H.B. 274 Sentencing Amendments: transcript

Senator Brammer. Thank you. Chair Brammer. Thank you. Go Ahead. Thank, thank you, uh, committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, uh, today, uh, to present HB 2 74, uh, with you all. Uh, Mr. Mr. Chair? I don't know. I I have a sub. Do you want to adopt that first or do you wanna wait until I don't presentation? We, why don't we adopt it and then we'll, we'll go from there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Make a motion that we delete, embody and title. Um, is it first substitute HB 2 71 and be replace, Actually second substitute? Yeah, so delete first substitute and And replaced with second substitute HB 2 74. 74.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. Uh, appreciate the opportunity. Uh, the second sub is a product of working together, trying to find a pathway forward with many stakeholders, uh, defense attorneys, prosecutors, law enforcement. And I'm grateful for all of their input. Uh, and so, uh, we've, we've came to some sort of an agreement, I think on, on the second sub. Uh, it restores all the defense attorneys, the three defense attorneys to the commission. It, uh, removes all the juvenile prosecutors and, and moves JJOC to, uh, chair to non-voting, but they're still on the commission. It adds a requirement for at least one sheriff, uh, a prosecutor and defense attorney to be from rural Utah, just adding for some geographical diversity, uh, to statewide representation of the commission. Uh, Mr Chair Committee members, public safety, I believe is probably one of the most important core, uh, purposes of, uh, government. Uh, polling shows that consistently, it ranks at the top of the list and it's inco increasingly become, becoming more, uh, uh, important to our constituents, especially in Salt Lake County. Uh, right before the session started, I was presented a poll that showed, uh, public safety and crime, uh, being the fourth most important issue above education and above transportation inside Salt Lake County. And so I think this is something that's very important. Um, during the JRI, uh, discussion, many of you are here. Um, uh, I was here, it was my first year in the legislature. Uh, the legislature reduced, uh, many criminal penalties significantly. Um, and, uh, the sentencing commission also reduced the recommended amount of incarceration time in the sentencing guidelines. Uh, for the last several years, I think we've realized, uh, that, uh, we took it too far. Uh, and the legislature has been, uh, coming back increasingly putting, uh, additional, uh, emphasis on accountability and holding criminals accountable, uh, for the crimes that they commit. But the guidelines, the sensing guidelines haven't changed in that timeframe until just today actually. So, uh, for example, in 2014, uh, jail recommendations as a condition of the probation for serious crimes used to be, uh, a hundred twenty two hundred ten, even 365 days in jail. Uh, then in 2015, the sensing recommendations for jail time for condition of probation were cut in half across the board. Uh, if you look at the most, uh, recent version guidelines, every box on the jail matrix starts at zero days. Uh, and even violent felonies show a midpoint, uh, recommendation of only 180 days. Um, so you have very serious violent felonies, sexual assaults, with a recommendation that was starting at zero, going up to 365 days. Uh, that means that even defendants convicted of the serious crimes get recommendations of probation with very little, uh, jail time. And examples of that aggravate aggravated robbery, aggravated child abuse, assault with serious bodily injury. Uh, I, as I mentioned, that did change a couple hours ago. Um, I'm very appreciative of the sentencing commission's vote to increase those jail guidelines. I'm very grateful for that. Um, and, uh, and that's partially why I felt it was important to move, uh, to make changes, uh, uh, more, uh, with adding the defense attorneys back into, uh, the, the, the commission, um, this important step forward. I'm grateful for the work that the commission did, and I appreciate, uh, the opportunity to work with them on, on these issues. Uh, in addition to changing the membership, the bill also directs the commission to review and revise the guidelines for serious crimes, which they're currently in the middle of directs judges to ensure criminal sentences reflect the seriousness of the crime. So with that, Mr. Chair, I'm open to questions, uh, from the committee.

You Chair and, uh, Senator Vickers. Uh, my name is Craig Black. I'm the Chief of North Salt Lake Police Department. I also am here on behalf of the Utah Chiefs of Police Association. I've been asked to come and strongly support this bill. We, uh, appreciate the speaker's focus on public safety. We appreciate so much that there has been recognition that, um, deterrents and, and, uh, punishment in many areas are some of the most proven effective, um, deterrence and, and solutions to, to criminal activity and to not minimize, uh, some of the very serious acts that are, that are committed in our society, and that we as a society do not tolerate that kind of behavior without consequence. Also, appreciate the speaker's willingness to look at the value of the sentencing commission and the, the diversity of arguments and the diversity of opinions that can be brought to recommendations for that. The Utah Chiefs are still not included as members of the sentencing commission, as at one time we were, we hope at some point that we can also have a representative back on the sentencing commission, but the Chiefs of Police do strongly support this and thank the speaker for his efforts.

Yeah, thank you. I'm Seth Stewart, representing myself from American Fork. Um, I think my, my first, uh, critique with this bill is, is structural. Um, the sentencing power traditionally exists between the judge and the jury, and to a limited extent by statute. And, uh, I don't see any authorization in our constitution for the legislature to delegate sentencing recommendations to a commission or another body. And the composition of that, um, commission obviously matters a great deal, and where they have levers to be able to tweak the, uh, the criteria for admission to that commission, et cetera. Um, I, I just have concerns about due process and uniform application of the law in that regard. Uh, and I don't see there's any, any, any need here that couldn't be addressed between a judge and the jury. Um, a a second critique has to do with the nature of, um, it's actually connected with other bills we've discussed here, uh, but with plea bargaining, uh, the effect of plea bargaining is that a defendant is in effect, compelled to witness against himself on exchange for an offer of a reduced sentence. And what that means is that by default, because a very high percentage of criminal cases are actually handled through plea deals, um, the statutory penalties, uh, where they exist, are often higher than what a defendant would ordinarily pay. And that creates a two track justice system. And I would submit that if there's any, um, mechanism that's muddying the waters around fair sentencing, uh, we should probably look into that and eliminate the, the plea bargaining stage and just take every criminal case to an actual trial before a jury as our constitution requires. And that way you don't have the, uh, the mixing of the signals there, which, uh, which has had the effect of, of creating a lot of, uh, confusion, frankly, on the subject of what fair and appropriate sentencing is. So I would urge opposition to this bill on that, on those grounds. And, uh, appreciate your time. Thank you.

I thank you so much. Appreciate the changes, um, that have been presented today. I'm a little bit confused. I couldn't find sub two. Um, and, um, and so I understand that the three defense attorneys are being, uh, reinstated, so to speak. Um, I'm, I'm uncertain as to the number that will then be on the commission. The, um, majority of voting members already are not defense attorneys. And really there should be parody in the committee. Um, defense attorneys bring his perspective necessary to the balance of the whole. We also cannot afford to lock people up for increasing lengths of time. I understand that this is a very emotional issue, but we really need to evaluate evidence and data in making our sentencing decisions. Our budget cannot sustain it. We know that. It's like, um, the, the, especially the original version of this bill was like packing the courts to get the outcome you want and, um, based on a motion rather than based on data and based on evidence. If we look at the United States Sentencing Commission, there are seven members, which is a much more effective size of commission than 19 or, or 21. I, I'm unclear as to how many, uh, uh, we're recommending there was there. Um, I think the, the commission structure as it is now with 15 members, which still is a large commission for any, um, effective, uh, policy recommendations, um, the length of sentence is not the only recommendation coming outta the sentencing commission, uh, risk tools and those, those sorts of things are also discussed. Um, so I appreciate again, uh, the addition of the, uh, or the reinstatement of the three, uh, defense attorneys, but I urge you to consider the balance of the remaining, um, of the remaining commission members.

Again, I know I said it, but I just have to follow the procedure on that. Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm Wendy Parley. I'm representing myself as a citizen advocate.

I'm working at it. Um, my name is Michael McCan. Um, so you gotta, uh, mostly right the second time I represent myself. The, um, I'm glad that, um, the, um, defense attorneys are going to be, um, added back onto the mix. Uh, with the sentencing commission, uh, the commission is already skewed towards prosecution, uh, stacking the commission with only pro punishment members, uh, without the insights of defense attorneys does not serve justice. Um, if a judge makes a judgment that we don't like, we can campaign to have them removed at the ballot box. And let me remind this committee that defense attorneys on the sentencing commission have been elected voting members by the Board of Pardons. Thank you.

You. Yes, Steve Burton representing the Utah Defense Attorney Association. Um, yeah, this, uh, when the bill first came out, uh, it was kind of put us in a tough spot. Um, we have always tried to be, um, uh, good partners in helping make the criminal justice system, uh, a better system in the state of Utah. We've tried to always work in good faith and hopefully our opinions and and positions are valuable to you all here, uh, in the Senate and the in the legislature. Um, uh, however, I'm here speaking in support of this version of the bill. Um, mostly because, uh, throughout this process we've received quite a bit of support from those other stakeholders that, um, have expressed their appreciation for our voice and expressed a willingness to continue to work with us. And mostly because Speaker Schultz, um, was willing to meet with us and speak with us, and ultimately restored, uh, the positions of the defense on the, on the commission. Uh, we appreciate his expression, um, of, of willingness to work with us going forward. Uh, there's a provision of this version of sub three, uh, some of the language towards the end of the sub, um, that we have concerns about. But we've been told that, uh, that negotiation, that discussion will continue. So, uh, at this point we support Speaker Schultz's, bill, and, and express our appreciation for you all and for, uh, his willingness to, to work with us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Carl Holland. I'm the Executive Director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors. Uh, we urge you to support this bill. This is a very important issue and, and I would like to point out that the legislature has not delegated its authority to determine statutory sentences at all. In fact, the legislature has recognized over the past couple of years how important it is that you jealously guard this authority and that you make sure that there's appropriate guidelines and, uh, instruction given to the sentencing commission so that they can craft sentences that are going to meet public interests and reflect public values. And this is not an easy area to work in. Uh, speaker Schultz picked a very difficult topic to work in, but as he's pointed out several times over his presentations, this is a very important area for Utahans right now. We thank him for his work. We thank him for all that he's done to listen to all the various stakeholders and to find a good balance. We believe that this balance is going to reflect the values of Utah citizens. It hopefully will contribute not only to public safety, but to the rehabilitation of criminal defendants and a better society for us all to live in. Thank you very much.

