BIL:3108
TYP:General Bill GB
INB:House
IND:19990112
PSP:Wilkins
SPO:Wilkins, Knotts, Altman, Inabinett, Stuart, Leach, R. Smith, Witherspoon, Hamilton, Simrill, Campsen, Klauber, Sandifer, Vaughn, Law, Hawkins, Harrison, Keegan, D. Smith, Kirsh, Wilder, Robinson, Askins, Woodrum, Phillips, Harrell, Lucas, Barrett, Young-Brickell, Hinson, Bailey, Allison, Cato, Walker, Mason, Rodgers, Gilham, Maddox, Rhoad, MeachamRichardson, Littlejohn, Rice, Seithel
DDN:l:\council\bills\pt\1049cm99.doc
RBY:Senate
COM:Judiciary Committee 11 SJ
LAD:19990203
SUB:Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Act, Corrections, Crimes and Offenses, Prisoners, Probation, Parole and Pardon
HST:
BodyDateAction DescriptionComLeg Involved
______
Senate20000328Recommitted to Committee,11 SJ
retaining its place on the Calendar
Senate20000328Recalled from Committee11 SJ
Senate19990209Introduced, read first time,11 SJ
referred to Committee
House19990204Read third time, sent to Senate
House19990203Amended, read second time
House19990203Co-Sponsor added (Rule 5.2) by Rep.Rice
Seithel
House19990202Request for debate by RepresentativeHarrison
T. Brown
Sharpe
R. Smith
Altman
Beck
Knotts
Woodrum
McGee
J. Smith
Clyburn
Young-
Brickell
Parks
Rutherford
Scott
House19990127Committee report: Favorable with25 HJ
amendment
House19990114Co-Sponsor added (Rule 5.2) by Rep.Campsen
House19990112Co-Sponsor removed (Rule 5.2) by Rep.Fleming
House19990112Introduced, read first time,25 HJ
referred to Committee
House19981216Prefiled, referred to Committee20 HANR
Printed Versions of This Bill
Ordered Printed on 19990127
Ordered Printed on 19990203
TXT:
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
AMENDED
February 3, 1999
H.3108
Introduced by Reps. Wilkins, Knotts, Altman, Inabinett, Stuart, Leach, R. Smith, Witherspoon, Hamilton, Simrill, Campsen, Klauber, Sandifer, Vaughn, Law, Hawkins, Harrison, Keegan, D. Smith, Kirsh, Wilder, Robinson, Askins, Woodrum, Phillips, Harrell, Lucas, Barrett, Young-Brickell, Hinson, Bailey, Allison, Cato, Walker, Mason, Rodgers, Gilham, Maddox, Rhoad, MeachamRichardson, Littlejohn, Rice and Seithel
S. Printed 2/3/99--H.
Read the first time January 12, 1999.
STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT ON GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES IS:
A Cost to the General Fund (See Below)
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT ON FEDERAL & OTHER FUND EXPENDITURES IS:
$0 (No additional expenditures or savings are expected)
EXPLANATION OF GENERAL FUND IMPACT:
Summary of Costs
The cost associated with the passage of Advisory Sentencing Guidelines are as follows:
1)By Fiscal Year 2011 an additional cost of $114,700,000 for nonrecurring capital projects, $59,221,854 for recurring operating expenses, $250,136 for non-recurring items, and 1,181 FTE’s is estimated.
2)Of this amount, the Department of Corrections would incur capital costs of $100,000,000 for the construction of two new prisons in order to house an additional 2,886 offenders. The annual operating cost for these facilities is $43,000,000 and 1,000 FTEs. It should be noted, however, that without Advisory Sentencing Guidelines, Corrections estimates that it would have needed these two facilities by Fiscal Year 2022 under current projections.
3)After Fiscal Year 2011, the impact of Advisory Sentencing Guidelines is expected to decrease the number of required beds from 2,886 above current projections to 1,230 below current projections.
4)Of the remaining total cost, the Department of Probation, Pardon, and Parole would require an increase of $14,700,000 for the construction of seven new 96 bed facilities, $13,110,321 in operating funds, $124,076 in non-recurring items, and 162 FTE’s, all within the first two years of implementation. This impact assumes that the SCDPPPS would have to build and maintain the seven new facilities. However, in the event that beds become available in SCDC’s system which could possibly be transferred to the SCDPPPS, this impact could be significantly reduced.
5)The remaining costs of $3,111,533 in operating expenses, $126,060 in nonrecurring costs, and 19 FTE’s are spread among other agencies affected by this legislation. However, several of these agencies could not provide dollar figures as they had no reliable basis for quantifying their needs.
South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC):
The projection of possible impact is estimated on the following assumptions:
(A)Advisory Sentencing Guidelines grid would be followed by judges 100% of the time.
