►
From YouTube: 4/27/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
B
C
A
A
All
right
everybody
is
here,
we
are
going
to
take
things
slightly
out
of
numerical
order
today
and
we
will
be
starting
with
assembly
bill
237.
A
E
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
your
patience.
We
have
two
components
to
the
build.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
all
my
speakers
were
lined
up
my
co-presenter
as
well
good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
on
judiciary
for
the
record.
I
am
sandra
haudeghi
representing
assembly
district
41,
and
I
am
here
today
to
present
assemblyville
237
for
your
consideration.
E
The
genesis
of
assembly
bill
23237
was
a
result
of
assembly
bill
335
from
the
2019
session,
which
made
it
out
of
both
houses
with
unanimous
support
assembly
bill
335
was
introduced
in
partnership
with
the
community
association
management,
executive
officers
and
the
nevada
association
of
realtors,
something
we
worked
on
together
for
nearly
18
months
assembly.
Bill
335
accomplished
two
things:
one:
it
streamlined
the
residential
selling
process
for
the
organizations
who
do
the
behind
the
scenes,
paperwork,
the
title
and
escrow
companies
two.
E
It
established
timelines
and
uniform
fee
caps
for
hoa
resale
packages,
hoa
demands
and
hoa
transfer
fees.
We
are
here
today
to
clean
up
language
regarding
hoa
fees
from
assembly
bill
335
assembly
bill
237,
which
you
have
in
front
of
you
will
add
in
language
to
clarify
that
association
companies
can't
charge
resale
closing
fees
or
resell,
closing
fees
other
than
those
laid
out
in
statute.
E
Once
assembly
bill
335
was
passed
and
signed
into
law.
We
saw
junk
fees
begin
to
emerge
that
had
never
been
charged
before
assembly
bill.
237
will
also
address
an
omission
from
assembly
bill
335,
which
adds
the
cpi
increase
of
no
more
than
three
percent
to
the
transfer
fee.
We
all
agreed,
we
would
add,
on
to
all
three
fees,
the
resale
demand
and
transfer
and
during
drafting
we
accidentally
left
it
off
of
the
transfer
cost.
So
we
are
just
adding
it
back
in
new
to
this
bill
is
an
enforcement
mechanism.
E
Assembly
bill
237
will
also
give
the
cic
commission
the
the
ability
to
impose
a
fine
of
not
more
than
250
dollars
for
associations
who
are
in
violation
of
the
fee
structure.
The
reason
we
added
this
in
is
due
to
the
fact
that
associations
continue
to
charge
more
than
they
are
statutorily
authorized
to
do.
I
have
on
two
personal
locations
signed
home
buyers
where
an
association
was
charging
a
hundred
dollars
and
a
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
more
than
they
were
statutorily
allowed
to
on
the
transfer
fee
of
an
hoa
from
one
owner
to
another.
B
B
B
We
appreciate
the
working
the
long-standing
working
relationship
that
we've
had
with
them
their
willingness
to
sit
across
the
table
from
us
to
resolve
and
work
through
many
of
the
issues
that
we're
going
to
discuss
with
you
today
that
have
impacts
on
consumers
who
choose
to
purchase
homes
in
hoas,
chair
scheibel.
With
your
permission,
I
think
we'll
go
to
mr
just
next,
and
then
president
president
spyers.
B
B
We
are
grateful
for
the
ongoing
partnership,
not
only
with
the
assembly
women,
but
with
the
realtors
who
sit
around
the
table
with
us
year
in
and
year
out
and
work
collaboratively,
finding
solutions
for
mutual
issues.
The
members
of
cameo
fully
support
this
amendment
and
by
extension,
assembly
bill
237.
Thank
you.
E
B
Thank
you
ma'am
for
the
record
brad
spyers
s-p-I-r-e-s.
I
am
the
president
of
eighteen
thousand,
practicing
realtors
in
nevada,
and
we're
really
pleased
to
be
here
to
testify
in
support
of
ab237
assuming
women.
How
to
be.
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
time
you've
spent
on
this,
and
it's
been
a
terrific
terrific
outcome.
To
this
point
we
appreciate
the
cameo
and
the
ability
to
work
together
there.
B
The
association
manager
charged
600
for
a
transfer
fee,
so
very
few
of
those
folks
that
participate
by
and
large
they're
all
really
good.
The
dilemma
comes
when
that
fee
comes
in
late
and
it's
at
the
table
and
it's
time
to
close,
and
they
really
don't
have
any
other
option
than
to
go
ahead
and
pay
it
because
they
don't
want
to
hold
up
closer.
So
we
agree
with
the
fee
structure
and
we
think
that
there's
a
really
positive
step
and
thanks
to
cameo
and
thanks
to
you.
E
E
Take
two
now
chair.
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
maggie
o'flaherty
and
then
followed
by
michael
buckley,
on
behalf
of
the
real
property
section
of
the
bar
to
walk
you
through
the
remainder
of
the
bill.
The
real
property
section
of
the
bar
needed
a
vehicle
for
cleanup
language
to
their
section
of
the
nrs,
and
I
was
happy
to
provide
assembly
bill
237
to
accomplish
this.
F
F
The
section
would
like
to
acknowledge
assembly
women
hatagi
for
allowing
us
a
vehicle
and
to
cameo
and
the
realtors
for
being
so
easy
to
work
with.
So
thank
you
to
them.
Like
assemblyman
howdy
said,
michael
buckley
is
available
on
the
phone
and
this
is
really
his
subject
matter
expertise.
He
is
the
chair
of
the
real
property
section,
so
he
will
be
available
to
answer
any
technical
questions
that
you
may
have.
F
There
is
a
memo
uploaded
on
nellis
that
details
our
portion
of
the
bill
section
by
section
and
it's
available
to
you
all
to
follow
along.
I
will
go
through
the
bill
and
just
highlight
each
section
and
if
there's
anything
that
pops
out,
please
feel
free
to
stop
me,
but
otherwise
I
will
just
continue
so
sections
2,
4
and
5
all
provide
the
same
corrective
change.
It's
just
extending
extending
the
reference
to
all
applicable
areas
of
chapter
116.,
section
6
is
providing
a
conforming
change.
That
mirrors.
What
was
brought
in
assembly
bill
335
from
2019?
F
It's
an
increased
fee
that
is
just
conforming
to
what
was
changed
in
assembly
bill
335,
section
7
is
revising
what
is
referenced
as
a
certificate
of
resale
to
read
a
resale
package
over
the
years
chap
the
chapter
116
has
been
amended
to
refer
to
a
resale
package
and
it's
reflective
of
modern
practice,
so
we're
just
updating
that
language
section
eight
deal
it's
it's
adding
new
language
that
exists
in
chapter
107,
concerning
non-judicial
foreclosures
and
trustee
sales
and
adding
that
language
to
chapter
21
as
it
really
relates
to
notification
requirements
and
who
must
be
notified
in
the
cases
of
sale.
F
The
intent
here
is
just
to
ensure
that
the
proper
people
who
are
entitled
to
be
notified
in
execution
sales
are
being
notified.
In
this
instance,
section.
Nine
subsections
one
through
five,
are
providing
minor
changes,
for
clarity's
sake,
to
read
a
little
better
and
subsection
six
is
providing
in
the
case
of
judicial
foreclosure.
F
When
multiple
properties
are
owned,
the
judgment
debtor
would
not
have
authority
to
direct
the
order
on
which
those
properties
are
sold.
This
is
another
conforming
change
that
was
made
in
a
previous
legislative
session.
The
reference
to
judicial
non-judicial
sales
was
removed,
so
we
are
doing
the
same
for
judicial
sales
here
section
10
relates
to
abstract
of
title.
F
It's
revising
abstractive
title
to
instead
reference,
what's
called
a
guarantee
which
is
again
a
modern
practice,
but
it's
not
reflected
in
statute
and
that
change
is
carried
forward
through
section
11
as
well
section
12
is
a
minor
change.
It's
just
extending
reference
to
include
the
additional
articles
of
uniform
commercial
code
as
well
as
the
original
articles.
F
F
F
14
carries
forward
that
same
change
and
revises
some
of
the
language
to
create
parity
between
other
areas
of
nrs,
section
15,
again,
a
small
corrective
change,
it's
revising
a
plural
to
a
singular
to,
for
clarity's
sake,
section
16
is
there
was
a
bill
in
in
2019
clarifying
that
a
person
can
waive
the
benefit
of
protection
for
a
landlord
of
real
property.
There's
two
dates
in
statute.
Currently
that
state
would
notice
must
be
given
to
applicable
parties.
F
E
And
if
we
could,
at
this
time,
chair
take
it
to
our
last
co-presenter,
mr
michael
buckley,
and
he
will
also
be
here
to
answer
q
a
and
then
I
would
at
prior
to
taking
questions
just
like
to
walk
the
committee.
Through
an
amendment
I
submitted
yesterday,
mr
buckley.
H
To
what
maggie
just
said,
but
I'm
available
for
any
questions,
if
you
have
them.
E
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
buckley.
I'm
chair.
I
did
submit
a
friendly
amendment
yesterday.
I
would
like
to
walk
the
committee
through
it.
It's
just
making
four
minor
changes.
The
first
change
is
to
page
9
line,
29
section
5.5,
sub
202,
it's
changing.
The
must
to
a
may.
It
used
to
read
must
not
exceed
350
for
the
transfer
fee
and
then
the
language
we
were
adding
in
beginning
on
january,
1st
2022.
E
The
monetary
amount
in
this
paragraph
must
be
adjusted
for
each
calendar
year,
I'm
changing
that
must
to
a
may
just
to
allow
them
the
flexibility
only
to
increase
it
if
they
need
to
so
the
must
2ma
and
then
the
next
two
changes
are
exactly
the
same.
E
7.2
sub
4b
effective
upon
passage
and
approval,
and
you
should
have
the
amendment
for
you
on
ellis,
so
just
some
more
changes
with
that
share.
We
are
ready
for
questions.
I
F
Senator
settlemeyer
through
you
church
eibal,
you
should
have
received
that
in
your
inbox
as
well.
I
did
I
sent
it
as
well.
A
D
A
D
B
Good
afternoon
sharat
chandra
s-h-a-r-a-t-h
c-h-a-n-d-r-a
administrator
for
the
real
estate
division
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
shar
chandra
administrator
for
the
real
estate
division
just
wanted
to
thank
us
assemblywoman
heartache
for
the
bill.