Um, my name's Nadine Saer and I'm just a citizen advocate. Um, we're I, I'm happy to hear about the amendment and adding the three defense attorneys back. I think something that I wanted to point out just for the advocate community as well, um, is while there are the three defense attorneys, the majority of the commission is a punitive direction, directionally punitive. And so, um, we wanna keep in mind, keep that in mind, um, because we've, we've built a $1 billion prison and now we're asking for $130, 130 million more, um, to expand that prison. And so if we're leaning directionally more towards punitive, um, outcomes, um, that's kind of the direction that we're going in. So we wanna keep that in mind as, as the advocacy community, um, just as we're looking at these bills. But we do appreciate the three offense defense attorneys being added back to the bill.

My name's Tracy Glover, I'm the King County Sheriff and the president of the Utah Sheriff's Association. And, uh, I just wanted to say that we support this bill and, uh, much as much of what I would've said has already been said. So I won't, uh, repeat, but I do wanna say a couple quick things. We appreciate the speaker for his direction on this and also for the collaboration of all of the, the interest groups that have come together in conversations that we probably nor normally would not have had to, uh, to inform this bill. And further, this bill does impact sheriffs, um, fairly significantly. There's, um, requirements in there for sheriffs to participate and, uh, anytime we change criminal justice policy, it can affect how we manage our jails and, and public safety enforcement in general. But I just want the committee to know we're committed to this. Uh, the sheriffs are committed to supporting, uh, the bill as it moves forward and, and the law as it becomes law and, and supporting, uh, the, the commission and the process, uh, with this positive public safety policy. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you Chair committee members. My name is Tom Ross and I'm the Executive director of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, the agency where the sentencing commission resides. And I did want to inform you that earlier today in our sentencing commission meeting, the, the commission voted to recommend support to the CCJJ Commission, which is the voting body that will then carry that vote forward to you next Tuesday in our upcoming meeting. Um, I also want to recognize Dan Strong, who's the director of the Sentencing Commission. I know many of you work with him. Uh, he, he has spent an amount, an enormous amount of time trying to work through these issues. House Bill 2 74, the guidelines, and I think it's through his leadership that we've been able to come to a place where all of the group is now coming together and wanting to move forward and work together. And then with that said, um, I very much appreciate Speaker Schultz and the time and effort he has put into this bill and also into working with members of the commission. Um, I came out of a law enforcement career for 34 years. I understand the importance of public safety. I also understand the importance of trying to find balance in a system that is not always easy to find. That. And I believe the legislature has been very clearly telling us over the years, and we've been moving that direction to find a better balance on accountability and, uh, the appropriate punishment for the crimes that are committed for in, in support of our victims and survivors. So we appreciate that work and I think the changes that the, the speaker has made in the second substitute of House Bill 2 74 get us in a place where we can continue to do good work and, and make those changes. So thank you.

Yeah. I'm gonna move that we favorably recommend second substitute house bill 2 74. We, we did, we did. Yeah. Yeah. It's been adopted, right? You've, we've adopted second seven. Yep. So my, my motion is that we Favorably recommend the second Substitute. Alright.

Uh, I'll, I'll take the chair's prerogative briefly and, and just say, I appreciate the changes. I think, you know, one of the interesting things on this is, uh, you know, this has become a, there's oftentimes statements saying, well, you have this many defense and this many prosecutors, and therefore there's some kind of imbalance and that kind of thing. But the duties of the attorneys that are involved are a little bit different than typical. And you have to remember that the prosecutors do not have a duty to their client. Their, their duty is not to just prosecute, uh, you know, in favor of the state, is it is to do justice, which is a different duty than your typical attorney who's representing a client. Whereas the duty of the defense attorney is to advocate on behalf of their client. And I know that oftentimes it breaks down into an us versus them team mentality. But I, I just wanna point that out, that those, you know, I, I think the prosecutors that, that I know, they take that, that shared duty, which sometimes falls in favor of prosecution and sometimes falls otherwise, I, I think they take it seriously and, and those that don't, you know, the, there's, uh, there's a problem when they don't. But, um, but that, to me, that changes the dynamic in terms of how you structure a committee. It's not an us versus them. It's not everything that way. I, I think those duties really matter.

Vote. Uh, yeah. Thank you Mr. Chair. And I, I appreciate this, this time, and I, I, I just maybe wanna apologize a little bit. I know, uh, that when this bill first came out, um, and, and people saw it, and I, I offended quite a few people and some of them were close friends, um, with some of the changes that were, were made to this bill. And, uh, that wasn't the intent, uh, to, to, to make offense. And, and for that, I, I truly do apologize. Um, and so, uh, you know, I, but I couldn't be more proud of the way groups came together on this, honestly. Um, groups that don't always see eye, eye, um, and, uh, find a pathway forward. And so I just wanted to say thank you to all those that, uh, worked with me on this to, to come to a good spot. I wanna give a huge shout out to Chief Ross, uh, down, uh, strong director, strong and others, uh, and, and especially the CCJ and sensing commission, uh, for their work that they've done. And, uh, I appreciate the, the ability to, to continue to move this, this bill forward as, as we move through the process. And, uh, just wanna thank everybody for coming together and finding a pathway forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. Thank you. Uh, committee members of the Judiciary Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Uh, representatives. Madam Chair, I had, uh, just the original bill, and as you noticed, it was on one page, well, two pages, front and back, and it was a great bill. Uh, and, uh, one of the people I was talking to nicknamed it the Little beautiful Bill. And so we're gonna change it. It's still a beautiful bill, uh, but there's a first sub online, and that's the what I will be presenting to, if that's okay with you.

Thank You. Thank you. So, representatives, uh, let me just go start by going through the current, uh, makeup of the Sensing Commission, um, board. Uh, you have A-C-C-J-C-C-J-J Director, department of Corrections Director, board of Pardons and Parole, uh, member Victim Services Commission, uh, uh, attorney General Designee, rehabilitation Professional Criminal Prosecutor, juvenile Prosecutor Sheriff's Association, uh, state court administrator District, uh, judge, juvenile judge, a criminal defense attorney, indigent defense attorney, and a Juab Juvenile, uh, defense attorney, a juvenile justice director, a juvenile justice oversight chair. I want you to notice one thing in that list. One victims service commission, one person representing victims, three members representing the defense. I think that's quite honestly sad that we give victims one spot on this commission. And three, uh, defense attorney spots on this commission. This bill, uh, removes those, uh, defense commissioners and, and adds sheriffs and, uh, prosecutors to that list. Um, and let me tell you why I think this is important. Uh, in, in May of, uh, 2025, uh, judge Torgeson, um, most of you're familiar with this case held the hearing for a defendant convicted of a felony possession and distribution of over 300 videos of children being raped and sexually assaulted. The defendants also had a pending charge in another state, elected county prosecutor requested prison time to reflect the severity of the crimes. Instead, judge Torgeson let him off with probation, uh, and time served, no prison time, no fines, no community service. Uh, and then also said, I think, and most of us would agree, uh, some really inappropriate things, um, from, from the bench. Uh, when I started to raise concerns around this, um, I got phone calls from defense attorneys, one after another, uh, that told me that these were all in line with the sentencing commission's recommendations. So I thought, well, that's fine. I'm upset with the judge, and now I'm upset with the sentencing commission as well. And as I started to have these conversations, more and more things came forward. Um, but, and even the judiciary themself put out a statement, um, and let me read that, uh, saying that the sentence imposed by Judge Torgeson was squarely aligned with the 2025 adult sentencing release supervision guidelines promulgated by the Utah Sentencing Commission. Now, let's talk about what those recommendations were. Zero prison time probation, and between zero and 210 days in jail with a midpoint of 105 days. So our sentencing commission recommended somebody with this egregious of an act, zero days in jail, zero prison time, and a a range. That to me, is extremely concerning. I think they're dead wrong. Child pornography has a serious costs, and these are real kids in those videos, viewing and sharing pictures and videos leads to more kids being raped and abused. Since I spoke out about this one case I mentioned earlier, but other people have reached out to me with multiple, uh, uh, multiple, multiple, uh, examples of something similar, especially on some of these sexual abuses, whether it's domestic violence, whether it's rape, or whether it's child rape. Another thing that keeps coming around, and this is coming to me more and more, is I have the opportunity to meet with, uh, law enforcement and prosecutors. It's not just these heinous crimes that involve sexual assault, whether with kids or other sorts, but it's also with those trafficking drugs and other serious crimes. So I believe that we need people on the commission who take these crimes seriously and will uphold the values of Utah in our sentencing guidelines to accomplish that. My bill adds more law enforcement and prosecutors to the commission and does remove the defense attorneys. I've had people say, well, you know, we shouldn't remove the defense attorneys. And I believe the defense attorneys do have a role, but I don't know that defense attorneys, based off what I've seen sitting in these witness stands, or sorry, sitting on those chairs on the diocese committee meetings, uh, I spent a lot of years on the law enforcement committee, one of my favorite committees that I had the opportunity to serve on Time and time again, I watched defense attorneys come up and argue for little to no, uh, uh, consequences for people that, uh, people that, uh, commit serious, serious crimes. And I became a little bit disappointed in that. And I believe that the role is there for the defense attorney in the courtroom representing those people, uh, and, and, and explaining to the judge and to the, to the jury or whoever it may be, why the person they're defending, uh, uh, needs, you know, given their time, you know, being fair towards them. Um, I don't believe that it is in regards to, uh, a range of guidelines that, uh, this, the, the, uh, um, sentencing Commission provides to our judges. I think our judges, uh, should have the ability to, to, to make those determinations at the time and to listen to the defense attorneys, listen to the prosecutors, um, and then, uh, come with a look at, be able to look at a, uh, uh, a recommendation from the sentencing commission that maybe actually is a little bit better than zero to 210 days in jail. Of course, the judge has the ability to, to go whatever route that they would want to. They don't have to follow the recommendations. But time and time again is, I am being critical of, uh, some of the, the, um, um, the, the sensing things that I see. It comes back to the Sensing Commission guidelines. Well, we were within the Sentencing Commission guidelines. So, uh, with that, uh, let me just, uh, talk about my, uh, substitute really quick, Madam Chair, if I may tell you the difference of what that does. So the substitute directs the commission to review and revise the guidelines for serious crimes, and it requires judges to ensure criminal senses reflect the seriousness of the crime, uh, to protect, uh, the public. So with that, Madam Chair, I'm open to questions from you and the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. Speaker. If, uh, Madam Chair, if the, uh, speaker would yield to a series of questions?

Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.

I, um, did this bill come at the request of, uh, any law enforcement organization or, or, or victims organization?

It didn't, but, uh, when I had the opportunity to speak with them about the concerns that I had, they had similar concerns. And so while it did not come from them, uh, the conversations that I've had that with those in this space have referenced similar con, similar concerns that I have had

My apologies. Of course, Madam Chair. Uh, Madam Chair, uh, my follow up question, are there any other, um, uh, states that have a commission like this, that don't have, uh, defense attorneys on those commissions?

I'm not aware of what other states have, uh, as far as whether they, what their sentencing commissions look like or even if they have sentencing commissions, uh, at all. So, um, one of the things that's been really concerning to me, and I, you know, I hate to admit this, uh, but my first few years in the legislature, there was a big push to reduce crimes and reduce penalties. And, uh, you know, I went along with the notion of, you know, we probably need to try to reform not incarcerate. Well, we've seen now, uh, looking at that eight, 10 years later, that the consequences of not holding people accountable to their decisions, uh, that they make, and, uh, the crazy acts and crimes that they commit, um, hasn't worked out so well for the citizens of this state. Uh, public safety, um, in some of the polling that we did, especially last year, uh, including this year, is a top concern, um, with the public. And when they see, uh, criminals commit really serious crimes and get off, um, with little to no, uh, consequences for the actions that they, uh, for, for the crimes they committed, people get upset and rightfully so. And so, I think that's where we're at in today, and that's why I think this is important. I do think the defense attorneys, uh, certainly, uh, have a role to play in the system, and that's in the courtroom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And if I could ask one more question, um, it appears to me that the, uh, defense lawyers here are three out of 15 on the commission, uh, representing a super minority. Are there any instances, uh, from the commission record, uh, to show that, uh, the defense attorneys had an all outsized influence on developing the guidelines?

You know, I haven't went into that. I did, uh, watch a video the other day of somebody from the sentencing commission opposing it, and I don't know who it was, or maybe, maybe it wasn't actually someone from the sentencing commission. But I, you know, you look at it and I see what happens here inside the committees, and I see the defense attorneys arguing for little to no, uh, punishment for the heinous crimes, and it disappoints me. And I recognize that, uh, defense attorneys three out of 15 members, but I also come back to victims only one out of 15.

And and Madam Chair, can I just follow up one last question? I apologize. Um, uh, and I, I do appreciate, uh, that victims do need to have a meaningful presence on the commission. Um, would a remedy here, why wouldn't the remedy be, uh, uh, more consistent with that ideology to add more representation from the victim's rights community as opposed to removing defense attorneys?

I think there's a number of different ways that you can look at this. I'm open to continuing the discussion and dialogue as we move forward. If there's different ideas and ideas out there that are, that, that are being floated, I'm happy to do that. I had the opportunity to sit down, uh, with, uh, um, the defense, uh, defense attorney, uh, the other day, maybe it was yesterday, and I threw out, Hey, if I threw one on, and they said, yeah, no, we're still going to be opposed to it. So I'm open to those conversations, uh, as, as we move forward. And I, I suspect especially, uh, if the bill makes it outta the house, once it gets over into the Senate, that they'll probably more, more of those conversations, I'm open to them. Um, am I saying this is the perfect fix? Um, I think it is. Uh, but uh, as we move through the process and there's other ideas that's talked about, I'd certainly be open to them.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Those are all the questions I have. I appreciate it. Thank

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you for presenting this bill. I, you know, being on this committee, we hear a lot of things, and I think probably maybe we get emailed about, um, people who have been offending over and over and over and are constituents keep asking, why are they let out? Why when they, you know, committed murder or committed something else, were they given just a slap on the wrist to go back out and just offend again? And I think a lot of times at the state, we start to think about, okay, how can we make these penalties harder? Or how can we pass another law? The fact is we already have laws. We already have sentences, and they are not being really followed through with the recommendations that they should be. And so I like this idea of working with the framework that we already have. We're not adding any more laws, but we're just, you know, taking a step back and saying, okay, you know, are these adequate sentences? And who are the majority voices that, um, are having their say on there? So I appreciate your work on this. Thank you.

It was Mr. Madam Chair. Uh, to, to that point, and, you know, I've had, as public safety has been a top concern over the last two years, starting last year, uh, here in the state of Utah. And the citizens are pushing back. And again, I hate to admit it, but I was one of the ones 10 years ago that voted for a comprehensive package of bills that reduced, uh, a lot of, uh, penalties. And we got it wrong, and now we're going to pay the price, and we've got it. I get it. There's a lot of things that, uh, some of these decisions are tough, but public safety is government's number one responsibility in my eyes. And when I have the opportunity to sit down with not just one law enforcement agency, but law enforcement agency after law enforcement agency, after law enforcement agency, and, uh, d occasionally with prosecutors. Uh, not all prosecutors feel this way, but a lot of prosecutors feel this way. They feel very frustrated with the system that's there, that, uh, they'll go out and finally catch somebody that committed a serious crime. And then I've heard it say multiple times, again, they're out on the streets before the judge. They're out on the streets before with no, no penalties before the officer has a a chance to write the report. And we can't have that again. We're not just seeing it here in Utah, uh, all across the nation. People are standing up and saying, enough is enough. People need to be held accountable for the crimes that they commit. And I think if Utah gets behind on not cracking down and not fixing some of the mistakes that we've made over the last few years or several years, we're gonna pay the price in the future. So I believe this bill helps move that forward. So thank you for the comment.

Please proceed. Sheriff Chad Jensen, represent the Utah Sheriff's Association. Um, first off, um, just to make a clarification point, the sheriffs didn't ask for this bill, but we certainly support Rep or Speaker Schultz in and what he's trying to do and the changes that he wants to make. And I think it will be, um, mixing massive improvements to public safety in the state of Utah. I just broke,

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Richard Murrow. I'm the Executive Director of the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association. I have also served on the sentencing commission for the last 14 years in various roles. I think it's important to remember that the role that we play as defense lawyers is a role of collaboration. Um, I, I look at and watch how things evolve and there is robust discussion, and I would invite all of you to come to a sentencing commission meeting to see that the three people that are on the sentencing commission that are the defense representation are very much a minority, but I think it's an important voice that we bring to that table. The charge of the sentencing commission is to apply evidence-based practices and to ensure that there is Independence of the judiciary in the way that it sentences people. We bring an important voice to that table because we have experience. It would be like saying, well, only Democrats can vote on issues in the state and Republicans, we are going to pass a law that says they can't vote. And that wouldn't be fair because both of those sides coming together like this process are important considerations for us to look at when we're looking at sentencing policy. You know, I wanna give a shout out to, to Representative Clancy. Um, and as an example, yesterday, he held a, a day long seminar, if you will, with actors from the criminal legal system. And we got together in the morning for breakfast and talked about some solutions to problems. It was a broad group of people, and we got together in the evening. That's a good illustration of the importance of having everybody at the table. And when we remove one important voice from that table, um, then we don't have good criminal legal policy and we don't have balance. And I would ask you to oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair Committee members. Um, my name is Mark Moffitt. I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I'm here on behalf of the Utah Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and I'm gonna shock everybody here and tell you that we are in opposition to this particular piece of legislation. Now, I'm not a member of the sentencing commission, but I was on the sentencing commission from 2010 to 2014 as a defense lawyer. At that point in time, I was honored that the governor, governor Herbert, at the time asked me to serve on the sentencing commission. And I very much valued the opportunity to provide a defense perspective on what I think are really important sentencing policy issues here at the state of Utah. Um, my time on the sentencing commission taught me a number of very, very important things. You know, as a defense lawyer in the, excuse me, as a defense lawyer in the courtroom, um, we, we, we are advocate on behalf of our client, but behind, um, what we're advocating are these sentencing policy issues that I learned a lot about while I was on the sentencing commission. Um, and one of the valuable lessons that I learned on the sentencing commission is that my perspective was about one voice in the conversation, uh, regarding what is important sentencing policy, and that there are other important perspectives that were provided by other stakeholders. Um, we value our ability to provide input, we view it as a privilege, and we want that privilege to continue. And what we're asking that the commission do today is allow us to, to remain on the sentencing commission. And we look forward to continuing to work with the speaker on this important issue. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Deandra Brown, and I am representing myself as a member of the public today. But I'm also here speaking as a victim of crime. The child abuse I suffered at the hands of my father, changed everything about my life, as you can imagine, um, down to my physical health and the way that I perceive situations. So too often, victims of crime are made to feel powerless again. And this time by the very system that is meant to protect us, we can be left feeling betrayed, re-victimized, or even forgotten once the headlines fade. What most victims want really is simple accountability, justice, and the space and time to heal. We will take as much time as the system will give us to allow the offender to be unable to hurt us again. We want our voices and experiences to be respected and heard when decisions about our cases and our very lives are being made. Achieving justice requires that balance, no doubt. And it starts with ensuring that victims' voices are always at the table and whenever decisions are being made, that we are able to feel a part of the process. I am here today to remind you that our voices matter deeply and they must be central in shaping law and policy. So I very much respect the speaker bringing this bill forward, and it really does restore, uh, at least this victim's hope in the process moving forward. So thank you. Thank

