WIXLIB

Chapter 1: 2016 - The Year of ImplementationThe Alabama Sentencing Commission dedicated much of the past yearhelping implement the omnibus criminal justice legislation passed by theLegislature and signed into law by Governor Bentley in 2015 commonlyreferred to as “prison reform.” However, in addition to significant sentencingchanges, the legislation also focused on improving community supervision,changed responses to technical violations of community supervision andrequired the development of parole guidelines. For more information onthe provisions of the legislation, please reference the Alabama SentencingCommission’s 2016 Annual Report.“Prison Reform”Legislation Enacted in 2015Act 2015-185 was comprehensive legislation that made sweeping changesacross the criminal justice system including requiring the Alabama SentencingCommission to modify the Sentencing Standards. Last year, the AlabamaSentencing Commission submitted modifications to the Sentencing Standardsincorporating the sentencing provisions of the Act. The new set ofSentencing Standards became effective in 2016. The significant changesto criminal law and the Sentencing Standards required extensive trainingthroughout the past year across Alabama. Over the course of the previousyear, the Commission provided numerous trainings throughout the state tojudges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, court clerks, probation and paroleofficers, law enforcement and community corrections personnel. Many ofthe trainings were done in conjunction with the Alabama Board of Pardonsand Paroles highlighting the numerous changes to probation and parolerequirements and supervision, and new authority vested in their officers.New Sentencing StandardsBecame Effective in 2016The training provided this past year was not restricted to the SentencingStandards. In addition to requiring changes to the Sentencing Standards,Act 2015-185 changed the parameters for all Class C and Class D felonysplit sentences, and changed the statutory framework for how all Class Cand Class D felonies must be sentenced. The restrictions on the use ofcustodial sanctions for Class D felonies were highlighted as was the newpolicy framework for responding to technical violations of probation andparole. With the passage of the landmark legislation, the Legislature clearlyaimed to restrict both the use of jail and prison sanctions for offendersconvicted of Class D felonies while still making custodial sanctions availablefor those offenders with a more significant felony criminal history. At thesame time, the Legislature repealed the “technical violator law” and put inits place a new framework designed to curb recidivism through swift andcertain responses to technical violations. This new framework introducednew requirements and restrictions for technical violations of probation andparole, and granted new authority to probation and parole officers to imposeshort term jail sanctions for technical violations as well.Extensive TrainingProvided by CommissionSignificant Changes toCriminal Law andSentencing Standards1

Chapter 1: Modifications to the Sentencing StandardsAlabama CriminalJustice Oversight andImplementation Council#1 Priority is Public SafetyThe Commission has also been active on the Alabama Criminal JusticeOversight and Implementation Council created by Executive Order fromGovernor Bentley. This body is tasked with not only overseeing theimplementation of the omnibus Justice Reinvestment Initiative reforms, butalso developing evidence-based policies and guidelines to help reducerecidivism and improving data collection, analysis, and reporting effortsacross the criminal justice spectrum particularly the courts, Department ofCorrections, and Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. One of theCouncil’s subcommittees, the Data Monitoring and Information Sharingsubcommittee, is chaired by Melisa Morrison (Research Analyst for theAlabama Sentencing Commission). The subcommittee has met regularlyidentifying better practices that can be adopted to improve data reportingand provide clear and concise information on Justice Reinvestment inAlabama.The Commission was active this year providing training and participating inefforts implementing extensive changes to criminal law and communitysupervision, and providing assistance improving data efforts in the criminaljustice system. Commission members and staff remain dedicated to theutilization of empirical evidence to make data driven decisions used to enhancepublic safety in Alabama. 2016 witnessed significant changes in Alabamalaw and policy and the Commission will continue to play a pivotal rolehelping supply data and information to shape effective policy and improvethe safety of Alabamians.ALABAMA SENTENCING COMMISSION, 20172

Chapter 2: Sentencing Standards Compliance andCriminal Justice DataThe Commission identified a 4-Stage model used to gauge judicial compliancewith the Initial Voluntary Sentencing Standards1. The first stage in theprocess (Use Compliance) consisted of contacting local practitioners anddetermining how implementation of the Standards was proceeding. Thesecond stage (Submission Compliance) entailed comparing the number ofsubmitted valid worksheets to the number of applicable worksheetsentencing events. The third and fourth stages, In/Out and Sentence LengthCompliance, measured compliance with the dispositional and sentence lengthrecommendations found on the Standards worksheets.Judicial Compliance ModelFor fiscal year 2015, the Commission received valid worksheets in39 percent of applicable cases, but the total number of worksheets receivedwas significantly higher. Practitioners across the State indicated increasedusage of the worksheets in fiscal year 2015 as the Presumptive SentencingStandards were utilized statewide. Commission staff continue to workwith the Information Technology division of the Administrative Office ofCourts to ensure that every worksheet filed with Clerks’ offices across theState is accessible to the Commission.Figure 1 displays the number of total received worksheets in fiscal year2015 and the number of valid received worksheets by county and for theentire State.1For more detailed information about the 4-Stage model and what constitutes avalid worksheet, please see the Commission’s 2009 Annual Report.3