B
We
just
had
a
few
questions
and
I
think
when
we
reached
out
to
the
assembly
woman
yesterday,
just
the
the
drafting
of
the
bill,
we
just
had
some
more
technical
questions
on
the
authorities
that
are,
that
are
being
indicated
in
section
one
and
a
couple
of
the
other
sections.
But
we
will
work
through
the
assembly
movement
and
get
some
answer.
Questions
answered,
but
just
wanted
to
go
on
the
record
and
say
we're
neutral
on
this.
Thank.
E
E
Earlier
this
year,
it
was
brought
to
our
attention
that
there
were
some
areas
in
the
nrs
that
could
use
cleanup
to
help
clarify
issues
regarding
the
srpd
or
the
seller's
real
property
disclosure.
At
this
time
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
rocky
finceth
and
then
to
ceo,
theresa
mckee
of
the
nevada
realtors
and
president
of
the
nevada
realtors
brian
spyers,
mr
finseth.
B
Chair
shibolan
members
of
the
judiciary
committee,
once
again,
my
name
is
rocky
finseth
r-o-c-k-y-f-I-n-s-e-t-h
with
career
nevada.
Here
today,
representing
the
nevada
realtors,
it's
a
pleasure
to
join
you
in
person
today.
B
First,
let
me
take
this
opportunity
again
to
thank
assemblywoman
how
to
give
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
on
our
behalf,
chair
shival,
in
the
interest
of
chime,
I
would
prefer
to
introduce
theresa,
mckee
and
brad
spyers,
who
will
walk
you
through
the
bill
and
then
we're
happy
to
take
questions
afterwards.
B
J
Thank
you.
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
chair
scheible
members
of
committee,
and
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
with
you
today.
My
name
is
theresa,
mckee
t-e-r-e-s-a-m-c-k-e-e
and
I'm
ceo
of
nevada
realtors.
Thank
you
also
to
assemblyman
how
to
get
for
bringing
this
important
piece
of
legislation
forward.
J
Before
I
walk
you
through
the
statutory
changes
in
the
bill,
I
wanted
to
give
you
a
little
background
on
what
the
srpd
is
and
who
fills
it
out
and
when
and
then
mr
spires
will
follow
up
with
how
it's
used
in
practice,
but
under
existing
law
the
seller
has
the
duty
to
complete
and
give
the
buyer
the
srpd
the
seller's
real
property
disclosure
at
least
10
days
before
the
property
is
conveyed
to
the
purchaser.
J
It
contains
a
comprehensive
list
of
items
that
be
that
may
be
considered
either
defects
in
the
property
or
things
that
have
been
fixed,
that
the
new
buyer
should
be
aware
of
most
buyer's
agents
in
their
offers,
and
the
in
the
contract
ask
the
seller
to
provide
this
earlier
than
the
10
days
before
conveyance.
So
they
can
provide
and
conduct
different
inspections
to
find
out
what's
really
wrong,
and
if
it
does
affect
the
value
of
the
property
in
their
eyes.
J
J
They
have
to
disclose
all
material
and
relevant
facts
that
they
know
or
should
have
known,
relating
to
a
property.
So
there's
two
different
duties
here.
The
seller's
duty
is
under
nrs
113
and
that's
the
duty
to
disclose
them
as
her
pd
everything
they
know
about
the
property
and
the
agent
has
his
own
duty
under
nrs645
to
disclose
material
and
relevant
facts.
J
J
So
moving
to
the
bill
section,
one
of
the
bill
is
lines
three
sorry
line
nine
and
ten.
It
explicitly
explicitly
states
that
the
seller's
agent
shall
not
complete
the
disclosure
form
on
behalf
of
the
seller.
It's
very
important
that
this
be
the
seller's
disclosure.
An
agent
can
help
explain
things
to
the
seller,
but
the
seller
is
the
one
that
has
to
put
down
what
their
knowledge
is
in
lines,
29-37
that
provides
that
the
seller's
agent
is
not
liable.
B
Thanks
teresa
of
grant
spyers
for
the
record,
sbi
ras
terraceibo
and
committee
members
been
practicing
as
a
realtor
in
nevada
for
over
30
years
now,
and
I
can't
thank
you
enough
senator.
How
are
you
for
bringing
forward
this
legislation
which
really
codifies
what
we're
doing
already?
You
know
our
clients
looked
at
us
as
their
trusted
advisors
and
generally
the
most
impactful
investment
that
they'll
ever
make
in
their
lifetime,
and
when
we
present
the
disclosures
to
seller
to
complete,
we
make
it
clear
that
they
must
complete
the
best
of
their
knowledge.
B
B
So
we
encourage
them
to
fill
out
the
form
thoroughly
and
honestly,
and
then
the
form
is
provided
to
the
buyer,
who
then
starts
making
some
decisions
based
on
it?
That
allows
them
to
take
further
investigations
into
any
of
the
items
that
may
have
been
identified
and
it
really
provides
a
critical
step
in
the
buyer's
due
diligence
period.
B
Now
the
real
importance
of
the
bill
is
reflected
in
the
increased
number
of
realtors
being
named
in
lawsuits
regarding
a
seller's
lack
of
disclosure,
while
the
filter
has
nothing
to
do
with
a
form
completion,
they're
forced
to
use
their,
you
know
insurance
to
defend
themselves
for
an
action
that
they
have
nothing
to
do
with
it.
B
So
I
think
it's
important,
as
mr
key
stated,
that
this
does
not
relieve
us
of
our
responsibilities
under
nrs
645.252,
which
is
a
standard
practice
that
requires
us
to
disclose
anything
that
we
knew
or
should
have
known
as
a
disclosure,
so
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Madam
chair.
I
The
man
of
chair
and
thank
you
all
for
your
presentation-
I
did
more
of
these
srdps
as
executive
at
a
home
builder
than
I
did
as
a
broker,
because
I
did
mostly
commercial
work,
but
I
I
and
I
don't
disagree
with
the
idea
here,
but
as
mr
spires,
you
suggested
agents
generally
are
not
to
be
filling
these
out.
These
are
to
be
filled
out
and
signed
by
the
the
owner.
I
The
agent
makes
no
representation
and
the
broker
makes
no
representation
as
to
the
condition
of
a
property,
at
least
in
my
experience
that
they
were
never
intended
to.
As
far
as
I
could
tell,
and
so
I'm
intrigued
by
the
thought
that
this
bill
has
anything
to
do
with
their
being
named
in
lawsuits.
We
can
name-
and
I
can
approach
this
now
being
a
lawyer
who
at
least
I'm
a
recovering
property
lawyer.
I
I
don't
do
them
anymore,
but
we
I
mean
it's
theoretically
possible,
to
name
anyone
in
a
lawsuit
whether
or
not
they
legitimately
have
any
culpability
or
liability
to
the
damages
that
are
being
sued
over.
So,
can
you
tell
me
a
little
bit
about
how
this
interacts
with
those
existing
lawsuits,
because
this
doesn't
put
them
on
the
hook?
It
doesn't
take
them
off
the
hook.
I
That
would
be
a
proper
motion
for
summary
judgment
to
exclude
them
or
remove
them
from
the
lawsuit.
So
can
you
help
me
understand
how
this
interacts
with,
because
we
have
a
general
custom
here
that
we
don't
work
legislation
that
will
affect
active
litigation
as
a
general
rule,
at
least
not
without
making
it
a
deliberate
action
on
our
part?
So
can
you
tell
me
how
this
interacts?
I
want
to
get
comfortable
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
upsetting
some
other
things.
B
J
Thank
you
church.
I
will
through
you
to
some
senator
pickard.
Of
course
it
would
not
affect
any
current
outstanding
lawsuits
that
are
being
filed.
This
was
our
attempt
and
in
working
with
the
trial
lawyers
association
as
well
to
try
to
make
it
more
apparent
that
the
agent
cannot
should
not
shall
not
and
will
not
fill
out
the
srpd
anything
that
we
could
do
to
make
that
more
clear.
J
You
know,
I
think,
we've
tried
in
the
past
we've
been
to
to
handle
this
a
different
way,
but
what
nrs
113
130
currently
says
is
the
seller
shall
complete
the
disclosure
form
and
then
number
two,
the
seller,
the
seller's
agent
shall
serve
the
purchaser
or
the
purchaser's
agent
with
the
completed
form.
Again
I
I'm
kind
of
in
the
dark,
as
you
are
as
why
somebody
would
infer
that
that
is
a
duty
on
the
agent
to
fill
out
the
form,
but
that
is
what's
happening.
J
Those
there
are
cases
out
there
where
the
agent
is
being
held
liable
for
failure
to
disclose
under
113,
where
there
is
no
duty,
and
so
this
is
the
attempt
to
make
it
ultimately
and
virtually
clear
that
the
seller's
agent
shall
not
complete
the
disclosure
form
all
of
the
sellers
duties.
All
the
sellers
agents
duties
are
under
6.45.
J
J
I
I
I
think
I
agree
I
I
just
I
wonder
if
we
really
need
to
add
the
language
in
section
one
a
sub
two,
because
I
think
that's
already
established,
but
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
I
would
think
we
would
want
to
look
at-
or
I
would
suggest
you
might
consider-
is
removing
the
requirement
for
disclosure
under
nrs625,
because
I
think
there
is
the
hook
that
plaintiff's
council
is
probably
looking
at
in
that.
I
If
the,
if
the
agent
has
any
duty
to
disclose
anything,
and
that
is
not
disclosed,
that's
what
they're
going
to
rely
on
to
hook
him
in.
I
don't
know
I've
not
seen
the
lawsuits,
but
that's
an
immediate
discrepancy
that
I
think
we
might
be
able
to
resolve.
In
any
event,
I
like
the
idea,
I'm
supportive
of
the
the
the
concept
just
want
to
get
it
right
out
of
the
gates.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
B
Thank
you,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
david
dazlich
director
of
government
affairs
with
the
vegas
chamber.
We
were
in
support
of
this
this
legislation
on
the
assembly
side
as
well
on
behalf
of
our
realtor
members
and
many
members
who
buy
homes
and
other
real
estate.
We
do
think
this
provides
good
legal
clarification
and
protections
for
buyers
and
sellers
alike
we're
in
support
and
would
urge
your
support.
A
Thank
you
so
much
anybody
else
in
person
all
right.
We
will
then
move
to
testimony
on
the
phone
in
support
of
ab398.
D
D
A
D
Thank
you,
chair,
schreibel,
to
testify
in
opposition.