Thank you. My name is Lacey Singleton. I am a criminal defense attorney, uh, with Salt Lake Legal Defender Association. I have been a defense attorney for 18 years, and I also served on the misdemeanor subcommittee of the sentencing Commission from 2015 to 2018. Um, while I am a defense attorney, I am also a victim of crime. I have been the victim of a home invasion when I was home and in the shower, a sexual assault and a mugging, which I was, uh, left unconscious on the street. So, contrary to what I think a lot of perception is, defense attorneys are not insensitive to concerns about public safety. Um, we certainly want, um, crime reduced and, and we want the streets of Salt Lake City to be safer. What we are, what we are interested in is ensuring that policies and, and, and laws are made that are so that our clients are charged and prosecuted appropriately. And we think that having a voice at the table to help ensure that laws are, are, are written in a way that avoids unnecessary litigation down the road. We can help tighten language of things that could be challenged down the road. Um, what our main goal is, is to make sure that, that our clients are treated fairly in the process, but we are not incentive to concerns about public safety. And, um, often we are, um, asking, you know, trying to, to help our clients understand what long-term, uh, benefits they could receive and not what they want in the immediate short term. So we're asking you to leave a defense attorney voice on this table.

Thank you. Welcome. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Um, Brett Robinson, the Chief Policy Advisor at the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office. And we are not a member of the sentencing commission, but we do participate regularly in their meetings. And we have a lot of, um, respect for what they do. We completely agree that the, um, guidelines need to be modified in some important ways, and we've advocated, uh, with victims and other interest groups to make those changes. We don't always get what we advocate for, um, but we do believe that there's work to be done. Um, but even if we could get the guidelines exactly where we think we are, they should be. Um, we think it's important also the perception of, uh, of the guidelines and that there's complete confidence in the process that is involved in. Well, um, before coming here, I was down in Guantanamo as a member of the military, and it was a death penalty case. And we, our judge had been secretly negotiating with the Department of Justice, who was the prosecutor in our case for post-employment after the military. And when this issue got before the District Court of Appeals, um, they looked at it and they looked at those decisions and they recognized the importance of having all of those rulings be not just fair, in fact, but the perception to be fair. And they decided they'd go ahead and kick out over two years worth of the rulings because that conflict hadn't been disclosed. And I just think it's important to, um, when looking at these decisions, important things to be made, that they have ap adequate representation across the board from all important voices, which I encourage you to, to consider that. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Nathan ever said a former prosecutor, current defense attorney. It's a real pleasure to be here. I've never done something like this before. I was a prosecutor for 11 years, ended doing aggravated murder cases. I was a Republican candidate for Salt Lake County District Attorney in 2018. And for the last seven years I've been on the criminal defense. So I'm a conservative Republican defense attorney. I might be the lone one in Utah. But, uh, so I wanted to, to provide my perspective as a former prosecutor. I think it's very fair to say that they don't own or they don't control all the good ideas in the world. And as a current defense attorney, I can just say they don't know everything either. We respect the constitution. I was in Philadelphia this past summer with my family, first time in an Independence hall. It's not what happened there that is just so remarkable and miraculous. It's such a great place, but it's how it happened. It wasn't the silencing of voices or of opinions, it was the enhancing of them. It was big states in small states. It was north and south. People coming together in a collaborative committee, coming up with ideas, respecting each other's voices, not silencing them or not putting them in a corner. And I think that's the model. It's a great model. It's the model of what literally is happening right now. And so I would ask that we just follow that model. That's where you find truth, that's where you find perspective, that's where you find consensus. That's where you, that's where you find the best way forward. It is served well, and I think we should continue with that. Thank you.

Carl. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Carl Holland. I am the Executive Director of the Statewide Association of Prosecutors. I think that it's important, uh, at the outset of my comments to recognize that, uh, SWAP and any other law enforcement agency I'm aware of who did not request this bill. And it's not important to try to figure out where this bill is coming from, because where this bill is coming from, it's coming from the people. And this body is being responsive to what they're hearing the people say, which is there are concerns about how our sentences maybe are formulated, what those sentencing guidelines are, and maybe how those sentences are deci divided or decided by our judiciary. And that's a very important conversation. That is a conversation that I've had with countless victims. And the most difficult part about being a prosecutor, and I've dealt with extremely ugly things, is when you sit down with a parent and you ask them how many days their child's life or their child's innocence is worth, because that's usually what we're talking about is days. And so this is an extremely important conversation. I'm very grateful to speak for bringing this bill and raising this to this level of importance. And we, as statewide association prosecutors, we are dedicated to being part of this solution, to being responsive to the people, to ensuring their sentencing guidelines, uh, are created and enforced in a way that they represent what the people expect from their government, and that we can keep our community safe. Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome. Thank you. Uh, my name is Seth Stewart. I'm representing myself. I have one question, and that is, uh, when was the sentencing commission created and what did it replace? Constitutionally, there are three bodies that can have any say in sentencing. One is the legislature where a constitution specifies that the legislature shall have power to prescribe sentencing or sentencing guidelines. Two is the judge who is hearing the case. And three, the jury who's responsible for the verdict. The jury has sole power to convict in any criminal case. The jury already constitutes a fair and impartial panel of citizens with a direct stake in both enforcing justice and preventing excessive punishments. What jurors permit to be done to others, they permit to be done to themselves. This is not the case with the government instituted panel. This structural self-interest is the constitution's most reliable check against over punishment commissions possess no constitutional authority to engage in policymaking or punitive functions. Referring sentencing guidelines to a commission substitutes accountable lawmaking with a consensus driven norm setting to special interest groups that bear no personal risk and face no constitutional restraint. This risks sentencing by a bureaucratic mob, which can be coordinated, insulated, and structurally biased towards severity. Plea bargaining magnifies these defects which converts, uh, the disproportionate sentencing into coercive leverage by placing direct pressure on the fifth and eighth amendments. So I urge you to, uh, oppose this measure. Thank you.

Hi, my name's Rochelle Morris, and I'm a resident of Salt Lake City. I'm representing myself today. I had not planned on speaking to this bill, but I too, like my former Democratic opponent for Salt Lake County Council, Deandre Brown, um, rose, and spoke about being a victim. I am also a victim of a felony, uh, in Salt Lake City within the last year, a home invasion. And I, I come forward in support of speaker's. Bill, thank you for empowering victims in this process. Uh, being the victim of a home invasion, I came to appreciate that trauma is real, uh, when our homes are violated, uh, when our bodies are violated, uh, anything that institutes a felony crime against a human. And, uh, my, my situation is not as dire as my friend Deandre's situation was, but in the process of my case over the last several months, I was assigned to a victim's advocate. And while I was at court one day spending hours with her, uh, she was pointing out these, uh, triggers that I was experiencing of trauma, uh, in this process of being a victim. And let me just tell you, I don't like being a victim. I hate that title for myself. That's just the category of the situation that I'm in. And I asked her, I said, well, Mikayla, how many cases do you have? She said, two to 300. And I said, and how many involve trauma? And she said, oh, Rochelle, that's all I get assigned to. The trauma is real for victims, and this is an empowering process, and I urge the committee to support speaker's. Bill, thank you.