(B)Constant Model - This model assumes at the time of bill passage the population remains the same and admissions continue at current levels. The Constant Model was used in order to isolate the effects of guidelines while holding demographic changes constant.
(C)Community Punishments as approved with Advisory Sentencing Guidelines would be fully funded at the Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services.
Data supplied by the Department of Corrections provide projections of the potential impact on inmate populations through Fiscal Year 2030,which are as follows, however, given the varied cost assumptions that could be applied to those inmate trends, costs figures beyond Fiscal Year 2011 are not furnished in this analysis:
IMPACT ON INMATE POPULATION
ProjectedProjected
SCDCSCDC
PopulationPopulationChange
FiscalwithWithoutDue To
YearGuidelinesGuidelinesGuidelines
9922,64622,6460
0021,44823,037(1,589)
0122,06223,299(1,237)
0224,03923,466 573
0325,34223,7251,617
0425,77024,0591,711
0526,38624,4351,951
0626,61024,8441,766
0726,99425,2561,738
0827,67525,6991,976
0928,44226,2042,238
1029,20826,6662,542
1129,97527,0892,886
1230,06727,4962,571
1330,15927,8932,266
1430,25128,2551,996
1530,25328,5721,681
1630,25528,8751,380
1730,25729,1811,076
1830,25929,464795
1930,26129,717 544
2030,26329,953 310
2130,26530,18976
2230,26530,400(135)
2330,26530,563(298)
2430,26530,701(436)
2530,26530,845(580)
2630,26530,983(718)
2730,26531,120(855)
2830,26531,249(984)
2930,26531,377(1,112)
3030,26531,495(1,230)
The data gives an approximation of the number of offenders who may be affected by this legislation at the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The chart estimates the number of additional beds required combining current projections and advisory sentencing guidelines.
The impact of Advisory Sentencing Guidelines would be the need for an additional 2,886 beds by Fiscal Year 2011. The associated costs are $100 million in additional capital costs and $43 million in operating costs for two additional 1,500 bed institutions.
This is in addition to 4,443 additional beds required if admissions continue at current levels. The associated costs are $150 million in additional capital costs and $64.5 million in operating costs for three additional 1,500 bed institutions.
The estimated fiscal impact to meet this total need would be $250 million in additional capital costs based on Fiscal Year 1998 dollars. Construction costs per 1,500 bed institution is estimated at $50 million. Additional operating costs required by SCDC through Fiscal Year 2011 is estimated to cost $107.5 million. Operating costs per institution is estimated at $21.5 million.
Without the Advisory Sentencing Guidelines the two new 1,500 bed institutions and operating costs associated with the institutions would still be necessary under current laws by Fiscal Year 2022.
Advisory Sentencing Guidelines using the Constant Model could result in a prison bed savings of approximately 1,230 beds by Fiscal Year 2030.
South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services (SCDPPPS):
This impact assumes that the SCDPPPS would have to build and maintain the seven new facilities discussed in number (1) below of this impact. However, in the event that beds become available in SCDC’s system which could possibly be transferred to the SCDPPPS, this impact could be significantly reduced.
The projection of the possible impact to SCDPPPS is estimated on the following assumptions:
(A)Advisory Sentencing Guidelines grid would be followed by judges 100% of the time.
(B)Using the Constant Model, the impact will be realized within two years.
(C)Offenders sentenced to Intermediate Sanctions will remain with SCDPPPS for six months.
(D)Offenders may be placed in Intermediate Sanctions as a result of their failure to abide by the conditions of Probation or Community Punishment Sanction.
The Sentencing Guidelines grid provides for four probationary sanction types based on the crime severity level.
(1)Intermediate Sanction/Residential: The offender impact projection for this sanction is approximately 683 per day. To manage the projected offender population with this sanction, the department would need to construct two additional 96 bed Community Control Centers and five additional Restitution Centers for a total of 672 new beds. Estimated cost for this sanction is $14,700,000 non-recurring (construction of seven centers), $8,669,985 recurring and 109 FTE’s.
(2)Intermediate Sanction/Non Residential: The offender impact projection for this sanction is 1,518. Based on the crime severity level of these offenders, SCDPPPS would provide intensive supervision. This includes regular drug testing, maintaining 25% of this population under electronic monitoring, and providing case services. Estimated cost for this sanction $1,059,876 recurring funds. Offenders in this sanction would be supervised in caseloads of 35 within existing department personnel.
(3)Community Punishment Sanction: The offender impact projection for this sanction is 3,543. Based on this offender impact number, the department would net 1,772 new offenders and increase supervision sanctions for 1,771 existing offenders currently supervised. The caseload is 100 per agent. The department proposes to supervise offenders in caseloads of 50 for closer supervision, enhanced surveillance, regularly drug test, case services, and to require offenders to engage in public service work. Estimated cost for this sanction $3,380,460 recurring funds, $124,076 non-recurring funds and 53 FTE’s.