Excuse
me
to
testify
in
opposition
on
assembly
bill
398,
please
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
once
again
to
testify
in
opposition
on
ab398,
please
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue.
A
A
A
K
K
Before
I
start,
I
would
like
to
thank
senator
spearman
and
all
the
members
of
the
sunset
subcommittee
for
assisting
us
with
this
proposed
legislation,
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
provide
you
with
an
overview
of
ab342
in
its
present
form.
Section
1
of
this
bill,
specifically
subsection
6,
which
refers
to
nrs
213.10885,
requires
the
parole
board
to
comprehensively
review
the
standards
adopted
by
the
board
on
or
before
january
1
of
each
odd-numbered
year.
K
The
board
has
used
a
validated
risk
instrument
since
2003
the
parole
risk
instrument
was
created
based
on
the
recidivism
measure
of
a
new
felony
conviction
within
three
years
of
release
from
incarceration
in
order
to
properly
assess
the
adopted
standards
that
are
in
place.
At
least
three
years
of
data
review
is
necessary.
K
K
The
board
then
needs
time
to
review
the
consultant's
recommendations
and
either
adopt
and
or
modify
the
standards
and
approve
them
at
a
board
meeting
once
approved.
The
board
must
then
work
with
the
department
of
corrections
to
make
the
appropriate
changes
to
the
approved
revalidated
instrument,
and
then
in
the
nevada,
offender
tracking
information
system,
which
is
called
notice,
then
it
can
be
implemented.
K
K
Moving
on
to
section
two
of
this
bill,
according
to
statute
that
is
in
place
now,
the
parole
board
shall
establish
a
program
of
lifetime
supervision
of
sex
offenders
to
commence
after
any
period
of
probation
or
any
term
of
imprisonment
and
any
period
of
release
on
parole
under
current
law.
The
parole
board
sets
the
conditions
of
lifetime
supervision
for
qualifying
sex
offenders.
K
K
K
K
So
here
is
the
way
lifetime
supervision
conditions
are
imposed
and
how
we
can
make
it
better
moving
forward.
K
K
However,
the
way
things
stand
now
for
lifetime
supervision
of
sex
offenders,
the
court
imposes
the
term
meaning
lifetime
supervision
for
that
crime,
but
it
does
not
impose
the
conditions
of
that
lifetime
supervision.
At
the
same
time,
rather,
the
parole
board
imposes
the
conditions
of
release
approximately
90
days
prior
to
completing
their
underlying
sentence.
K
K
The
court
makes
the
determination
the
proposed
language
in
section
3,
is
to
have
these
conditions
imposed
at
the
sentencing
hearing
and
remodeled
after
the
united
states
court
system.
They
do
just
this.
The
federal
court
will
sentence
someone
for
an
underlying
sex
offense
and
put
on
record
at
this
same
sentencing,
hearing
that
upon
completion
of
the
underlying
sentence
that
the
individual
will
be
on
a
term
of
lifetime
supervision
with
the
following
conditions
to
follow
the
underlying
term.
K
In
my
opinion,
this
just
streams
lines
streamlines
everything,
so
one
important
aspect
of
how
the
this
bill
is
worded.
This
the
parole
board,
will
continue
to
set
these
conditions
for
any
one
sentence
prior
to
july
1
of
2021..
K
K
K
The
last
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
here
is
I've
reviewed.
The
nevada
district,
attorney's
association
proposed
amendment
that
was
filed
today
and
the
changes
appear
appropriate.
However,
I'd
like
to
make
just
two
comments
regarding
their
submission
in
section
3,
subsection
9,
they
are
requesting
to
remove
language.
K
Also,
I
did
see
where
that
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
requested
that
the
original
language
in
section
2
subsection
14,
be
placed
back
into
the
bill.
However,
this
appears
to
be
have
been
missed
for
section
3,
as
it
was
not
added
there.
I
believe
this
just
may
have
been
an
oversight
as
such.
Once
again,
I
would
request
that
if
this
language
is
added
back
into
section
two,
it
should
also
be
added
back
into
section
three
as
well
just
so
that
the
two
statutes
mirror
each
other.
A
Awesome
do
members
of
the
committee
have
any
questions
for
mr
dorico.
A
I
don't
see
any
questions
from
members
of
the
committee,
so
I
have
just
a
couple.
I
wanted
to
clarify
something
that
you
said
that
maybe
I
misunderstood
did
you
say
that
sometimes
lifetime
supervision
is
imposed
at
a
date
later
than
the
sentencing.
K
Christa
rico
for
the
record,
so
the
court
will
impose
a
term
of
lifetime
supervision
at
the
sentencing
hearing
that
they'll
impose
it
there.
But
what
won't
happen
is
the
terms
or
the
conditions
of
that
lifetime
supervision
term
aren't
imposed
there.
So
that's
the
clarification
it
is
imposed
at
the
sentencing.
K
Is
christa
rico
for
the
record?
Absolutely
one
stop
shop
at
a
couple
minutes
of
the
sentencing
hearing
and
have
everything
included
all
in
one
and
and
the
best
thing
about
this,
in
my
opinion,
is
you'll.
Have
the
judge
present
you'll
have
the
district
attorney
president
you'll?
Have
the
public
defenders
retained
council
president,
the
defendant
president,
the
pre-sentence
investigation?
A
Yes-
and
I
agree
that
makes
complete
sense
to
me-
I
think
I
just
misheard
what
you
said,
and
so
I
was
a
little
bit
confused
and
along
the
same
lines,
then
I
understand
both
from
your
testimony
and
from
my
practice
that
a
violation
of
lifetime
super
condition
of
lifetime
supervision
is
itself
a
criminal
act,
and
so
those
are
charged
as
violations,
lifetime
supervision
and
you're,
not
suggesting
that
we
make
any
change
in
that
statutory
scheme
right.
K
A
Fantastic-
and
I
just
wanted
to
ask
you
if
you
had
a
chance
to
review
the
amendment
proposed
by
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association,
it
has
been
posted
on
nellis
and
I
apologize
I'm
just
not
sure
if
that
was
something
that
was
provided
to
you.
K
Christa
rico
for
the
record,
thank
you,
chair
schaible,
so
I
I
believe
I
did
bring
that
up
in
a
little
bit,
but
I'll
cover
it
a
little
bit
more.
I
have
had
an
opportunity
to
review
it
as
well
as
speak
with
them
yesterday,
and
they
have
added
in
certain
sections
back
into
into
the
bill
itself
or
proposing
that,
and
I
think
they're
working
together
and
I've
been
working
with
them
and
also
the
public
defenders
as
well.
K
I
think
we
could
put
it
together
and
kind
of
craft
and
clean
it
up.
But
yes,
I'm
aware
of
the
the
proposed
amendment.
I
don't
have
any
issues
with
it.
I
think
it
could
work
as
written
now
or
with
what
they
propose.
The
biggest
key
to
this
particular
bill
was
just
to
have
these
to
streamline
everything,
to
have
these
conditions
imposed
at
the
time
of
sentencing.
A
And
that
makes
sense
to
me,
and
I
appreciate
that.
A
I
think
I
have
a
couple
other
questions
that
I
will
take
offline
about
how
we
address
violations
of
lifetime
supervision,
but
I
don't
want
to
get
too
far
outside
the
the
scope
of
the
bill.
So
are
there
other
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
not
seeing
any?
We
will
move
then
to
testimony
in
support
of
ab342.
A
D
D
D
L
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheibel
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
jennifer,
noble
j-e-n-n-I-f-e-r
and
I
am
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
today
and
in
an
abundance
of
caution.
I
am
testifying
in
opposition,
but
I
want
to
thank
chair
dorico
for
speaking
with
me
yesterday
and
on
another
occasion
and
working
with
us
on
language
for
this
bill,
and
it
sounds
like
we're
very
close.
L
L
Second,
our
amendment
takes
the
finding
of
extraordinary
circumstances
that
might
warrant
a
departure
from
required
conditions
of
lifetime
supervision
out
of
the
adversarial
setting
of
a
district
court
sentencing
and
keeps
it
or
the
attempt.
How
is
to
keep
it
with
the
parole
board?
And
that's
where
I
think
perhaps
chair
dorico
and
the
ndaa
are
just
a
little
bit
further
apart.
L
We
would
like
the
offender
to
be
able
to
go
back
to
the
parole
board
for
adjustment
of
those
conditions
or
somebody
if
that's
needed,
but
we'd
like
to
keep
it
out
of
a
post-conviction
context,
because
we
don't
want
to
have
public
defenders
and
da's
litigating.
These
special
conditions,
long
after
the
offender
is
released,
and
so
we
would
actually
want
to
keep
section
2
sub
9
in
or
work
on
language
that
at
least
modifies
it
so
that
they
would
be
able
to
approach
the
parole
board
regarding
those
conditions.
L
Finally,
our
amendment
tries
to
clarify
that
when
a
sex
offender
resides
outside
the
state
of
nevada
and
they
want
to
be
evaluated
for
release
from
lifetime
supervision,
they
don't
have
to
return
to
the
state
which
I
think
is
the
goal
of
the
original
bill
or
the
current
bill
language
and
they
can
be
evaluated
by
a
qualified
person
in
their
jurisdiction
of
residence.
In
other
words,
someone
who
has
similar
similar
qualifications
to
the
qualifications
outlined
in
nrs
176.133.
L
Those
are
specific
requirements
for
people
who
evaluate
sex
offenders.
So
that's
really
the
substance
of
our
amendment,
but
we
would
like
to
thank
senator
spearman
and
chair
dorico
for
continuing
to
work
with
us
and
stakeholders
on
language
that
addresses
our
concerns,
and
that
concludes
my
testimony.
Thank
you.
D
M
M
We
first
want
to
thank
charito
rico
for
speaking
with
us
on
several
occasions
to
try
to
ensure
that
we
understand
the
intent
of
this
bill.
We
appreciate
his
attempts
to
streamline
the
process
as
currently
written.
We
are
confused
or
we
are
still
concerned
that
it
will
actually
confuse
issues
and
make
it
more
complicated
for
our
clients.
M
We
do
still.
I
apologize,
I'm
not
sure
whether
the
ndaa
amendment
has
been
completely
adopted
or
not
so
I'll
just
start
with.
We
have
no
issues
with
the
change
in
section
one
of
the
bill
and
would
support
that
section
for
section
2.
We
are
concerned,
as
the
district
attorney's
association
mentioned
regarding
section
regarding
some
of
the
subsections
in
order
to
allow
it
to
be
heard
before
the
court
as
sentencing,
we
don't
think
that
as
a
problem
is
appropriate.