you. My name is David Ferguson. I'm the Executive Director of the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. I'm also on the sentencing commission, but I don't speak on behalf of the commission. I thought I would briefly explain what I do on the commission and urge you to put a pause on this bill and consider other solutions. When a person comes forward to the commission with a increased penalty, they have a particular crime in in mind, and they have a, uh, uh, a particular scenario or person who is a worst case scenario, typically of that crime. And they want to see future people who've committed similar, um, offenses, treated more seriously. But as the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. When we increase the penalties for one type of situation, it increases the penalty for all the others in the same vote during the same tide. Sometimes my colleagues, my, my job is, as I view it, is to think about not the worst case scenario, but the least worst case scenario that will be affected by the increase in penalty. I consider this defense attorneys are especially well suited to thinking about these scenarios. And then I present them to my colleagues on the commission. Sometimes they say, David, that's interesting. That's also pretty bad. We wanna increase penalties for that person too. Sometimes they say, shoot, we dis we just didn't think about how this, the ramifications of this increased penalty is going to affect other people. And that's important information that, uh, ensures that the right decisions are being made for the right reasons. Urge you to consider, urge you to put a pause and consider alternatives to eliminating the defense voice. Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Um, committee chairs, committee members, um, speaker Schultz. My name is Tom Ross. I'm the Executive director of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. The agency where the Sentencing commission resides. And the comments that I originally was, you know, anticipating saying, I think I'm gonna change up just a little bit. Uh, it's been an interesting process for me. I think for those that remember back, um, I first came up to the legislature in 2015 representing the Chiefs of Police Association. I come from a background, uh, 34 year background of law enforcement. Two weeks before I was voted in as president of the Chief's police, JRI passed. So as I came up, we didn't know a lot about what JRI was doing and what was happening, and we were very concerned about it. And I was kind of sent up really with a mandate that we need to try to kill this. And I spent many, many hours up here at the Capitol talking bill after Bill that we're mostly against law enforcement telling us everything that we were doing wrong from how we handled the public, how we dealt with the public use of force, deescalation, everything, body cameras. And I felt often in every one of those rooms, like, and hopefully I can take just a few more minutes, but I'll try to hurry. Um, I felt like I was kind of a lone voice in many of those. But what I appreciated is I at least had an opportunity to start educating and helping people understand what we do. And I was listening to the concerns that others were having about our profession. And I think the changes that occurred over a period of time with the chiefs and sheriffs were very positive. So we get to a place here where I completely understand where Speaker Schultz is coming from outta concern for these cases, having maybe concerns in other spaces that this isn't the right balance. But I hope in the process of all this, that the importance of having a space, one space where we can talk all sides of criminal justice, and then you, the, the representatives of the people who I respect completely can make the decisions that you want to make. You can move it the dial. I, I hope all of you have felt and seen from me, CCJJ, that we are there to support you. We're not there to push you, to block you and hold you back. And I'll end with this. When Governor Cox reached out after the interview to offer me this job, at that time, prosecutors and some law enforcement groups were looking to leave the commission. And their reasons for that is they didn't feel like their voice was being heard. And he asked me as part of my mandate for coming up or my directive to bring those groups together and keep that, keep the commission moving forward and make sure those voices are heard. That's what I do. That's probably the single biggest value I've brought to the places I've been, is I'm willing to have hard conversations. I'm willing to try to find a way forward. So I sit here and I hear a lot of the comments, and in many ways I feel like there's been a failure on my part. It's not the voices that are the problem. If we need different direction, different leadership, if we need to view the outcome of those voices differently, I support that. And I hope at the end of all this, that we still have a place that we can hear all sides, even when we don't like it, even when I don't like it. And then you, as the decision makers who have a tough job, can make the best decisions for our state. And I fully support that. So thank you. Not opposed, not in support, I just am confused and I don't know exactly how this fits going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Pamela Vickery. I'm a youth defense attorney and I'm on the sentencing commission. Sorry, Tom, Tom got to me there. Um, I just wanna say I have dedicated my life to public service, and that's something that my family taught me. My grandfather was a judge in Weber County. He actually was the judge on the HiFi case. Um, and I wanna reiterate, defense attorneys are not opposed to public safety. We are trying to work within the system, and I've been honored to serve on the sentencing commission and appreciate working with my colleagues and all of the people that we work with there. And if we are, continue to be on that voice, we will continue to be thoughtful and work hard. And just wanted to say that we appreciate that opportunity. Thank you.

Um, my name's Steve Burton. I'm the director of the Defense Attorney Association. And, um, and I've had personal conversations with each one of you and I've appreciated my opportunity to speak with each one of you. And each time I've done that, I've tried to be sincere and direct and honest. I hope that I've provided a valuable perspective. Um, I, I, Tom, I I love you and I appreciate, um, your, your pure heart and your desire to collaborate with others and to include everyone's voice. I have felt that when I've spoken with him, and I've felt that when I've spoken with each of you and I, and I love and appreciate all of you. Um, and, uh, Ms. Deandra Brown, who I consider a friend. Um, what I heard is she appealed to this committee for a voice, to have a voice, to be able to have her voice heard. And that's what we're asking for as, as a defense bar. We want a voice. And I will tell you the first, uh, if this was directed at prosecutors or law enforcement or victims, I would be the first person to stand up and say, we should not remove their voice. Everyone needs that voice, and that's what we're asking for. We believe that a diversity of ideas coming together, this collision of ideas that Thomas Jefferson and the founders talked about is important that it helps, uh, reach better ideas and better solutions. I, um, have dedicated the last 15 years of my life after being a prosecutor to speaking for the voiceless, those undesirables that nobody else wants to speak for. And I know my opinion is sometimes unpopular, but I hope that it's important and insightful and sincere. I appreciate the speaker's, uh, willingness to speak with me on this bill. I hope to continue to work with him and hope to provide a voice that is valuable to you as policymakers as you make your decisions. Thank you. Thank

Thank, thank you, Madam Chair. I, I've heard a lot about the, the representation piece. So if, if this committee or the body further down the line was able to get defense representation back into this, this proposed legislation, would you support the other changes in in the bill?

Um, I didn't know there was a substitute until Speaker Schultz uh, mentioned it today. I, I would absolutely consider those. I would be very interested to see kind of what they did and what the practical implications were. And I would hope that, um, that by looking in that and giving you my opinion, that would be a valuable contribution to you making your decision as, as far as what the policy of the state should be. And, and I, I think that's the point, right? If, if you feel like you asking me a question is helpful information, then I think that that's what we're trying to do is give you that viewpoint.

Absolutely. And the bill, just the, the bill as written though, would you support the other changes in the bill as written if we were to, to change that to make sure that defense had had a voice

I, I think, you know, I'm not trying to demure, I'm not trying to jump back to your question. I haven't read it. I, I tried to read it while I was sitting in the back while preparing my thoughts. I would absolutely read it. We might be supportive. We might not. I don't know. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Christie Pike. I'm the director of the Washington County Children's Justice Center. Um, I'm here from St. George. Uh, I am not speaking on behalf of the Children's Justice Centers. However, I ap applaud Speaker Schultz for, uh, working on the sentencing commission. I, we serve a number of victims and sentences are not sufficient for those victims to be able to heal, to be able to move on with their lives before the perpetrator is back out again. And we've talked a little bit about having victim representation on this commission, and I'm here to tell you, you have zero victim representation on the commission. Um, the Victim Services Commission has zero victim representation on it. So I would suggest that you look at, at ways of really having those with lived experience, um, represented on the sentencing commission. So with that, I, uh, I thank you all for your time.

Madam Chair. Um, I just wonder if you could elaborate on what you mean by there's no victim representation on with the victim services.

There is, there's not a victim spot on the Victim Services Commission. It was eliminated shortly after the commission was formed. Commissions were, were made smaller, and that was one of the positions that was eliminated off the Victim Services Commission

A, a follow up. So, um, I'm not, I just assumed that's a yes. Is that okay? Madam Chair? Um, so there is no Victim Services commission at all, that is having one person come to the sentencing commission, is that what you're saying? No,

I'm saying there is a victim services commission, it exists, and there is a representative from the Victim Services Commission who is assigned to the sentencing commission, but it's not a victim because there isn't a victim position on the Victim Services Commission. See what you mean? Does that make sense? Yes. Yeah.

So much. Thank you. Wayne Aston. I'm, uh, just a Utah resident. I am a victim of felony domestic violence, aggravated assault, uh, at the hands of a, a female domestic partner. Um, and so I've had deep involvement with DCFS and all the law enforcement agencies, um, speaking from experience, and I wasn't planning on getting up today, but my heart is just listening to the comments that my heart is racing. I thank Speaker Schultz for your effort on this bill. I think it's absolutely necessary. Um, I actually have experience with Judge Torgerson as well, and I'm not surprised to hear about the ruling. Um, statistically speaking, in Utah, AP and P, oh, Mike, just cut. Hello, there it is. In Utah, statist, statistically speaking, 80% of felony cases. Uh, judges accept recommendations from AP and P by way of sentencing, meaning that only 20% are, um, you know, receiving more appropriate, uh, I think measures for these sentence, the sentences as, as a victim, I felt serious frustration about being the victim and feeling like the system is giving deference to the offender. And that's my question. If it, if it comes to women and children and all of us, the basic fundamental question is why would we give deference to the criminal offender versus the victim? And I think that this particular committee should reflect some of the previous comments having appropriate, uh, victims advocates on the board versus all of these defense attorneys. I think it needs to be flip flopped. So I support the bill.

Hello. Thank you. My name is Hillary White, and I am a staff attorney with the Utah Crime Victims Legal Clinic. Our clinic represents victims of crime in the criminal justice system, and I work with victims every day on sentencing considerations. While I do not speak for the clinic, I am speaking from experience. As the committee currently stands, its members are heavily biased in favor of defendants. As you know, sentencing happens at the end of the case, after the state has met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed a crime throughout the criminal justice process. The defense attorneys, the judges, and even the state attorneys, work diligently to protect the defendant's rights throughout the criminal justice process. Victims are put under scrutiny, have their rights constantly threatened, such as through subpoenas and four 12 hearings. And four 12 is the rape shield law in Utah, and they're constantly invalidated by the defendant's story. It is a necessary evil in order to protect the defendant's rights. Finally, after a conviction, the victims thinks that they will get a sense of justice at last. Instead, victims frequently find that the accountability they've been hoping for through sentencing is minimal. The current structure of the committee has allowed for a great deal of leeway for offenders and has proven to be a disappointment to victims. Time and time again, our state has become a beacon to pedophiles and sex offenders because even if they get convicted for their crimes, their sentences are minimal and they are free to re-offend in no time due to the fact that sentencing guidelines are based on the best case scenario. One example of this is a defendant who committed rape but pled guilty to four counts of second degree felony forcible, uh, sex abuse. The abuse in this case went on for a long time. In the end, the defendant's sentencing recommendation was only 270 days in jail with a midpoint of 135 days outre. This is outrageous for serious sex offense that created a lot of trauma. Um, the, and I just have one last remark. The addition of two criminal prosecutors, two representatives of the Utah Sheriff's Association and two, juvenile prosecutors will facilitate a stronger sense of justice in our system, especially for victims of crime. These members would be better positioned to consider the needs of all parties, the state, the community, the victim, and accountability for the offender in structuring sentencing guidelines. Thank you.