(4)Regular Probation: Offender impact would be supervised within existing resources.
The estimated fiscal impact to the agency is $13,110,321 recurring funds, $14,824,076 non-recurring funds and 162 FTE’s.
South Carolina Prosecution Coordination Commission:
The commission estimates the costs associated with implementing this Act at $1,953,000. This estimate was based on the 1990 census and the requirements imposed on the Sixth Judicial Circuit, which disposed of 3,197 out of 110,481 General Sessions warrants during calendar year 1997. At a minimum, the Sixth Judicial Circuit would need two additional employees to handle specified duties of Advisory Sentencing Guidelines. These two employees would consist of an attorney and administrative specialist (paralegal). The costs of these two employees at the minimum salary with associated employer contributions would equal $50,303. Operating costs are estimated at $10,900. This total cost equates to an increased per capita allocation of $0.56. Extrapolating the per capita estimate to the statewide 1990 census of 3,486,703, a $0.56 per capita equals $1,953,000. For the purpose of this impact an assumption is made that the General Assembly will appropriate the necessary general funds to this agency to implement this bill.
South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense:
The agency indicates the impact of the legislation is not determinable because there exists no available data upon which to base an estimate of Advisory Sentencing Guidelines. The agency believes that defendants facing Truth in Sentencing charges would be less likely to enter pleas of guilty and will demand trial. Increases in the number of trials will result in a slower disposition of cases and more case expenses. Currently the average case load per attorney within the agency is one hundred cases. Therefore, for every increase of one hundred cases, the Office of Appellate Defense will require one additional attorney.
Commission on Indigent Defense:
The agency indicates the impact of the legislation is not determinable because there exists no available data upon which to base an estimate of Advisory Sentencing Guidelines. The agency believes that defendants facing Truth in Sentencing charges would be less likely to enter pleas of guilty and will demand trial. Increases in the number of trials will result in a slower disposition of cases and more case expenses. The agency believes that for every increase of three hundred cases an additional public defender attorney will be required, costs of which are shared by local and state government.
Sentencing Guidelines Commission:
The Sentencing Guidelines Commission has indicated that this bill would have an impact to the commission of $25,000 of which $20,000 is recurring. The $20,000 recurring dollars would pay for the cost of hiring one additional staff person for data entry. The $5,000 nonrecurring dollars would be to purchase a computer for the new position.
Attorney General’s Office:
The agency indicates the implementation of the bill is estimated to result in an increase in the workload of criminal prosecutors. Based on current staffing levels of criminal prosecutors, an additional attorney would be required, besides administrative and legal support. The fiscal impact on the general fund is estimated to be $127,000. The cost includes personal services and employer contributions of $108,000 for an attorney and a paralegal, and $19,000 for other operating expenses (non-recurring $7,000).
Judicial Department
The department indicates the bill may result in additional court proceedings where the infringement of rights as provided by the legislation occurred. As such, these actions could result in additional costs to the judicial system. The department forecasts a fiscal impact on the general fund of $1,125,593. Recurring funds ($1,011,533) within this forecast includes personal services and employer contributions for three new circuit court judges each with support staff of three (secretary, court reporter and law clerk); two program coordinators with Court Administration to provide training and technical support to county clerks of court and judges and to make visits to each county to monitor and assess the impact of the bill on the court system as a whole, and, one accountant in finance and personnel to provide administrative support for payroll, travel, benefits and financial activities associated with the addition of new judges and staff members. Non-recurring funds ($114,060) within this forecast include automation and furniture costs associated with start up.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT:
See Commission on Indigent Defense.
SPECIAL NOTES:
This bill increases the number of offenders in the SCDPPPS system which would result in the potential increase in the supervision fees collected in Section 24-21-80 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976. Therefore, pursuant to Section 2-7-71 of the 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws the Board of Economic
Advisors is the appropriate agency to address any revenue impact of this legislation.