M
However,
we
are
just
concerned
with
the
additional
time
that
it's
going
to
take
as
well
as,
if
our
clients
are
modifying
those
conditions
later
through
the
court
or
if
it's
done
through
the
parole
board.
So
we
would
actually
agree
with
the
district
attorney's
office
that
section
3,
subsection
9
should
allow
for
that
to
be
done
by
the
parole
board.
Instead
of
having
to
return
to
court
to
address
conditions.
M
M
We
also
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
puerto
rico,
just
regarding
some
of
the
language
for
requesting
for
the
person
to
be
removed
from
lifetime
supervision
as
written,
it
will
provide
require
our
office
to
participate
in
this
and
to
do
the
documentation,
and
at
this
point
it
would
have
a
fiscal
impact.
So
we
are
working
with
him
to
remove
the
fiscal
concerns
and
to
ensure
that
this
language
does
fit
his
intent,
and
we
appreciate
him
bringing
forward
this
bill.
Thank
you.
D
D
In
the
interest
of
brevity,
I
would
just
echo
all
of
the
concerns
that
ms
burchie
raised
and
note
that
we
are
also
amenable
to
continuing
to
work
with
the
bills
for
bonds.
Thank
you.
A
D
D
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
ab342
that
takes
us
to
our
last
bill
on
the
agenda
today,
which
is
ab17.
I
understand
our
presenters
are
present
by
zoom.
I
am
expecting
a
victoria
gonzalez
tom
larson
or
perhaps
lawson,
and
perhaps
an
aaron
evans.
If
all
right,
I
see
victoria
gonzalez,
I
see
tom
larsen
aka
lawson,
who
will
clarify
that
for
us
and
whoever
wants
to
go
first
may
go
ahead.
H
Thank
you.
This
is
tom
lawson,
I'm,
the
chief
of
the
department
of
department,
public
safety's
pro
and
probation
division
and
I'll
be
presenting
assembly
bill
17
for
you
today.
Thank
you,
chairman
schaible,
and
the
members
of
the
committee
for
for
hearing
this
bill.
I
have
a
presentation
that
I'm
going
to.
H
A
H
Okay,
under
existing
law,
the
division
is
required
to
make
a
recommendation
for
either
an
honorable
or
a
dishonorable
discharge
to
the
sentencing
district
court
upon
the
completion
of
a
term
of
probation
supervision
for
parolees.
The
division
has
the
authority
under
statute
to
issue
a
honorable
or
dishonorable
discharge
upon
expiration
of
the
parole
supervision
term.
H
Historically,
there
was
a
distinction
between
a
offender
receiving
an
honorable
versus
a
dishonorable
discharge
that
distinction
being
related
to
the
restoration
of
an
individual
civil
rights.
Upon
that
discharge,
with
modifications
to
statute
during
the
79th
and
80th
legislative
sessions,
there
is
no
longer
a
distinction
between
the
rights
returned
to
an
individual.
Following
an
honorable
versus
a
dishonorable
discharge.
H
Then
the
third
primary
statute,
we're
looking
to
change
with
this,
this
bill
would
be
nrs,
213
155,
and
this.
This
relates
to
the
division's
requirement
to
provide
the
the
supervised
defender,
the
documented
document
detailing
the
restoration
of
their
civil
rights
upon
discharge
and
as
currently
they
keep
the
classification
of
their
discharge.
H
There
are
offenders
who
are
relatively
compliant,
that,
due
to
the
wording
of
the
statute,
receive
dishonorable
discharges,
and
there
are
also
offenders
who
are
relatively
uncompliant,
with
the
wording
of
the
statute
that
qualify
for
an
honorable
discharge
and
so
that
one
word
distinction
is
not
really
an
accurate
representation
of
the
offender's
performance
during
supervision,
and
we
believe
that
there
are
ways
that
that
the
division
may
ensure
that
the
the
courts
and
the
prosecutors
have
the
information
they
need
to
make
their
informed
decision
regarding
future
eligibility
for
deferral,
programs
and
sentencing
their
prosecution
decisions
or
sentencing
decisions.
H
H
It
increases
the
number
of
hearings
for
resolution
of
those
disagreements.
There
are
cases
where
the
person
has
expired
from
supervision,
and
the
court
has
just
simply
elected
not
to
sign
the
discharge
in
either
form
or
issue
an
order
on
that
and
that
kind
of
places
the
person
in
a
status
of
limbo.
The
division
no
longer
has
the
authority
to
exercise
control
over
that
person
under
their
conditions
of
supervision,
because
their
period
of
probation
has
expired.
H
However,
we
cannot
issue
the
discharge
document
because
the
court
is
not-
and
it's
not
ordered
to
discharge
in
either
direction
and
so
not
having
that
that
may
impact
the
offenders
restoration
of
rights,
because
the
restoration
of
rights
is
now
upon
discharge
and
if
they
haven't
received
their
discharge,
then
the
argument
is
made.
Do
they
have
their
civil
rights
restored,
even
though
they
are
outside
the
sentence
window
and
are
no
longer
under
supervision?
H
The
assertion
of
an
honorable
or
dishonorable
discharge
is
one
such
possible
obstacle,
and
the
elimination
of
that
requirement
allows
for
an
individual
to
be
assessed
on
the
merits
of
their
factual
compliance
during
supervision
and
not
merely
on
their
previous
criminal
record
or
potentially
erroneous,
and,
I
guess
misleading
information
in
their
in
their
supervision
history,
for
example,
if
you
have
a
person
who's
on
supervision
at
the
very
beginning
of
it,
they're
not
adapting
very
well
to
their
period
of
supervision,
and
they
have
some
some
violations,
they're,
not
paying
their
fees.
H
H
The
entire
supervision
term
should
be
the
basis
upon
which
their
success
during
that
supervision
term
should
be
measured
again
if
they
have
early
problems
based
upon
the
wording
in
the
statute
that
could
result
in
their
overall
supervision
term
being
deemed
dishonorable
when
their
more
recent
performance
should
be
the
the
weighed
factor.
H
I
also
want
to
note
that
the
changes
impacted
or
the
changes
we're
requesting
here
do
not
alter
any
of
the
language
regarding
early
discharge
of
offenders
from
probation
under
ab-236
of
the
previous
session.
In
fact,
the
early
discharge
elements
of
ab-236
do
not
distinguish
between
an
honorable
or
dishonorable
discharge
type.
It
just
merely
refers
to
the
discharge
as
a
whole.
H
H
That
that
change
just
makes
conforming
changes
to
the
area
underneath
their
purview
regarding
reporting
of
statistics
in
their
annual
report
to
the
legislature,
they
can
just
remove
the
reference
to
to
honorable
or
dishonorable
from
that
report.
Now
the
division
has
engaged
in
discussions
with
the
aclu
and
representatives
of
the
clark
and
washoe
county
district.
Excuse
me,
public
defenders,
offices,
we've
also
spoken
to
representatives
of
the
clerk
and
washington
county
district
attorney's
offices.
H
On
the
assembly
side,
the
the
district
attorney's
offices
testified
in
opposition
to
the
bill,
and
you
know
we've
had
conversations
with
them
in
the
past
and
are
open
to
having
additional
conversations
to
try
to
resolve
those
concerns
and
primarily
from
the
court
side.
The
the
concerns
that
were
related
to
us
is
that
if
there
was
a
person
who
is
currently
involved
in
a
diversion
program
and
the
terms
of
that
diversion
program
said
that,
if
you
receive
an
honorable
discharge,
then
your
sentence
will
be
reduced
or
your
charge
will
be
amended
to
x.
H
If
you
receive
a
dishonorable
discharge,
then
why
is
the
the
final
outcome
of
your
case?
I
can
see
the
the
court's.
I
guess
issue
with
not
having
that
honorable
versus
dishonorable
word
to
rely
upon,
but
the
the
I
guess
the
thought
process
is.
The
court
is
the
one
who
decides
whether
the
discharge
will
be
honorable
or
dishonorable
in
the
first
place,
and
so
in
regards
to
those
individual
cases
where
the
diversion
program
is
expecting
an
honorable
or
dishonorable
distinction.
H
Again,
those
factors
are
already
documented
in
the
discharge
report,
so
the
division
would
provide
the
same
information
as
providing
now
we're
open
to
having
discussions
with
the
stakeholders
to
ensure
that
if
there
are
any
elements
from
that
discharge
report
that
are
missing
content
that
is
missing
and
needed
for
those
decision
makers
to
to.
You
know,
work
through
and
decide
the
success
of
that
offenders
probation
term,
and
we
are
more
than
welcome,
welcome
or
welcome
those
discussions
more
willing
to
adapt
to
that
that
report
to
meet
the
stakeholders
needs
for
that.
H
It
was
even
thrown
out
in
our
conversations
with
the
da's
group
of
perhaps
that
could
be.
Those
elements
could
be
codified
in
the
statute.
You
know
we
want
that
information
to
be
available
to
them.
H
As
a
read-only
level,
so
that
those
discharge
reports
are
readily
available
at
will
for
prosecutorial
decision
making
for
the
courts
and
da's
offices
that
aren't
within
odyssey
part
of
our
rfp
included
outside
access
for
stakeholders
to
provide
that
same
access.
So
the
division
is
one
to
in
and
wants
to
work
and
find
a
workable
solution
to
ensure
that
all
the
prosecuting
offices
and
the
courts
have
the
best
information
available
to
make
a
determination
as
to
whether
the
offenders
probation
completion
was
successful.
H
But
we
don't
believe
that
that
the
one-word
header
of
honorable
or
dishonorable,
on
the
top
of
that
that
discharge
document
should
be
the
deciding
factor.
The
facts
and
circumstances
of
their
performance
during
supervision
is
the
key
element
here.
And
with
that
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
from
the
committee.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
chief
lawson.
I
think
we
have
a
couple
of
questions.
I
will
start
with
majority
leader
cannizzaro.
N
Thank
you
jersey,
so
I
guess
as
I
am.
I
am
understanding
this
there's
a
concern
about.
H
H
Think
broadcast
services
did
me
a
solid
on
that
one,
okay,
so
tom
watson
for
the
record
yeah.
The
concern
is:
is
that
with
the
the
elimination
of
the
distinction
of
and
restoration
of
civil
rights,
that
the
need
for
that
one
word:
distinction
no
longer
exists
where,
before,
if
you
received
an
honorable,
you
got
your
rights
back
under
certain
circumstances.