Can you hear me now? Yes. Thank you. Sorry. I'm on the way to a meeting and sitting in their parking lot. Um, my name is Pamela Giuliano. I'm a resident of Helper, Utah. In 2013, our home was broken into the individual that broke into our home. It was his second offense. He was out on parole high on heroin, and the intent was vandalism of four homes be Our home was one of four. And the intent of the sentencing was to provide the least impactful to the defendant to see if there was some way, uh, to rehabilitate. Speaker Schultz, I appreciate this Bill. Madam Chair, thank you for the time. Uh, to make a comment about this. I definitely believe we absolutely need to have the conversation. This bill, this amendment is vital. We live in, in a rural community, and I was bringing my home, my husband home from eye cancer surgery. This is, this is not the way victims feel safe. We have to have a voice. And when assigned to a victim's advocate, I had to do the work. Law enforcement does not have enough support. They're doing everything they can. Victims advocates are doing everything they can. At the end of the day, it ends up being the victim's responsibility to follow up. And I made sure that I was at parole hearings so that our voice could be heard. So again, thank you for the bill speaker, and thank you for the time. Madam Chair,

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I'll make a motion that we adopt the first substitute to this bill.

I'll wa on that. Okay. I'd like to make another motion.

Okay. Thank you. Um, chair, I don't know if I'm doing this right. I, I have something to say. I don't know if it's discussion to the motion. Um, I, I would like to speak To the, and I apologize for pronouncing your name incorrectly. Manga? Yes. Thank you. Okay. I appreciate it. Um, speaker, I just wanna say I support the concept and the effort to strengthen public safety and to prioritize victims' voices. The work that I am prioritizing this year, and and I've always prioritized, is the voices of victims. Um, they often, too often they go unheard. And so I wanna say thank you to the victims who showed up today to share your personal stories and to all the public for, for commenting. Um, while I'm not a yes on the floor, as this bill is currently drafted, I will be voting to move this bill out of committee so that we can continue working on it. Um, sentencing policy works best when it's informed by every part of the system. Defense attorneys are a necessary part of that balance. And my professional background is working in mental and behavioral health. On, on the residential side of things. For many years I worked with youth in JJYS custody, and so I've witnessed firsthand that defense attorneys are often closest to issues of proportionality, rehabilitation, and unintended consequences. And without those perspec perspectives, we risk creating policy that is incomplete, that it's my biggest concern. Speaker, I appreciate your work and your willingness to continue these conversations. And so I look forward to working with you to, to make the best policy that we can. Thank you. Thank

I'll waive, I'll save my comments for later. Thank you. Okay.

Same. I'll Waive as well. Same waive. Alright.

Make a motion that we, uh, uh, favorably recommend the first substitute of this bill out of this committee.

I'll wait till the end of

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, wanna put on the record, uh, my no vote. I know it's not a surprise to anyone that I, I oppose this bill, but I, I, I wanna make clear, uh, a couple of things and a lot that echoes my, my colleague, um, to the, to the victim's representatives and the victims in this room testified today, I hear you. Um, there's a common thread in here that victims' voices aren't being heard loud enough in this process. And, and that is something I respect. And, and I think that, uh, if that's what the, the substance of this bill about, I certainly would not oppose. Um, what I'm looking at here is the substance as the committee's made up. Right now, we have the Department of Corrections as a representative, attorney general's statewide association, prosecutors, sheriff representative, juvenile prosecutor. Now that's, that's five members of law enforcement. This seeks to add about six new members of law enforcement's representatives, and not a single new representative from victims' services or victims' rights organizations. The only victim organization right now represented on the committee is victim Services. What it does do is it removes all defense voices, um, that does not seem like balance. Uh, a bill here that is actually eager to find balance. A true team of rivals eager to find truth in the process, would have equity from all voices. I think that a, a bill here that would permit defense attorneys to stay on and contribute, uh, and, uh, perhaps increase the, uh, uh, uh, input from victims organizations so that way they could more meaningfully input with the process. I don't think that adding more law enforcement equates the same as, as having direct lived experience from victim individuals, or, sorry, individuals that, that have been victimized by, by, by crime. Uh, sometimes and often law enforcement and, uh, victims, uh, organizations are consistent with their goals, but not always. And I think that's important to distinguish. Um, I I say these because I wanna be perfectly clear about what I, why I am voting no on this. And, and, and so that way those that are are from victims organizations underst understand what, uh, what my concerns are. Last thought, um, on behalf of, uh, myself, uh, thinking about my colleagues from the Defense Bar, um, when I first became a defense lawyer, a lot of people, um, treated me like I was the ambassador for the despise, as if that was the job of the defense lawyer. Um, I'm a public defender. I'm a lawyer for the poor, uh, lawyer. And I think it was Mr. Ferguson who testified today once described to me, being a, a defense lawyer is like being an auditor of justice. You anticipate and expect law enforcement to do their job. And they do do a great job. You expect prosecutors to do their job, they do a great job. You expect the judge to do a job, they do a great job. But does everyone bat 100% 100% of the time the answer's no. And when we're talking about people's liberty and in sometimes their lives, having an auditor of justice in the room is appropriate. Good governments aren't scared of dissenting voices from civil rights lawyers. They welcome that input. So on those reasons, I vote no. But like my colleague, I would possibly change my vote if, if this was structured differently. 'cause I don't generally oppose the way that this is structured. It's just how this is proposed to be structured is, is the way I I opposed it. So, thank you, uh, Madam Chair. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, I just wanted to explain my vote on this. I am going to vote no as well, and I want to just explain my reasoning here. For those who came and testified and were our victims of crime, my heart goes out to them. It's, it's, it's just devastating to hear those stories. And I support the sponsor and his efforts to make our community safer and to strengthen our criminal justice system and to keep criminals off the street. But my concern is, um, going back to June of 1787 when we were holding the constitutional convention and there was a lot of different voices in the room and they were not getting along. And it was so bad that people started packing their bags to go home and said, this is not worth it. We can't get through it. George Washington worked hard, kept them in the room, and by September we had a constitution. And when he wrote the letter to, uh, the federal, to the government, uh, the existing government at that time saying, you know, delivering the the Constitution, he said it was only through a spirit of Amity that we were able to stay there together and work out a solution. If you look out the, if you look at the solution, they, they worked out our founding fathers. It was a solution that created a government where almost everybody had a voice. The small states had a voice, the large states had a voice, uh, didn't matter which states you were from. You had a voice in that government that within a couple years, they adopted the, uh, bill of Rights. And one of the rights they gave to us in that was the freedom of speech. I think our republic is stronger when we listen and when minority voices are actually allowed to express themselves. In this case, uh, we've heard three of the 15 members of the commission are defense attorneys. That's definitely a minority. I don't think, I think that commission and our government and the criminal justice system is better when we follow what our founding fathers did, and that is to allow people to have a voice and to express it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I have several thoughts. Uh, first, uh, chief Ross, um, and his comment around being confused, chief Ross and I came to the Capitol, uh, about the same time, sounds like. And, uh, it was, and that, that's why I started off this, uh, conversation around, uh, we as a legislature made some serious mistakes, um, in that 2015 through 2018 era, I'm gonna say, and maybe even a little bit beyond, and, uh, released and relaxed, a bunch of penalties. And, uh, we're bearing the consequences of that today. It used to be, when I first came to the legislature that, uh, education, transportation were the top priorities for citizens of the state last year. One of the top priorities, top three public safety this year, same thing. One of the top three issues, public safety, both ahead of education. This legislature's made some mistakes and created things that, uh, create a revolving door for criminals. And people are not being held accountable for the decisions. And so I can understand, uh, chief Ross is concerned, and I'm, I'm, I'm very sympathetic to that and, and, uh, would like to work with, uh, him to get some of these, uh, issues resolved and, and then committed to, to doing that. Uh, but I just wanna point out a few things. It was pointed out that the Constitutional authority lies with the legislature, sent comm sentence, uh, to, to send to, uh, do some of the sentencing or to do the sentencing for crimes. The legislature created the sentencing commission. Remember that the legislature created the sentencing commission. These are people that the legislatures created, or this is a system that legislatures created to help with the process. The constitutional authority rely lies within the legislature. So I'm gonna say this is an extension of the legislative branch to help promote guidelines to the courts for commissions or for the, some for, uh, crimes committed. I'm gonna come back to the Torgeson issue, 'cause it's the one we most know. Well, this sentencing commission recommended zero to 240 day, 210 days in jail. Zero. Someone that had over 300 and something images and videos of child pornography with victims who knows how many sensing commission guidelines, zero days of incarceration, it would in that range. That is not okay. Now, when that came forward, the torgeson, his comments, the sentence, my phone blew up, my email blew up, uh, social media blew up. Almost everyone that reached out to me told me how horrific that was, and appreciated my voice time and time again, I got phone calls from a defense attorneys defending George Toons decision and telling me why that was. Okay, these are the same people making recommendations on our sentencing commission. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the victims that argued for zero days in that guideline. And again, every time, again, wasn't Judge Torgeson fault, he was just following the sentencing commission's guidelines. Again, the sentencing commission was created by this legislature. It is our responsibility. I wanna point out, I, you know, I, I was okay putting a defense attorney on there. I don't necessarily agree, disagree that maybe there shouldn't be a defense attorney on there. I offered a defense attorney, uh, same representation as the victims have, and I was told that it would, they would still oppose this bill. So I'm open as we move through the process to continue and have dialogues, but we're going to get reforms moved through this legislature one way or the other. And, uh, if we have to do it over top of the defense bar, then I think that's what we should do. We would love to find a, a pathway forward. Uh, but right now, I don't feel like, uh, the, what what's been offered is, is fair to victims. And what those we represent, the people that we represent is fair. Um, We're not taken away. Defense attorney's, voice defense attorneys still have the opportunity to defend their client in the courtroom. And previous to 1993 or 1995, I can't remember which, when the sentencing commission was created, 1993 or 1995, that's where the defense attorneys, uh, had their opportunity to have their voice heard, to defend, but creating a pathway that allows defense attorneys to influence the process that would benefit them and their clients in the courtroom, I don't know that that's the best policy. I don't, it certainly isn't when you outweigh the victims three to one. So, uh, I, for the no votes, I'm sorry, I disagree with your positions, but I respect the offices that you hold and the people that you represent, and that that's your choice. But, um, I'll continue through the process trying to find a solution forward. But if the defense attorneys are just going to oppose it the whole way, then I, I, they still have a voice and that's still representing their clients in the courtroom. Madam Chair, if I may