Chapter 2: Sentencing Standards Compliance and Criminal Justice DataFigure 1.Sentencing Standards Worksheets ReceivedOctober 1, 2014-September 30, LABAMA SENTENCING COMMISSION, 8129182811238213222321429047908292151% rksheetsWorksheetsEvents withfor Sentencing for Sentencing Valid 5%44.4%0.0%2.0%4

Figure 1. (Continued)Sentencing Standards Worksheets ReceivedOctober 1, 2014-September 30, organPerryPickensPikeRandolphRussellShelbySt. 17562523142205913,763% rksheetsWorksheetsEvents withfor Sentencing for Sentencing Valid 9.4%62.5%95.5%32.6%67.0%1.3%71.4%0.0%71.2%39.1%5

Chapter 2: Sentencing Standards Compliance and Criminal Justice DataIN/OUT COMPLIANCEFigure 2 is a flowchart displaying the “In/Out” worksheet recommendationsand “In/Out” dispositions for the worksheets for which judicial complianceis reported statewide. This flowchart is organized as follows:Valid Worksheetso Box A - Displays the number of completed and valid worksheetsreceived by the Sentencing Commission used to determine judicialcompliance;Recommended Dispositionso Box B - Displays the number of “In” recommendations from thecompleted worksheets and the percentage of submitted worksheets with aresulting “In” recommendation;o Box C - Displays the number of “Out” recommendations from thecompleted worksheets and the percentage of submitted worksheets with aresulting “Out” recommendation;Imposed Dispositionso Box D - Displays the number of “In” recommendations that receivedan “Out” Disposition. The percentage displayed is the percentage of “In”recommendations that received an “Out” disposition;o Box E - Displays the number of “In” recommendations that receivedan “In” Disposition. The percentage displayed is the percentage of “In”recommendations that received an “In” disposition;oBox F - Displays the number of “Out” recommendations thatreceived an “Out” Disposition. The percentage displayed is the percentageof “Out” recommendations that received an “Out” disposition;oBox G - Displays the number of “Out” recommendationsthat received an “In” Disposition. The percentage displayed is the percentageof “Out” recommendations that received an “In” disposition.Box A shows the starting number of valid worksheets used to report judicialcompliance – 5,318 worksheets. The “In/Out” recommendations reflectthe Prison vs. Non-Prison recommendation based on the total score of the“In/Out” worksheet. An “Out” disposition was recommended in 53 percentof the received worksheets and an “In” disposition was recommended in47 percent of the received worksheets. For those worksheets with an“In” recommendation, an “In” disposition was imposed 88 percent of thetime (Box E). For those worksheets with an “Out” recommendation, an“Out” disposition was imposed 81 percent of the time (Box F).ALABAMA SENTENCING COMMISSION, 20176

The shaded boxes (Boxes E and F) indicate sentencing events that were“In/Out” compliant - that is a “prison” sentence was imposed for an “In”recommendation, or a “non-prison” sentence was imposed for an “Out”recommendation2. Figure 3 provides examples of combinations of worksheetrecommendations and case dispositions to show where sentencing eventsare categorized on the In/Out flowchart.Figure 2.In/Out Compliance FlowchartAWorksheetsReceived forSentencing Eventsn 5,318CBINRecommendationn 2,50847.2%DOUTDispositionn 890123456789n 56789OUTRecommendationn 6789012345678901234567890n 1234567890GINDispositionn 53819.1%2For the purpose of determining compliance only, an imposed communitycorrections sentence was categorized as In/Out compliant regardless of theworksheet In/Out recommendation (see Figure 3 for examples).7

Chapter 2: Sentencing Standards Compliance and Criminal Justice DataFigure 3.In/Out Compliance estinationIN/OUTCompliantINProbationBox DNoINCommunityCorrectionsBox EYesINJailBox DNoINPrisonBox EYesOUTProbationBox FYesOUTCommunityCorrectionsBox FYesOUTJailBox FYesOUTPrisonBox GNoALABAMA SENTENCING COMMISSION, 20178