H
If
you
received
a
dishonorable,
you
didn't
and
that
changed
over
the
past
two
sessions,
and
so
now
that
one
word
distinction
has
the
potential
of
misclassifying
somebody's
overall
performance
based
upon
the
way
the
recommendation
is
defined
within
the
existing
statutes,
and
so
we're
saying
is
we.
We
lay
out
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
offenders
supervision
instance
to
the
court
in
in
the
discharge
document.
That's
not
going
to
change
we're
still
going
to
to
lay
out
the
same
facts
and
circumstances
we
do
now.
H
It's
just
we're
asking
for
the
ability
to
not
title
that
document,
honorable
or
dishonorable,
because,
honestly,
that
that
is
misleading
at
times
and
that
the
facts
and
the
circumstances
of
that
person's
supervision
instance
should
be
the
determining
factor
for
their
success
and
not
that
one
word
recommendation
by
the
division.
N
I
think
we
had
a
little
bit
of
a
power
shortage
and
my
mic
went
out
as
well
as
some
of
the
lights
here,
but
I
think
we're
back
in
business,
and
I
think
that
you
have
sort
of
illustrated
two
things,
one
that
sometimes
it
appears
that
it
may
be
difficult
to
classify
someone
as
either
honorable
or
dishonorable
and
then
two,
because
there
is
no
distinction
between
the
civil
rights
restoration
between
the
two
types
of
discharge
that
there
is
an
issue.
N
I
think
that
the
civil
rights
piece
makes
sense,
irrespective
of
the
different
sets
of
discharge-
and
I
understand
that
it
is,
it
may
be
difficult,
and
I
guess
you
can
elucidate
why.
That
is
the
case
for
someone
to
either
receive
an
honorable
or
dishonorable,
because
in
practice,
folks,
who
are
on
probation
or
on
parole
who
are
not
compliant
can
be
reinstated
right,
absent
certain
circumstances
generally,
at
least
with
probation,
that's
up
to
the
court
to
be
reinstated
on
on
probation,
even
if
they're
not
compliant
with
the
conditions
of
their
probation
and
oftentimes.
N
That
will
take
the
form
of
potentially
the
imposition
of
additional
requirements,
and,
at
the
end,
you
know
if
they're,
if
that
sort
of
helps
to
get
the
person
back
on
track,
can
still
be
given
an
honorable
discharge.
Despite
the
fact
that
there
may
have
been
some
bumps
along
the
way,
and
so
I
guess
what
I
am
struggling
with
is.
N
H
Tom
lawson
for
the
record,
I
guess
in
that
situation
they're
going
to
be
discharged,
no
matter
what
the
the
sentencing
term
is
defined
under
ab236.
Those
sentencing
terms
of
the
possibility
of
promotion
were
actually
shortened,
and
so
the
time
is
going
to
elapse
in
the
person
unless
they
have
scanned.
Of
course,
if
they
abscond
that's
a
different
animal,
because
you
know
the
laws
are
very
clear
that
when
they're
in
absconder
status,
I.e,
they've
been
they'll,
say
in
the
wind,
but
no
better
way
to
describe
it
for
more
than
60
days.
H
Once
that
happens,
then
their
time
freezes
until
they're
caught
and
brought
back
before
the
court
to
decide
whether
they
want
to
reinstate
them
back
to
supervision
or,
to
you
know,
revoke
them
to
complete
their
sentence
incarcerated.
So
beyond
the
absconders,
whether
they're
comply
or
not
their
terms
going
to
expire.
H
At
some
point
in
time,
it
may
be
slower
because
they're
not
earning
compliance
credits
for
payment
of
fees,
education,
programs,
payment
of
restitution,
those
kind
of
things,
but
the
time
will
keep
ticking
until
they're
no
longer
eligible
for
it
or
that
so
the
again,
the
descriptor
doesn't
change
the
facts
of
the
of
the
case,
and
so
the
fact
that
they
were
non-compliant
the
fact
that
they
failed
to
make
their
payments
the
fact
that
they
didn't
pay
restitution.
H
H
The
court
would
order
whether
they
there
were
compliance
with
the
terms
of
supervision
to
qualify
for
a
deferral
program,
but
still
the
court's
discretion
and
you
as
the
prosecutor,
would
still
have
the
discretion
to
take
those
facts
and
circumstances
and-
and
I
guess
consider
those
two
future
charging
decisions.
There
just
isn't
a
debate
about
the
header
of
the
the
piece
of
paper
that
that
you're
reading.
N
And
I
guess
that's
where
I
have
a
little
bit
of
uneasiness
is
that
first
there's
a
very
big
difference.
If
you're
saying
that
somebody
is
coming
before
the
court
on
an
offense
that
is
probationable
and
either
the
state
or
the
defense
is
arguing
that
someone
is
fit
for
supervision
right.
Somebody
who
is
amenable
to
the
terms
of
probation,
for
example,
if
they
have
been
on
probation
twice
before,
but
there
is
an
honorable
discharge
associated
with
both
of
them.
N
That
implies
that
that
is
someone
who
can
abide
by
terms
and
conditions
of
probation
and
who
can
be
supervised.
Maybe
they
need
some
additional
services,
but
that's
somebody
who
is
generally
supervisable
by
the
division,
whereas
if
somebody
has
two
dishonorable
discharges
from
two
prior
felonies
then
or
gross
misdemeanors,
then
that
is
a
very
different
circumstance
for
the
court
and
sometimes
in
those
pre-sentence
investigation
reports.
Not
all
of
those
facts
are
delineated
as
to
prior
conduct
on
probation,
except
in
cases
where
somebody
has
been
revoked,
or
somebody
has
been
given
a
dishonorable
discharge.
N
Because
oftentimes,
what
we
see
in
those
is
where
there's
somebody
who's
been
revoked
or
given
a
dishonorable
discharge,
you'll
see
why
that
is
the
case,
but
otherwise
it
is
left
without
you
know,
there
aren't
typically
paragraphs
that
say
you
know
this
person
was
compliant
with
this
term,
this
term,
this
term
and
this
term
of
their
probation.
H
Tom
lawson
for
the
record.
In
response
to
that,
I
I
can
absolutely
see
that
in
the
with
that
distinction
in
statute,
it's
it's
easy
for
the
the
psi
writer
for
a
future
instance
to
just
refer
to
that
blanket
honorable
or
dishonorable
to
paint
the
picture,
and
I
guess
that's
the
point
of
this
moving
forward.
Is
we
hope
we
don't
rely
purely
on
that
we
we
would
list
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
that
case.
H
H
H
Is
it
possible
for
this
person
to
pay
an
average
of
over
eight
thousand
dollars
a
month
towards
their
restitution
and
more
than
likely
not
the
answer
is
no,
and
so,
but
that
person
will
automatically
qualify
for
a
dishonorable
discharge,
even
though
they
were
compliant
with
every
other
term
of
their
supervision,
but
because
they
couldn't
pay
their
full
restitution,
and
that's
happened
in
the
past.
Now
there
are
provisions
in
there
about
unless
the
person
can
make
a
demonstrated
demonstrate
to
the
division
that
they,
you
know,
had
an
economic
hardship.
H
And
so
I
agree
with
you
that
that
you
know
that
practice
will
need
to
change
and
that's
what
the
division
is
offering
here
and
willing
to
even
codify
if
we
need
to
of
of
what
needs
to
change
in
the
discharge
report
to
ensure
that
the
courts
and
the
prosecutors
have
the
information
to
base
their
future
decisions
upon
and
whether
it's
in
the
psi,
whether
it's
in
the
the
previous
discharge
report
or
it's
in
both
those
those
facts
need
to
be
available
to
the
court
and
the
prosecutor.
N
And
so
I
think
you
know
if
we
were
talking
about
a
change
to
the
law
that
allowed
for
those
particular
cases
to
not
be
automatically
given
a
dishonorable
discharge.
That
would
make
sense
to
me,
but
I
think
there
are
big
distinctions
between
folks
who
are
honorably
discharged
and
dishonorably
discharged
and
it
plays
into
future
sentencing
decisions.
N
And
I
guess
my
one
comment
on
that
before
I
have
another.
Just
sort
of
question
and
point
here
is
that
in
the
psis
and
in
the
discharge
reports
they're
often
very
pro
forma,
they
don't
include
all
the
details
and
they
don't
include
instances
of
honorable
conduct.
It's
usually,
this
is
the
reason,
one
of
the
reasons
why
this
person
was
revoked
without
much
detail.
So,
if
we're
talking
about
moving
to
wholesale
discharge
without
further
distinction,
there
would
need
to
be
a
lot
more
information.
N
I
think,
given
to
the
courts
as
to
the
performance
of
someone
who
is
being
supervised
by
the
division,
both
in
those
discharge
orders
and
in
the
psis
that
are
provided
to
the
court,
which
I
think,
and
we
won't.
I
don't
know,
we
won't
go
down
too
much
of
a
sort
of
rabbit
hole
here,
but
for
gross
misdemeanors,
certainly
when
you're
not
relying
on
psis,
because
most
gross
misdemeanors,
absent
child
abuse
and
some
other
delineated,
offenses
psis
are
not
required.
N
The
other
thing
that
you
brought
up
was
the
idea
of
the
diversion
courts
and
that
the
court
would
still
have
the
ability
to
make
those
particular
distinctions,
and
I
guess
the
the
bill
doesn't
necessarily
allow
for
that.
The
way
that
I
read
it,
it
allows
for
simply
a
discharge
and
most
of
the
time
when
we're
talking
about
something
in
a
diversion
core
or
performance
of
a
of
completion
of
drug
core
veterans
corps.
Mental
health
court
is
because
there
are
negotiations.
N
They
contemplate
that
in
order
to
incentivize
someone
to
stay
with
a
program
of
treatment
rather
than
you
know,
sort
of
throw
it
by
the
wayside
or
decide,
they
don't
want
to
participate
in
that.
And
so
how
do
you
envision
that?
Working
where
it
is
tied
to
a
contractual
agreement
between
the
parties
that,
if
and
upon
someone's
successful
completion
of
a
program
of
treatment?
H
Tom
austin
for
the
record,
I
I
think
the
way
you
worded
it
is
a
very
good
way
of
just
distinguishing
that
successful
completion
of
this
program,
the
court's
determination
of
successful
completion
of
supervision,
again,
the
the
classification
of
that
is
and
will
would
remain
up
to
the
court
of
the
judge-
would
look
at
that
and
say:
okay,
I
ordered
you
two
x
y
and
z
you
performed
in
this
manner.