Approved By:
Les Boles
Office of State Budget
[3108-1]
A BILL
TO AMEND TITLE 16, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRIMES AND OFFENSES BY ADDING CHAPTER 2 SO AS TO PROVIDE ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES; TO AMEND SECTION 16110, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CATEGORIZATION OF FELONIES AND MISDEMEANORS, SO AS TO REVISE THE EXEMPT CATEGORY OF CRIMES; TO AMEND SECTION 16120, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF CRIMES, SO AS TO REVISE THE SET OF CRIMES THE MINIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT APPLIES TO; TO AMEND SECTION 16130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL OFFENSES ARE AUTOMATICALLY CLASSIFIED; TO AMEND SECTION 24320, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CONFINEMENT OF PRISONERS AND WORK RELEASE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE CERTAIN CLASSIFIED FELONIES AND EXEMPT OFFENSES FOR THE TERM “NO PAROLE OFFENSE”; TO AMEND SECTION 2413125, RELATING TO CONDITIONS A PRISONER MUST MEET TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR WORK RELEASE, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE CERTAIN FELONIES AND EXEMPT OFFENSES FOR THE TERM “NO PAROLE OFFENSES” AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY TO CERTAIN LOCAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; TO AMEND SECTION 2413150, RELATING TO CONDITIONS A PRISONER MUST MEET TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR EARLY RELEASE, DISCHARGE, OR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE “AN OFFENSE” FOR THE TERM “NO PAROLE OFFENSE” AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY TO CERTAIN LOCAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; TO AMEND SECTION 2413210, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ELIGIBILITY FOR AND FORFEITURE OF GOOD CONDUCT CREDITS, SO AS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TIME A PRISONER CAN EARN FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR TO THREE DAYS A MONTH AND TO ELIMINATE THE TERM “NO PAROLE OFFENSE”; TO AMEND SECTION 2413230, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ELIGIBILITY FOR EDUCATION CREDITS, SO AS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TIME A PRISONER CAN EARN FOR PARTICIPATING IN AN EDUCATION PROGRAM TO SIX DAYS A MONTH AND TO ELIMINATE THE TERM “NO PAROLE OFFENSE”; TO AMEND SECTION 2413430, RELATING TO RIOTING OR INCITING TO RIOT, SO AS TO REVISE THE PENALTY; TO AMEND SECTION 2413650, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE RELEASE OF AN OFFENDER INTO THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH HE COMMITTED THE CRIME, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE CERTAIN CLASSIFIED FELONIES AND EXEMPT OFFENSES FOR THE TERM “NO PAROLE OFFENSE”; TO AMEND SECTIONS 2413710 AND 2413720, BOTH AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SUPERVISED FURLOUGH PROGRAM, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE CERTAIN CLASSIFIED FELONIES AND EXEMPT OFFENSES FOR THE TERM “NO PAROLE OFFENSE” AND TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE; TO AMEND SECTION 24131310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE CERTAIN CLASSIFIED FELONIES AND EXEMPT OFFENSES FOR THE TERM “NO PAROLE OFFENSE”; TO AMEND SECTION 242130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PAROLE, SO AS TO ELIMINATE PAROLE FOR A CRIME AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN OFFENDERS MUST COMPLETE A COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM BEFORE HIS DISCHARGE FROM HIS SENTENCE; TO AMEND SECTION 2421560, RELATING TO PRISONERS WHO MUST COMPLETE A COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM OPERATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES BEFORE THEIR RELEASE FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, SO AS TO REVISE THE OFFENSES THAT REQUIRE AN OFFENDER TO COMPLETE A COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM AND TO PROVIDE THAT A JUDGE MAY INCLUDE COMPLETION OF A COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM AS A PART OF A SENTENCE FOR CERTAIN CRIMES AND TO SUBSTITUTE CERTAIN CLASSIFIED CRIMES FOR THE TERM “NO PAROLE OFFENSE”; TO AMEND SECTION 242610, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMMISSION, SO AS TO REVISE THE COMPOSITIOIN OF THE COMMISSION; TO AMEND SECTION 242620, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMMISSION, SO AS TO REVISE THE CONTENTS OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 21366, 16190, 161100, AND 161110 RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES AND MISDEMEANORS; TO REPEAL SECTION 2413100 RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF “NO PAROLE OFFENSE”, AND TO PROVIDE A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING AT THE TIME THIS ACT TAKES EFFECT ARE SAVED AND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT APPLY PROSPECTIVELY.
Amend Title To Conform
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION1.Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
“CHAPTER 2
Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Act
Section 16210.(A)This chapter may be cited as the ‘South Carolina Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Act’.
(B)Advisory Sentencing Guidelines apply equally to all offenders in the State without regard to race, gender, or economic status.
(C)This chapter applies to all criminal offenses in South Carolina punishable by maximum terms of imprisonment of one year or more except offenses specifically excluded in this act as provided in subsection (D).
(D)This chapter does not apply to offenses for which life imprisonment is ordered under Section 172545, the offense of contempt of court under Section 145320, the offenses of attempt and conspiracy under Section 4453420, crimes with maximum penalties of less than one year, sentences imposed as a result of technical probation revocations, offenses exempt from classification under Section 16110(D) which receive the death penalty or life imprisonment, or sentences imposed in accordance with the Youthful Offender Act. However, this chapter applies to the above offenses for purposes of scoring the offender’s prior record.