Figure 4.Offense Category Compliance FlowchartsAPersonaln 484CBINRecommendationn 34771.7%DOUTRecommendationn 13728.3%FEOUTDispositionn 234567890123456789012345678901234567890n tion12345678901234567891234567890123456789n 89GINDispositionn 5338.7%AFigure 5.Propertyn 2,186CBINRecommendationn 1,04147.6%DOUTDispositionn 901234567890123456789012345678901234567890n ationn 5678901234567891234567890123456789n 5678901234567891234567890123456789GINDispositionn 21819.0%9

Chapter 2: Sentencing Standards Compliance and Criminal Justice DataFigure 6.Offense Category Compliance Flowcharts (Continued)ADrugsn 2,648CBINRecommendationn 1,12042.3.%DEOUTDispositionn 90123456789n nn 678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890n tionn 26717.5%Figure 4 reports the In/Out compliance for the personal worksheet category,Figure 5 reports the In/Out compliance for the property worksheet category,and Figure 6 reports the In/Out compliance for the drug worksheet category.The Personal worksheet has the highest compliance with “In”recommendations at 93 percent of offenders receiving a prison sentencefor a corresponding “In” recommendation. The Drugs worksheet had88 percent compliance with “In” recommendations while the Propertyworksheet had 87 percent compliance with “In” recommendations. ThePersonal worksheet, while having the highest compliance with “In”recommendations, had the lowest compliance with “Out” recommendationsat 61 percent. The Property and Drugs worksheets had 81 and 83 percentcompliance with “Out” recommendations, respectively.ALABAMA SENTENCING COMMISSION, 201710

Race & Gender Compliance ChartsFigures 7 and 8 provide statewide compliance with the Sentencing Standardsby race and gender, respectively. Compliance data with the Standardsshow similar compliance rates for Black and White offenders. The “Other”category consists of a small number (n 48) of offenders representingnumerous racial groups. While no large disparity is found in the compliancefigures controlling for race, the overall compliance percentage for femalesis higher than for males.Figure 7.RaceOverallIn/OutBlack75.3%85.6%n 2,390White76.5%83.1%n 2,880Other75.0%83.3%n 48Figure 8.GenderOverallIn/OutFemale82.6%86.0%n 1,108Male74.2%83.8%n 4,21011

Chapter 2: Sentencing Standards Compliance and Criminal Justice DataSENTENCE LENGTH COMPLIANCESentence Length compliance is measured by comparing the term(s) ofconfinement to the recommended term(s) of confinement found on theSentence Length sentencing worksheet. For an imposed direct/straightprison sentence, the length of imposed confinement is compared to the“straight” recommended sentence range found on the Sentence Lengthworksheet. For an imposed split sentence, the split portion and the totalsentence lengths are compared to the split and straight Sentence Lengthrecommended sentence ranges found on the Sentence Length worksheet.For a direct/straight sentence to be Sentence Length compliant, the imposedconfinement must fall within the “straight” Sentence Length range foundon the worksheet. For a split sentence to be Sentence Length compliant,the split portion of the sentence and the total length portion of the sentencemust both be within the “straight” and “split” ranges found on the worksheet.Sentence Length compliance is only reported for those sentencing eventswhere the worksheet recommendation was “In” and the sentencing eventalso had a corresponding “In” disposition (those events located in Box E ofthe In/Out flowchart). 2,209 worksheet sentencing events received an“In” recommendation and an “In” sentence and are used to report sentencelength compliance (those in Box E).The diagram (Figure 9) on the following page displays statewide SentenceLength compliance using four categories - Within, Below, Above, and Mixed.The “Mixed” category is applicable only to split sentences when the differentportions of the sentence (incarceration and total portions) are not consistentwith each other. Instances when the incarceration portion is above therecommended range and the total portion is below the recommended range,or the incarceration portion is within the recommended range and the totalrange is above the recommended range are examples of split sentencesthat would fall in the “Mixed” category. If both the split and total portionsare within, above, or below the worksheet sentence length recommendations,they would be categorized as such, if they are not, they are categorized as“Mixed”. 80 percent of eligible sentencing events were sentence lengthcompliant, 11 percent of the sentencing events received sentences abovethe worksheet recommendations, 1 percent received sentences below theworksheet recommendations, and 8 percent fell in the “Mixed” category.The overwhelming majority of events in the “Mixed” category consisted ofsentences when the incarceration portion of the split sentence fell withinthe recommendations, but the total sentence exceeded the recommendations.The three pie charts, F

Wesley Smithart, Emory University. ALABAMA SENTENCING COMMISSION, 2017 ii Alabama Sentencing . District Attorney, 12 th Judicial Circuit President of the Alabama Association of Circuit Court . Bennet Wright, Executive Director Melisa Morrison, Research Analyst Bennet Wright, Chair .