Does
that
mean
my
standard
for
x,
y
and
z?
And
if
the
the
judge
were
to
review
that
and
say
yeah?
H
Yes,
it
does.
Then
they
grant
the
and
approve
the
completion
of
the
diversion
contract.
If
they
don't
meet
it
to
their
standard,
then
they
don't.
I
guess
it's
the
same
as
really
the
same
process
as
it
would
be
now
because
the
now
the
court
deems
it
to
have
met
the
conditions
by
saying
it's
a
honorable
discharge
and
stamps
it
as
such.
If
they
don't
meet
the
conditions,
they
call
it
a
dishonorable
discharge
and
they
they
stamp
it
as
such.
H
So
again,
the
facts
will
be
laid
out
and
it's
up
to
the
court
to
make
that
a
termination.
In
the
same
manner,
it
is
now.
N
N
In
this
new
context,
I
think
is,
is
difficult
and
may
may
pose
some
issues,
so
maybe
something
to
continue
to
discuss
on
that
part.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you
other
questions,
senator
orrinshaw.
G
Thank
you
very
much
chair
schreibel
and
thank
you
captain
lawson
for
presenting
assembly
bill
17.,
and
this
brings
to
mind
a
story.
G
An
attorney
I
work
with
down
in
las
vegas,
told
me
about
a
client
who
was
on
on
probation
supervision
and
was
ordered
to
an
inpatient
drug
treatment
program,
and
they
there
was
some
kind
of
argument
with
one
of
the
other
people
there
getting
treatment
and
there
was
a
fight
and
they
got
kicked
out
of
that
inpatient
drug
treatment
program,
but
they
were
consistently
testing
clean
and
what
I
like
about
the
bill-
and
I
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I'm
thinking
here
you
know
who's
ever
whoever's.
G
Reviewing
that
person's
time
on
on
probation
under
supervision
would
be
able
to
weigh
both
factors
in
they
might
be
able
to.
Not
just
have
you
know,
a
label
that
says
honorable
discharge
or
dishonorable
discharge,
but
they
might
be
able
to
say.
Oh
wow,
this
person
tested
clean
for
12
months.
Every
urine
test
was
clean.
They
got
kicked
out
of
this
inpatient
drug
treatment
program,
but
maybe
they
didn't
get
kicked
out
because
they
were
using
drugs,
but
maybe
they
got
kicked
out
due
to
a
personal
issue
with
another
person
there
who's
getting
treatment.
H
Tom
austin,
for
the
record,
I
guess,
on
on
the
parole
side,
since
the
division
is,
is
the
finder
of
fact
whether
somebody
quote-unquote
meets
dishonorable
or
honorable
discharge
at
this
time.
Yes,
we
do.
We
look
at
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
and-
and
I
would
think
that
the
the
courts
would
do
the
same
on
the
probation
side.
H
You
know
there
are
those
positive
and
negative
factors
again
it's
if,
even
if
they
were
to
test
dirty
at
the
very
beginning
of
their
their
programming,
you
know
we
expect
there
to
be
a
period
of
investment.
That's
why
we
have
graduated
sanctions
in
place.
That's
why
we
have
you
know,
steps
to
be
taken.
H
That's
why
there's
a
differentiation
between
technical
violations
and
and
non-technical
violations,
now
new
offenses,
so
with
the
expectation
that
people
are
going
to
to
have
an
adjustment
period
and
if
the
supervision
is
appropriate
and
the
the
wraparound
services
and
the
programming
is
proper.
We
should
see
some
of
those
hiccups
and
speed
bumps
at
the
beginning
of
their
term
and
then
see
those
go
away
and
have
you
know
longer
term
success
at
the
end.
But
yes,
the
totality
of
circumstances
is
what
that
that's
overall
determination
of
success
should
be.
It
shouldn't,
be
one
individual
thing.
H
Unless
of
course,
you
come
right
out
of
the
gate
and
you
commit
another
violent
crime
or
something
like
that.
Well
then,
you
know
rightfully
so
you
should
be
revoked
for
that,
and
then
that
would
be
the
only
classifying
event
for
that
period
of
supervision,
but
for
those
people
that
are
adjusting
and
and
show
progress
and
progression,
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
needs
to
be
the
weighing
factor,
not
just
that
one
isolated
event.
I
H
B
B
H
Tom
lawson,
if
I
could
respond
again
to
this,
to
the
senator.
A
H
Ahead,
thank
you
in
terms
of
the
probation,
we
look
at
the
overall
probation
success
rate,
meaning
how
many
people
complete
their
their
supervision
term
versus
revocation,
not
necessarily
the
distinction
of
honorable
versus
dishonored,
because
that
that
is
a
measurement.
That's
beyond
the
control
of
the
division,
that's
a
the
will
or
the
whim
of
the
court,
and
so
yes,
we
do
capture
that
and
then
we'll
have
to
get
back
to
you,
but
that's
not
a
measurement
of
success
for
the
division,
which
is
why
we
don't
have
that
readily
available.
H
Tom
lawson,
for
the
record
recidivism
is
is
was
the
definition
of
that
was
also
recently
changed,
and
so
the
definition
of
recidivism
that
was
worked
with
for
multiple
stakeholders
is
that
it's
the
number
of
individuals
that
returned
to
incarceration
within
three
years
following
discharge
from
their
supervision,
and
so
the
timeline
of
that
we
haven't
reached
that
three-year
period.
Yet
so
that
data
is
still
being
collected
to
determine
a
recidivism
rate.
Our
recidivism
calculation
is
different
from
ndocs.
H
There
isn't
a
standard
one
for
for
all
entities,
and
so
I
guess
that's
also
under
calculation.
H
Tom
austin
for
the
record
are
going
off
of
memory
here.
Our
success
rate
we
the
last
three
years,
we've
trended
well
above
the
national
average
for
discharge
success
rate,
and
I
would
have
to
confirm
it,
but
I
believe
our
latest
one
was
around
86.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
appreciate
our
majority
leader's
line
of
questions
as
an
expert.
I
It
was
clear
she
knew
the
details
and
and
covered
much
of
my
concern
being
I
don't
practice
in
this
area,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
your
conversation
in
a
non-experts
way,
and
that
is
that,
right
now
the
judge
sets
the
conditions
of
probation
and
the
department
then
decides
whether
or
not
that
person
has
adequately
adhered
to
those
conditions,
but
that
it
sounds
like
most
of
the
time,
even
though
it's
within
the
department's
power
to
add
that
detail
to
the
current
pre-sentence
investigation
reports
or
the
the
rather
not
psi,
but
the
I
forget
what
the
term
was,
but
the
reports
that
go
to
the
court
summarizing
the
performance
of
that
person
of
that
inmate
and
that
you
don't
currently,
even
though
it's
within
your
power
to
do
so.
I
You
don't
currently
include
that
information.
So,
even
though
the
division
itself
is
deciding
whether
or
not
it's
an
honor
roll
or
dis
honorable
by
removing
that
we're
actually
removing
what
sounds
like
a
pretty
critical
piece
of
information
to
the
court.
I
So,
if,
if
it's
currently
within
the
division's
power
to
include
that
information
in
the
report,
but
the
department
isn't
and
now
we're
eliminating
the
the
the
the
heading
as
you
referred
to
it
dishonorable
or
honorable
discharge,
it
seems
to
me
that
we're
no
longer
going
to
be
holding
these
people
accountable
for
following
the
court's
conditions
of
probation.
I
So
how
is
it
that
removing
this-
and
maybe
I've
got
that
wrong?
So
correct
me
if
I'm,
if
my
underlying
understanding
is
incorrect,
but
that
then
leads
to
the
question:
how
is
it
that
this
does
not
lower
the
level
of
accountability
for
these
probationers.
H
Thank
you
for
the
question
tom
lawson
for
the
record,
so
I
believe
there
is
a
little
bit
of
a
misunderstanding
on
just
the
overall
all
system
and
so
there's
two
different
sides.
The
pro
on
the
parole
side,
I'll
address
first,
is
that
the
parole
side,
the
the
parole
board,
establishes
the
terms
and
conditions
of
release.
H
Then
the
offender
comes
to
the
division
for
supervision
and
then
at
the
completion
of
the
parole
term,
then
the
division
makes
a
determination
under
statute
of
whether
they've,
honorably
or
dishonorably
completed
their
parole
and
under
statute.
The
division
issues
that
discharge
there
isn't
a.
I
guess
a
report
to
anybody
else.
There
is
a
discharge
report
completed,
but
we
advise
the
the
parole
board
of
the
discharge
and
the
distinction
for
the
probation
side.
H
The
district
court
sentences,
the
the
individual
to
a
term
of
incarceration
that
term
is
either
deferred
or
or
possibly
suspended,
and
then
they
impose
conditions
of
supervision
with
a
probation
term
in
lieu
of
incarceration
and
so
in
that
regard,
the
division
monitors
their
their
performance
and
then
at
the
completion
of
the
supervision
term.
We
write
a
discharge
report
back
to
the
court
where
we
define
and
outline
their
responsibility
to
to
supervision.
H
Did
they
attend
their
court?
Ordered
you
know,
supervision
or
excuse
me
counseling,
and
things
like
that,
and
so,
if
you
have
somebody
who's
been
non-compliant
the
whole
time
well,
there
would
have
been
violation
reports
that
the
court
got
beforehand
and
a
package,
and
I
guess
you
know
path
along
their
supervision
of
intermediate
sanctions
and
things
that
have
been
taken
in
into
account
and
applied
to
this
person
to
try
to
gain
compliance.
H
And
so
at
the
end
of
that
you
have
a
discharge
report
which
provides
a
summary
of
their
adaptability
to
the
terms
of
supervision
and,
ultimately,
the
recommendation,
because
that's
what
for
cardinal
statute
is
they've
either
met
the
terms
or
the
the
the
requirements
for
an
honorable
or
they
haven't
met
the
terms
for
an
honorable
and
therefore
becomes
a
dishonorable
discharge
and
that's
as
a
recommendation
to
the
court
and
ultimately,
the
court
is
the
decider
of
whether,
in
their
view,
that
person
deserves
an
honorable
or
dishonorable.
H
And
so
the
disconnect
that
senator
senator
casaro
brought
up
is
that
sometimes
in
a
subsequent
pre-sentence
investigation
report
that
there
isn't
that
previous
supervision
instance
specifically
defined
and-
and
I
can
see
her
point
to
that-
and
you
know
thinking
about
that
process-
is
that
this
is
focused
on
on
the
current
violation.