Madam Chair, and to my colleagues, a yes vote on this bill. You just heard the sponsor talk about that, that he's willing to work with, with all of us to make this a better piece. But this is about enhancing public safety. Some of the best people in my life, and mentors to me, are individuals who have served in prison. Second chances matter, third chances, fourth chances. But if we can't get public safety right, then the, the healing and the rehabilitation can never happen. I think about in July of 2020 when West Valley police officers pulled over a stolen car that was going a hundred miles an hour. And the two people that were driving that car were the two people that killed Officer Cody Brotherson in West Valley in a stolen car just a few years prior. So when we look at the pendulum that has swung, JRI was mentioned multiple times. How many times have you colleagues have been criticized in, in the media or by other people about you? You're enhancing penalties. You're ratcheting up penalties. It's a one way ratchet. It's because we reduce penalties on dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of different things, and we're paying the price. And so the why, you could list story after story after story, after story of cases that I don't think anyone agrees with. And this is what we're trying to get to the heart at. I've got a couple that I wrote down here. This is a defendant distributing child sexual abuse material twice. When police arrive to get him, he throws his laptop outta the second story window. These images were of children like under 10 years old. After a very short sentence, he gets out again, and he strangles his girlfriend while he's unlawfully detaining her. That individual did zero time for the second sentence. I could go down the list here over and over and over again, but I'll, I'll highlight one more. This is an adult that meets up with a 12-year-old girl To quote, impregnate her, he's caught in the act by the victim's grandmother. He pleads and he gets 20 j 20 days in jail and probation. Within a year, he's rearrested attempting to meet up with a 16-year-old girl. And so, the why, the why are we enhancing penalties? Because we're elected by the people of Utah to keep us safe. And I could go on and I could list a thousand of these stories the same. And we all feel an obligation to the citizens of Utah to stop this kind of madness. Now, don't misunderstand me, KA, I'm not saying that this is the sentencing commission's fault. I actually think it lies squarely at our feet as a legislative prerogative. Speaker Schultz talked about that. This, this is a legislative piece. This is a, we're gonna work in tandem. We had a conversation with the sentencing commission in this committee in the interim. And what was talked about is the question was asked is, is the, is the presumptive sentence for possessing child sexual abuse material still presumptive probation? And the answer is yes. That is not, that is not reflective of the leadership of the sentencing commission, but rather, that should tell us that we are not aligned, because I could, I, I bet if we had that vote in this committee, if someone had a bill that said, I have a bill, that we're gonna have presumptive probation for possession of child sexual abuse material, I think that would fail handily. And so that's what we're doing here, is we're trying to find these common sense solutions. We're trying to bolster public safety and refocus, rebalance our efforts to make sure that these kinds of stories stop happening. So we can pick one or the other. We can vote no on this bill, and we can keep having the, the battle that we have where they're saying, well, you're increasing penalties. You're enhancing penalties. Well, this is why, because no one agrees with this, and we have to keep our citizens safe. That's, that's the the charge that we were elected to do. And finally, this is a process you've heard the speaker talk about today, that there's a multitude of different ways that this could go. But call, I urge you to vote yes, because a yes vote means that we are gonna advance public safety. We're gonna continue to work on it. It's going to be a better bill throughout the process. But the stories I've shared with you today, and I, and I could, I could go on and I could, I'm, I'm clearly, uh, being judicious about what details I'm sharing. And finally, I'll say this, the speaker talked about child sexual abuse material. We changed the definition of that in this body to instead of child pornography, child sexual abuse material, there's a citizen of Utah who's no longer with us because he took his own life. Because as a child, he was brutally abused by a mentor. And it was filmed and it was passed around, not just the United States, it was across the world. And this poor child from Utah has been viewed by so many different people that he became a target even after his offender was, uh, inter, inter international offender was sentenced. He could not get away. And these individuals that, uh, got that material, they commented even on his obituary, even on his obituary, these people commented about the videos and the abuse that he was subjected to saying violent, horrible, horrible things. I, I would never repeat in this committee. And so when we talk about, well, it's just this, or it's just that, this is where we have an opportunity to collaborate, refocus our efforts, and make sure that we're aligned moving forward. And that is why colleagues, we need to vote yes on this bill. Continue to work hard, continue to collaborate with all of the different stakeholders in this body that you've heard from today, and you've heard from this week. And we can make our state a better place. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members appreciate your time today and discussion. Thank you.

Madam Reading Clerk Sentencing amendments by Speaker Schultz, this bill was heard in judiciary with a vote of 9 2 0.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm, I'd like to move amendment number one under my name.

