, or, or credit from, uh, a court, um, from, uh, uh, classes or, or treatment against a fine and, and mandatory whether or not that mandatory, uh, fees apply to that. This will clarify that. Uh, I do understand that, uh, this substitute's very different than the original, uh, bill, which contemplated, uh, uh, a requirement, uh, for the judiciary to implement this in times of hardship. Um, and, uh, while I dream of that happening one day, um, I don't think that's something I get through the finish line today. So I ask for the, uh, committee's consideration onto the underlying substitute.

I think it's a good bill. I encourage my committee to support it.

Motion to adjourn. The motion is non debatable.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief. This is a cleanup bill, uh, last year, if you recall, ran a court fines bill. And the purpose of the bill was that if you were ordered by a judge to do a court fine, and you're also ordered to do a class or, or substance abuse treatment or mental health treatment, you could keep your receipts for what you did and go back and credit that against your fine. Um, the good news is it's been working well across the state, but judges have had questions about whether or not this applies to mandatory fines, fines that happen in like DUIs or sex solicitation cases. And I said, that's a really good question. And so I sat down with swap and we, uh, thought about what a solution would be and we figured it would make sense to allow mandatory, legislatively mandatory fines to receive this credit. However, there's a provision here that if for some reason the prosecutor feels that it's outside the interest of justice, they're allowed to object and it's discretionary upon the judge. So that is the bill. Uh, also a little cleanup provision here. Last year, we, uh, uh, upped the, uh, compensation for, uh, community service credit to $12 an hour for compensatory service. And that makes this adjustment in this part of the statute as well. And with that, I will receive questions from the committee.

Yeah. I'm just wondering why Todd is your Senate sponsor on this one? I, he's a handsome fellow. Um,

Thank you for being here, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Carl Hall, executive Director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors. Uh, we wanna thank the sponsor for bringing this bill. He's always great to hear our concerns, uh, to get these bills in a place that, uh, works for everybody. Uh, we supported, uh, the bill that came out last year that was referenced in his, uh, presentation. We support this bill as well, um, and ask for your support in this bill. Thank you very much. Thanks for yours, uh, for being succinct and for your brevity.

Chair members of the committee. My name is Richard Morrow. I'm the Executive Director of the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association. We also support this bill. Uh, Representative Miller has worked hard on this. It, it's, it's good for our clients who can otherwise not afford to pay fines and fees, some of the fees to have this alternative. And it's a good alternative. And we would ask your support on this bill.

That's a good question. Um, this was, I mean, if we, you're the committee. You got the power To amend. Just kidding. Oh, we got a motion to amend. No, I'm just kidding. Okay. Um,

Thank you. Is the motion appropriate? Yes, I'd move that we pass that with a favorable recommendation, HB 94.

I'll waive. Just appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you.

Third, substitute house bill 94 criminal accounts receivable amendments by representative Grant Millard. This bill was heard in judiciary with a vote of 8 1 2.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, uh, this bill adds some clarifications to my court finds bill, that we passed last year. As a quick refresher, what this bill does is if, uh, you're ordered to do a court fine and you also ordered to do like a class or complete rehabilitative treatment, then you could credit the amount that you spend on that treatment or class against the fine. Uh, it's been working really well in the courts, but judges had questions about whether or not this bill, this law could be attributed towards mandatory fines. I worked with the Statewide Association of Prosecutors, uh, on a couple of subs here, which is why we're on the third. That was adopted in committee. Um, and, uh, what we came to was a conclusion that, uh, mandatory fines, uh, could be part of this program. However, prosecutors reserve the right to object if it's not in the interest of justice. It's also discretionary for judges. And so in areas where, you know, fines are supposed to hurt and prosecutors wanna make sure the fines stick, um, um, they can make sure that the fines stick. Um, but in times when, uh, someone's indigent and they simply can't afford the fine and requiring 'em to do so, would, uh, take away from the focus of them completing a treatment process or a class, uh, then they could then take advantage of this program and use the money they spend on recovery towards that fine instead. And with that, I'll take any questions. Mr. Speaker Pro

Thank you Mr. Speaker With the sponsor yield.

Ahead. Uh, quick question on this. Um, does this apply to all fines fees? Does it include restitution or the state surcharge?

That's a fantastic question. No, it does not include restitution. And so the, the third substitute's very clear here that it only applies to, uh, uh, court fines that are levied and plea and AB advances fees. That's, uh, the limitation to it. Um, it, I think it, it addresses that interest, uh, can be credited on court fines and plea and maintenance fees, but not interest on restitution. That's excluded.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And to be clear, does that exclude the state's 90% surcharge on top of those fees? Is that included?

Yeah, it would include the state's surcharge, yes.

I'll waive. Summation

or rehabilitative treatment, the money spent on the class can be credited towards their fine. The bill from last year has been working well. Many judges want to know if this applies to mandatory fines, which prompted this bill to clarify. So this clarifies that fines are eligible for this program. Prosecutors have the right to object if they feel it's not in the best interest of justice or the victim, et cetera. Um, it is dis, uh, discretionary for a judge to enforce. This bill is supported by the Statewide Association of Prosecutors. And with that, I will yield to any questions.

Yes. Looking

to you summation and a motion. Uh, I'll Waive summation and move that third substitute house bill 94 pass under suspension of the rules.