H
There
is
reference
back
to
previous
convictions
in
terms
of
supervision,
but
because
that
distinction
was
there
that
was
kind
of
the
the
answer
at
that
point
was
honorable
or
dishonorable,
but
certainly
moving
forward,
and
I
made
a
note
of
it
today
that
should
this
proceed
and
that
distinction
be
removed.
Well,
then,
we
have
to
do
a
better
job
of
of
ensuring
that
that
information
is
in
a
subsequent
pre-sentence
investigation
report
and
for
those
items
that
she's
absolutely
correct.
Also
that
not
every
subsequent
conviction
would
require
a
new
pre-sentence
investigation
report.
H
There's
a
threshold,
as
she
mentioned.
For
you
know
certain
crimes,
wouldn't
wouldn't
be,
let's
say
severe
enough
to
warrant
a
pre-sentence
investigation
report.
There
are
also
time
elements
if
the
court
accepts
the
previous
pre-sentence
report
and
it's
within
five
years
of
the
previous
instance
of
a
pre-sentence
investigation.
H
Then
the
court
doesn't
have
to
order
a
new
pre-sentence
investigation
report,
so
there
are
those
times
in
there
and
what
we're
saying
is
that
in
those
instances
we're
documenting
the
the
details
of
the
supervision,
previous
supervision
instance
in
that
discharge
report,
and
so
in
the
times
when
there's
that
gap
between
when
we
change
up
procedures
to
ensure
that
information
is
in
a
new
pre-sentence
investigation
report
or
for
times
when
there
isn't
a
new
pre-sentence
investigation
report,
we
would
ensure
that
the
court
and
the
prosecutors
had
access
to
the
previous
discharge
report.
H
Where
that
same
information
would
be,
and
so
to
better
the
process.
We
ensure
that
it
is
sufficiently
detailed
in
the
in
the
exit
report
for
the
previous
instance
and
also
duplicated
in
a
future
pre-sentence
investigation
report,
and
I
believe
that
that
combination
ensures
that
in
all
cases,
the
information
is
available
for
those
decision
makers
should
there
be
future
crime.
In
sentencing.
I
All
right,
thank
you
for
that
and
for
somebody
who
likes
to
spend
time
in
the
weeds,
I
think
we
went
in
pretty
deeply,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
my
concern
is
this,
and-
and
you
brought
up
the
the
conversations
we've
been
having-
I
mean
since
I've
been
in
the
legislature,
about
restoration
of
civil
rights
and
how
the
the
the
terminology
of
dishonorable
versus
honorable
discharge
will
have
an
effect
on
that
I
mean
this
has
been
in
in
our
discussions
in
this
committee
for
many
years,
but
the
the
the
key
that
I
think
we
hit
on
each
time
we
discussed.
I
It
was
the
fact
that
we're
talking
about
accountability
of
somebody
who
is
either
voluntarily
committed
to
following
the
the
conditions
of
their
probation
or
not,
and
by
removing
this
language
I
think
we
are
removing
an
important
label,
even
though
it
may
just
be
that
as
to
whether
or
not
because,
as
you
pointed
out
at
some
point,
their
term
expires
and
at
some
point
the
division
has
to
make
the
determination
whether
or
not
they
followed
or
did
they
follow.
I
Or
did
they
not
substantially
follow
the
rules
and
certainly
within
my
understanding,
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
isn't
it
within
the
jurisdiction
or
within
the
discretion,
rather
of
the
division,
to
determine
whether
or
not
some
maybe
the
early
violations,
particularly
when
we're
talking
about
addiction
recovery?
And
we
know
that
relapse
is
a
part
of
that
recovery,
but
they
over
time
they
improve.
I
Isn't
it
within
the
division's
discretion
to
kind
of
what
not
waive
but
but
consider
but
disregard
to
some
extent
the
early
violations,
whereas
if
they
come
into
compliance
and
remain
in
compliance,
and
they
turn
out
to
be
doing
exactly
what
they
need
to
be
doing,
then
they're
deemed
an
honorable
discharge.
I
I
don't
see
how
that's
outside
of
the
division's
discretion,
to
provide
if
somebody's
doing
a
good
job
under
the
circumstances
give
them
an
honorable
discharge.
H
Tom
lawson
for
the
record
on
the
parole
side.
Yes,
that
is-
and
that
is
our
current
practice
on
the
probation
side.
We
are
merely
the
reporter
and
recommender
to
the
district
court
for
their
determination,
and
so
in
that
discharge
report.
For
somebody
who
did
have
those
hiccups
at
the
beginning
and
was
successful
and
able
to
be
compliant
later
in
their
term
and
can
complete
that
and
in
those
cases,
yes,
we
would
outline
both
the
good
and
the
bad
and
the
ultimate
recommendation
should
would
be
as
warranted.
H
H
Did
those
hiccups
amount
to
a
dishonorable,
even
though
they've
corrected
the
behavior
and
that's
that's
hasn't
been
and
would
not
be
a
part
of
the
the
division's
purview,
even
with
the
changes.
I
All
right,
thank
you
for
that,
and,
and
so
I
think
you
you've
established
that,
while
this
may
make
it
easier
to
handle
by
eliminating
the
distinction,
it's
ultimately
up
to
the
court
and
it's
within
your
discretion
to
decide
whether
or
not
the
person
has
done
a
good
job
under
the
circumstances
or
not,
and
I
so
I
think,
that's
an
important
measure
of
accountability.
I
C
H
Yes,
tom
lawson
for
the
record,
so
as
part
of
the
supervision
term,
the
division
looks
at
the
judgment
of
conviction
to
determine
what
restitution
is
ordered
if
any
by
the
court
and
on
average
it's
about
30
percent
of
our
of
our
supervised
offenders
have
some
degree
of
restitution
order
by
the
court,
and
so
we
look
at
the
amount
of
restitution
that's
owed.
We
take
into
account
the
statute
that
requires
the
offender
to
pay
a
supervision
fee
to
the
to
the
state
for
each
month
of
supervision.
H
We
look
at
dna
collection
fees
that
may
be
ordered
by
the
court
and
we
take
all
those
those
amounts
that
are
owed
under
the
judgment
of
conviction.
And
we,
then
we
look
at
the.
H
I
guess
the
earning
potential
of
the
individual
during
supervision,
and
so,
as
I
mentioned
before,
if
we
have
somebody
who's
on
for
a
year
of
supervision
and
a
probation
case,
we'll
say,
and
they
owe
a
hundred
thousand
dollars,
then
we
look
at
that
and
say:
okay
well,
in
order
to
pay
off
your
restitution
within
that
period,
you're
going
to
have
to
make
a
payment
of
just
over
eight
thousand
dollars
a
month.
H
On
top
of
that,
we
add
in
this,
and
then
you
know,
the
realization
is
probably
less
than
one
tenth
of
one
percent
of
the
supervised
individuals
can
afford
that,
while
putting
a
house
over
their
head
food
on
their
table
clothing
on
their
children
and
taking
care
of
the
normal,
you
know
security
elements
and
health
and
safety
elements
for
their
family,
and
so,
if
a
person
has
a
decision
to
make
of
whether
I
pay
restitution
or
I
feed
my
children,
that
seems
to
be
an
easy
decision
that
any
parent
would
make.
H
I'm
sorry
to
the
restitution
person,
but
you're,
probably
not
going
to
get
money
and,
and
so
the
the
division
is
not
a
bill.
Collector.
We
work
with
the
person
because
they're
their
long-term
rehabilitation
and
integration
into
society
is
our
primary
guiding
factor
there,
and
so,
if
they
can
only
afford
to
make
a
50
or
40
a
month
payment
towards
that
restitution,
then
that
that
that's
deemed
you
know
what
they're
capable
of
doing
based
upon
looking
at
their
their
monthly
expenses
and
their
monthly
income.
H
And
so
in
those
cases
there,
even
though
they're
not
going
to
really
make
a
dent
in
their
restitution
during
that
supervision
term,
we
would
deem
that
a
successful
attempt
to
pay
their
restitution
they're
they're,
making
an
effort
towards
it
within
their
means,
while
taking
care
of
their
family
they're,
showing
you
know
positive
behaviors
by
budgeting
and
things
like
that.
So
all
those
things
are
taken
into
account,
and
so
in
that
circumstance
they
may
not
actually
earn
good
time
credits
because
they're
not
capable
of
making
their
restitution
payments
fully.
H
But
you
know
that
would
go
towards
and
consideration.
I
guess
under
that
economic
hardship,
part
of
it
of
why
they
did
not
complete
their
restitution
payment
within
the
supervision
term,
and
you
know
now
the
civil
confession
of
judgment
isn't
necessarily
a
thing
for
for
new
convictions
anymore.
It's
kind
of
wrapped
up
into
the
the
judgment
of
conviction,
conviction
and
so
that
civil
law
obligation,
post
supervision
term
is
wrapped
up
in
the
in
the
judgment
of
conviction.
H
So
there
isn't
a
separate
civil
confession
of
judgment
for
new
cases
anymore,
but
there's
still
a
civil
obligation
that
they
carry
with
them
in
the
future,
although
they
may
be
discharged
from
supervision
and
so
the
division.
Even
though
we're
not
obligated
to
work
with
that
person
after
discharge
from
supervision,
we
still
do.
C
It
does
I,
I
think,
that's
the
answer
I
was
looking
for,
but
I
I
guess
I'm
a
bit
confused
as
to
why
we
still
have
folks
who
are
getting
a
dishonorable
discharge
because
they
couldn't
afford
to
pay
their
restitution
if
the
economic
hardship
is
working
in
the
manner
that
it
should.
C
So
I
what
are
some
people
falling
through
the
cracks?
Did
they
just
not
apply
right?
Why
are
we
ending
up
with
some
folks
who,
as
small
percentage
as
it
may
be,
but
any
any
person
who
is
getting
a
dishonorable
even
just
because
they,
you
know,
could
not
feasibly
pay.
H
Tom
austin
for
the
record,
I
believe,
that's
that's
just
a
individual
interpretation
by
the
the
deciders
of
fact.
Some
courts
would
look
at
that
that
payment
and
say,
okay,
you
did
what
you
could
that
that
amounts
for
me,
as
that
one
judge
as
qualifying
for
an
honorable,
and
there
are
others
that
are
very
stringent
in
their
stance-
that
if
you
didn't
pay
a
hundred
percent,
then
you
get
a
dishonorable
and
there's.
You
know
variety
in
between.