You, Mr. Speaker. Yes. Uh, representative or Mr. Speaker, this adds in, uh, or incorporates a lot of the discussion that I've heard and, and concerns that I've heard that, uh, removing all of the defense attorneys off of the sensing commission, uh, is probably not, uh, appropriate. And so this takes and adds, uh, uh, uh, defense attorney back into the sentencing commission, uh, and makes it on par with the victims. So victims have one. And now defense attorneys would have one, um, with this amendment.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, to Pro Tam. I I appreciate the opportunity to present this bill today. Uh, last year, Mr. Speaker, uh, judge Torgeson, uh, held a hearing with a defendant that was convicted on felony possession and distribution of videos of child pornography and the, uh, children being sexually assaulted. Uh, instead of giving him, uh, uh, incarcerate additional incarceration time, judge Torgeson let him off probation with time served only, no addition, no prison time whatsoever, no fines, and no community service. Uh, and after that, Mr. Speaker ProAm, my phone started blowing up significantly, mostly from people saying, uh, thank you for standing up and pointing out, uh, that what happened here was wrong. However, I did get a lot of phone calls from a lot of defense attorneys that pointed to the fact that, uh, judge Torgeson issued a ruling that was in line with the Sentencing Commission guidelines. And so, while I'm not here to focus on Judge Toga's, uh, decision and, and his comments, I do wanna focus on the sensing commission. And, uh, because, uh, after that, I started looking into the Sensing Commission, Mr. Speaker, and, uh, realized that, uh, there were only, uh, one victim on, or only one victim representative on the sentencing commission and three defense attorneys on the sentencing commission. And then shortly after that, uh, the judiciary issued a statement in defense of Judge Torgeson. And I, this is not gonna read the whole, uh, uh, the whole, uh, statement, but I would like to read a portion of that. So, quote, the sentence imposed by Judge Torresen was squarely aligned with the 2025 adult sensing release and supervision guidelines promulgated by the Utah Sentencing Commission. And so everybody started pointing to that. That's the reason the sensing commission was why, uh, the, the sense was so lean. So I started to look into the sentencing commission and the guidelines of the sentencing commission that they, that, that they come out. And I found in there a whole bunch of zeros. So on days for incarceration, and I'll get into that in just a minute, but zero days recommendation, uh, up to 365 days recommendation for some very serious crimes. And let me go over a couple of what some of these may, may be. So a person that was convicted of RI re aggravated burglary or aggravated child abuse, the Sensing Commission recommended guidelines are zero to 364 days. Now, contrast that also. Well now also another one, sexual assault and kidnap offense, if they were convicted of a first degree sexual offense kid and kidnapping, again, zero to 365 days for a first degree felony. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you go back 10, 11 years, uh, to, let's say 2014, it was 365 days recommendation. And so I think we have a significant problem, uh, here in the state of Utah. And I'll fully admit Mr. Speaker pro tem, that some of that is probably this legislature's fault. I know that, uh, when I came into the legislature 12 years ago, there was a move, uh, to, uh, through JRI to lessen incarceration time and really work on, uh, and on, uh, rehabilitation. Well, Mr. Speaker ProAm, we now have evidence that that is not working and that we're, we're, we're, we're, uh, continuing, uh, the holding people accountable, uh, for their decisions is not working. And, uh, we received this, uh, revolving door of, uh, criminals coming in and outta the system. And in many cases, according to some law officer or law law enforcement officers making it back to committing additional crimes before, uh, the criminals or, or sorry, before the police officer has time to write up the report. And so, uh, over the last several years, legislature has been unwinding a lot of what has been done or was done with JRI because we now see it's not working. You can look at poll after poll after poll, uh, in how our constituents feel. And crime is increasingly, and public safety is increasingly going up the ladder, especially inside of Salt Lake County. And so, uh, I think it's time, Mr. Speaker ProAm to again, take additional measures and crack down on what's happening. And I really, uh, truly believe, uh, that, uh, fixing this, the sentencing commission and, uh, making it more on par, uh, you know, again, in this case it would give one victim, uh, or it gives defense attorneys the same representation as victims have on the sentencing commission. So, Mr. Speaker pro Tem, lemme tell you what this bill does. So it removes two defense attorneys from the sentencing commission. It adds two criminal prosecutors, and then it all, and, uh, two sheriffs to the commission. And then it directs the commission to review and revise the guidelines for serious crimes. It also directs the judges to ensure criminal sentences reflect the seriousness of the crime and protect, uh, help protect the public. So with that, Mr. Speaker ProAm, I'm open to questions from the body.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm. I, I actually rise in support of the bill and I, I appreciate the sponsor from Hooper allowing me to be just a small portion of this conversation, but that portion of the conversation was actually specific to the defense, right? While my personal preference as a law enforcement officer would be that maybe we don't have any defense attorneys on this. Counsel, I've learned having defense in the room when we're negotiating bills is very, uh, powerful and effective. And I appreciate that perspective. I think it keeps our law enforcement partners, uh, accountable. I will say this, the JRI policies, and I'm not here to debate whether successful or not, but I would, I would make this comment, the policy shift was so huge in 2015, and here we are 11 years later still talking about moving the needle back from once it was. Why are we doing that? If it was so effective? My concern has been the focus of the victim and it seems to have been absent. I think we need to start having the victims in the forefront of our minds. I think that goes for the prosecutors. I think that goes for law enforcement. I think that goes for the sentencing commission. We have an absolute lack of accountability, and I think that's why we keep talking about it. We're trying to bring accountability back. The argument was with juvenile JRI, we're, we're, we're, we're getting rid of this pipeline to prison. I don't know what pipeline they were talking about then, but we've certainly constructed one. Now there's no accountability. We need to focus on the victims. The victims are always taking a back seat. We talk about justice and they continue to, to, to not get any right. And that's if someone even gets sentenced. The victims get to be part of the conversation, but they don't necessarily get to say, when it comes to plea negotiations, which are gonna have reductions, which is gonna impact sentencing. We've been talking about the courts and legislative intent. Let this session be clear what our intent is as it relates to victims and justice. I appreciate this bill coming forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm. I, I had a very different bill, uh, or I had a very different speech prepared, uh, for everyone today. Um, I, I appreciate, uh, colleague, good representative from Hooper, uh, with the amendment to, uh, keep defense lawyer on here. Um, and so I'm, I'm changing my vote today conditionally to yes, with hope that we can continue to negotiate this work, uh, bill and make good policy and have a good commission. Um, my hope is that at the end, we could also keep a juvenile defense lawyer on juvenile, uh, uh, justice system is very different than the adult system. I wouldn't dare, uh, practice one day in the juvenile justice system. Uh, even though I've practiced in the adult, uh, as an adult, uh, defender, uh, for eight years now, um, they're keenly different. Uh, defense lawyers offer a very unique perspective that no one else gets to see. 'cause they're inside the system. They're inside the, uh, the, the holding sales and the jails and, uh, see what their clients go through. And, um, you know, people ask me why I represent monsters as a defense lawyer, and I don't see my job like that. Uh, Mr. Speaker Pro Tam, I, I consider my job to be more of an auditor of justice. Um, police officers do a good job. Prosecutors do a good job, but no one ever bats 100%. And, uh, it helps to have someone go through and take a fine tooth comb through our system to make sure that justice is actually happening. And having, uh, uh, an attorney stay on this, uh, commission. And, and hopefully, uh, by the time that this policy is tweaked, maybe a juvenile, uh, defense lawyer on there as well, well will help, uh, keep balance. I hope to have balance and ensures integrity in our systems. Uh, it's the Utah way, uh, when we, uh, have disagreements, we get to better policy. Uh, and that's why I I hope that we can get there. Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, there's one last thought. I hope we can continue to talk about how we do sentencing. Um, one thing I've noticed, I'm still brand new here, uh, here on the house floor, we scrutinize money and we should, we scrutinize every fiscal bill. We scrutinize every dollar, every penny, because that's a sacred taxpayer dollars. I'll tell you, in the time that I've served in our courts, whenever I've had a sentencing, uh, no one has ever scrutinized the cost of what a sentencing would be. Now, it's not to say that we shouldn't have the sentencings as the way we are or the prerogative of this legislature to crank down on sentencing, but we should have transparency in how we're spending that money. Our actions up here have influence and impact. Um, last year we passed over 70, uh, criminal enhancements, and that's felt in the courthouse. Um, I've had more clients sent to prison last year than I have in my entire career. And so I think that the judges are responding to the will of this legislature. And I know that's the legislatives prerogative, but we have to also be in mind that the prison's losing capacity and they're also running outta capacity in their contracts with the jail. It's gonna cost money. It's $55,000 a year to incarcerate an inmate. If we have a 25 year mandatory minimum, that's $1.3 million per individual minimum as an expenditure of taxpayer dollars. So I hope that we continue to work on this policy, get good policy, and, uh, keep, uh, fiscal responsibility in mind and balance in mind when we're working on sentencing. Uh, with that I'll remind everyone I'm switching my vote. Conditionally, yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem. I was initially going to be unknown on this, but after hearing the previous comment, I'm really grateful for that. As a sinner myself, I would hope to always have someone have my back and not always be trying to impugn me all the time. I think it's really important that due process and the presumption of innocence is important too. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to rise in support of this bill, and I think the amendment only improves upon it. And, and I'm grateful for that amendment. But also I think, um, I'm very proud of the work our legislature has done. Um, I came in shortly after JRI became a thing, and, and I've witnessed, as we've been chipping away at some of the overreach, maybe of the, the G-A-R-I-J-R-I and the effects it's had on society and, um, some good perhaps, but many, um, not so good. And I like how, um, we have turned now kind of more of a focus on the victims. And I'm also convinced after years of sitting on these committees, um, that the criminals really seem to know and weigh out the likelihood of prison time before, perhaps even before they commit some of their crimes or enter into this sort of lifestyle. And they know those prison, the likelihood of prison time and so forth better than we do as legislators. And, and they, um, I think it's, it's important for us to make sure that it's clear in the law that there will be there, there will be repercussions for victimizing. And, um, so I'm just grateful for bills like this that we can, we can kind of look again. And this is something I would never have considered looking at sentencing and, and the laws about sentencing. And so I think it's a good thing. I think that justice involves victims as well as it does perpetrators, and sometimes we don't think of that side. So I appreciate this bill and urge everyone to support. Thanks.

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Speaker ProAm, uh, Mr. Speaker, I, I just want to clear up some miscommunication or some false information that's out there. I recently read an article, uh, in there where the, uh, the state or in one of the major newspapers that, uh, where the state bar was criticizing this bill, saying it was judicial over, excuse me, judicial overreach. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The constitution clearly defines what those recommendations should be to this legislature. That's where the constitution, uh, authority lies. Now, in 1995, this legislature created the sentencing commission and also created spots for the judiciary. There are two judges that sit on this, uh, uh, uh, sentencing commission, and I think that's a good pathway forward. But let's be clear about the role and the constitutional roles. This is clearly a role of, uh, the legislative branch's authority, and I wanna make sure that those lines never get blurred. Um, Mr. Speaker, I, I, there's been a lot of support, uh, that's came on this bill. I from, I talked to law enforcement agency, law enforcement agency after law enforcement agency after several different prosecutors, the Ag G's office, and several other just random police officers that talk about the problem of people not being held accountable for their decisions, criminals not being held accountable for their decisions. And so, uh, I and, and, uh, this, this bill seeks to, to help fix that. And I really appreciate, uh, the good representative, uh, from Farr West, uh, talking about, seems like we've lost focus of the victims, Mr. Speaker pro tem, and we can't do that. There's a lot of discussion around the criminals and what those penalties may or may not be. But when I looked up this sentencing commission and I saw that there was three defense attorneys on this, uh, uh, commission, and only one victim's voice on there, Mr. Speaker ProAm, I would suggest that that's wrong. And so, uh, I appreciate, would appreciate the body's support in, uh, passing this bill. Uh, thank you. I'll yield my time back.

Yeah. Thank you Mr. President. I worked on this, I worked on this issue either a year or two ago, just trying to change the makeup. We felt like that balance was still, still not, not enough. Um, during JRI, the sentencing commission was significantly re reduced and, and reduced some of those sentencing guidelines. Uh, as we've, as we've gone out and looked at some of those changes, some of those changes have been concerning to a lot of, a lot of stakeholders. So what, what this bill is just doing is rebalancing that sentencing commission again. We did it a couple years ago. We're doing it again, um, in this bill. But with that, I'd open up for questions.

Thank you Mr. President. Um, on, uh, line 1 57, I'm sorry, one 60 an interlock restricted driver operating a vehicle without an ignition interlock. Are we changing that policy or are we just moving it to someplace else?

Um, we probably need to visit offline. I, I'm not sure I can see where that's struck out of, of the language. Uh, my understanding is struck out, but if, if I'm wrong, I'll, I'll come circle up with you. But I, I do see what you're referencing.

Okay. And my preference would be to take action then let's, let's table on third and let that fiscal note catch up.

Thank you Mr. President. So I would move that, that house bill 2 74, the third substitute be read for a third time and then with the understanding that Senator Sandall will likely make a motion after that, that I'll support as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Motion to table on third, third house, third substitute house Bill 2 74.

dealing with sentencing. I worked on this a few years ago and there's been some good compromise by stakeholders adding back some of those defense attorneys. Uh, we talked about that on on second reading, but with that it's a good bill and I'm open for questions. Thank you for that, uh, presentation.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I would, uh, this, uh, third substitute. Uh, the changes made in the Senate restores two defense attorneys to the commission. It, uh, removes the juvenile prosecutor as a voting member of, uh, uh, sorry. The removes the Juab Juvenile prosecutors, uh, as a voting as as members of the, uh, sentencing commission. And it moves the J-O-J-J-O-C chair to a non-voting member. Uh, it swaps out one of the sheriffs, uh, for a police chief, and it adds a requirement for at least one sheriff prosecutor and defense attorney to be from rural Utah to ensure we have statewide representation on the commission. It also clarifies the authorization process for the sentencing guidelines, uh, so that the guidelines take effect when specified, uh, by a concurrent resolution passed by the legislature. Uh, it also, let's see, and, uh, in working with the stakeholders, I believe this is a better pathway forward. I would like to, uh, thank all the stakeholders for, for coming together and, and finding, uh, a good pathway, uh, forward for, uh, for this. And I'd also like to state that the sensing commission has moved mountains, uh, working with, uh, representative, the good representative from Provo, uh, and thank his good work, uh, in in what he's put forward on that. So with that urge, the body's support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.