H
C
So
I
mean
under
section
two
of
the
bill.
Nrs176A.850
I
mean
it
makes
it
clear
here:
economic
hardship,
verified
by
the
division,
and
so
are.
Are
you
suggesting
that
there
are
courts,
even
though
someone
may
have
had
an
economic
hardship
verified
by
the
division
is
still
giving
dishonorable
discharges
based
upon
failure
to
pay
restitution.
H
Tom
austin
for
the
record
throughout
the
the
full
language
of
the
statute,
says
that
that
economic
hardship
has
demonstrated
the
division
is
the
decider
for
whether
the
division
makes
it
makes
a
recommendation
for
a
honorable
or
dishonorable
discharge.
It
doesn't
place
a
specific
burden
upon
the
court
to
agree
with
our
recommendation.
A
Thank
you.
I
also
have
a
couple
of
questions
and
I'll
work
backwards
from
my
colleagues
question,
starting
with
the
issue
of
people
who
have
an
economic
hardship,
preventing
them
from
paying
restitution
that
isn't
preventing
them
from
getting
an
honorable
discharge.
And
if
that
is
happening,
that
is
extremely
concerning
to
me,
because
it's
not
supposed
to
be
happening
and
I'd
be
interested
to
understand
what
jurisdictions
that's
happening
in
and
perhaps
why
and
see
if
there
is
a
fix
that
can
be
made
to
the
statute
to
prevent
that
from
happening
in
the
future.
A
And
I'm
going
to
launch
into
my
other
questions,
because
I
I
want
the
presenters
as
well
as
anybody
who's
going
to
be
testifying
in
support
to
to
hear
directly
from
me
what
it
is
that
I
don't
understand
about
this
bill,
and
I'm
just
going
to
be
very
frank
with
you
about
the
concerns
that
it
raises
for
me
and
the
analysis
that
I'm
trying
to
do
of
the
philosophical
proposition
here,
because
what
we're
talking
about
is
that
a
person
and
we'll
set
parole
aside
for
a
second,
because
it's
different
but
a
person's
on
probation,
who
has
committed
a
felony
and
they
are
not
being
sent
to
prison,
even
though
they
have
an
underlying
prison
sentence,
because
they're,
given
the
opportunity
to
do
probation
instead,
sometime
at
the
end
of
that
person's
probationary
period
or
sometime
in
the
middle
of
that
person's
probationary
period,
they
come
before
a
judge
for
determination
as
to
whether
or
not
they
will
continue
on
probation
or
whether
they
will
be
discharged
from
probation
or
whether
their
probation
will
be
revoked
and
their
underlying
sentence
will
be
imposed.
A
So
I
understand
that,
for
that
person
there
are
the
way
I
see
it
and
again
I
want
anybody
who
disagrees
to
to
explain
to
me
why
and
how
the
way
I
see
it,
that
person
is
in
the
middle
and
there
are
three
different
possible
dispositions
of
their
case.
Best
case
scenario.
They
are
honorably
discharged
from
probation,
worst
case
scenario.
A
They
are
revoked
and
sent
to
prison
right
now
there
is
a
middle
ground
which
is
a
dishonorable
discharge
and
we
are
talking
about
taking
that
middle
ground
away.
I
understand
that
before
the
2019
session
there
was
a
very
drastic
difference
between
an
honorable
and
a
dishonorable
discharge,
and
that
was
the
restoration
of
civil
rights
and
that,
frankly,
was
wrong.
It's
not
good
policy
nobody's
civil
rights
should
not
be
restored
because
they
got
a
dishonorable
discharge,
but
we
fixed
that
in
statute.
A
And
what
I
want
to
understand
is
for
that
person
who
today
could
get
a
dishonorable
discharge
and
walk
out
of
court
with
their
case
closed,
but
have
that
signal
to
a
future
prosecutor.
A
future
defense
attorney
a
future
judge.
That
last
time
I
was
on
probation,
I
didn't
fulfill
all
of
my
obligations.
A
H
Thank
you,
tom
lawson,
for
the
record.
I
think
I
guess
to
relate
this
back
to
your
kind
of
workflow.
Yes,
the
worst
case
scenario
is
discharge
or
excuse.
Me
is
revocation
and
imposition
of
the
underlying
sentence.
H
Instead
of
there
being,
you
know,
honorable
versus
dishonorable
choice,
the
ultimate
choice
is
discharge,
so
your
your
flow
chart
still
works.
It's
either,
revocation
on
one
end
of
the
spectrum
discharge
on
the
other,
and
then
I
guess,
if
we're
looking
at
systemically
or
systematically,
it
would
be,
if
discharged
then
honorable
versus
dishonorable,
so
the
discharge
decision
is
the
same
moving
forward
as
it
is
now
it's
just
again.
H
What
is
that
distinction-
and
I
guess
going
back
to
you-
know
what
is
that
reward
for
the
person
for
for
doing
that
in,
in
terms
of
a
future
case,
the
facts
and
circumstances
the
same?
They
may
only
get
a
piece
of
paper
now
that
says
discharge
assuming
this.
This
were
to
go
through.
H
However,
in
that
future,
consideration
would
be
the
the
success
factors
that
they
had
in
that
underlying
or
the
previous
supervision
instance,
and
that's
what
we're
committing
to
and
again
willing
to
codify
is
that
the
content
of
the
discharge
needs
to
have
these
elements
into
it.
That's
acceptable.
H
We
think
that's
a
very
important
tool
for
the
courts
and
the
prosecutors
and
we're
not
in
any
way
shape
or
form
trying
to
take
away
that
we
want
the
prosecutors
and
the
courts
to
have
the
best
information
to
do
that,
and
I
guess
the
stance
that
you're
coming
back
to
is
that
one
word
is
not
the
best
information
in
all
cases.
The
outline
facts
and
circumstances
that
we
provide
in
that
discharge
report
and
are
committed
to
providing
the
discharge
report
and
to
repeating
now
in
a
future.
A
So
maybe
my
question
wasn't
clear,
then,
because
I
understand
that
the
benefit
retrospectively
of
being
able
to
see
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
a
person's
previous
experience
on
supervision
and
their
discharge.
You
want
that
to
remain
the
same.
You
want
the
judges,
prosecutors
and
defense
attorneys
to
have
access
to
information
about
how
the
person
performed
on
probation
previously,
but
what
you
want
to
get
rid
of
is
the
label,
whereas
today
what
the
label
is
useful
for
is
in
that
moment,
when
a
person
is
facing
revocation
they
currently
have
an
escape
hatch.
A
They
can
get
a
dishonorable
discharge
and
go
home
and
not
to
prison
even
after
they
violated
their
terms
of
probation.
So
if
you're
going
to
be
providing
all
of
that
information
on
what
happened
at
the
hearing,
what
the
violations
were
how
the
person
ended
up
before
the
court
anyway,
why?
Wouldn't
you
want
to
leave
them
with
the
option
of
taking
that
dishonorable
discharge
on
the
day
of
the
revocation
hearing.
H
I
know
the
other
other
voices
that
have
have
a
better
opinion
on
on
that
than
than
I
yes,
the
decision
is
still
you
accept
discharge
now
or
you
continue
your
supervision
or
your
rev
revoke.
H
I
guess
I'm
I'm.
Maybe
I'm
not
grasping
the
question
properly
to
give
it
justice.
A
And
I'll
I'll
just
make
one
more
clarifying
question
and
then
we'll
move
to
testimony.
But
you
know
I
go
into
these
revocation
hearings
with
probation
officers
and
I
sit
down
with
them
beforehand
and
have
a
conversation
about
how
the
person
is
doing
on
probation
and
sometimes
in
fact,
sometimes
the
perspective
of
the
probation
officer
is
that
this
person
is
no
longer
supervisable.
A
They
might
not
be
violent,
they
might
not
be
engaging
in
serious
criminal
activity,
but
they
might
just
be
no
longer
able
to
be
supervised.
They
never
call
me
back.
They
can't
keep
a
job,
they
aren't
paying
their
restitution,
they
pick
up
small
misdemeanor
crimes,
they've
been
arrested
again.
A
Maybe
it's
not
a
person
who
needs
to
have
their
suspended
sentence
imposed,
but
it's
a
person
that
the
department
of
public
safety
no
longer
wants
to
supervise,
and
so,
if
the
department
of
public
safety
no
longer
wants
to
supervise
somebody-
and
we
cannot
give
them
a
dishonorable
discharge,
are
you
going
to
start
supervising
them
anyway?
Are
we
going
to
implement
programs
that
give
parole
and
probation
officers
better
tools
to
supervise
unsupervisable
people,
or
are
we
going
to
accept
that
some
of
those
people
are
simply
going
to
have
their
suspended
sentences
imposed.
H
Tom
lawson
for
the
record,
I
think
those
tools
were
put
into
place.
Some
of
those
tools
were
put
into
place
under
ab-236,
and
now
we
have
the
temporary
revocations,
which
are
where
a
brand
new
tool
for
our
toolbox
just
started
again
and
now
you
know
we
have
a
number
of
instances
where
people
are
already
on
their
third
tier
of
temporary
revocations,
and
so
the
the
we
had
graduated
sanctions
before
graduating
sanctions.
You
know
I
like
to
say
we
had
it
before
they
were
cool
and
under
ab2
36
we
impo.
H
We
started
those
in
2017
and
before
2019
we
were
required
to,
and
so
our
adaption
to,
the
temporary
or
revocation
was
we
just
worked
it
into
our
existing
matrix
and
it
was
business
as
usual.
So
we
have
some
of
those
tools
in
place
and
I
think
the
temporary
revocations
were
an
excellent
tool
along
those
lines
where
okay,
you're
not
compliant
we've
tried
curfew,
we've
tried
extra
counseling,
we've
tried,
check-ins
additional
check-ins.
You've
worked
up
the
the
sanction
matrix
and
now
we
take
them
back
for
the
court.
H
We
lay
it
all
on
the
table
and
the
court
says:
okay,
there
you
go
now
you're
going
back
into
into
jail
to
you
know,
let
you
know
we're
serious
about
this.
The
parole
board
is
a
number
of
occasions
have
have
imposed
their
third
tier,
the
full
30-day
temporary
revocation
on
people
for
for
multiple
violations
of
that,
so
that
tool
is
in
place
and
ultimately,
if
they're
truly
unsupervisable,
then
they're
the
candidate
for
revocation
after
the
graduated
sanctions.
I
I
don't
wouldn't
agree
that
there
should
be
an
option
for
the
the
division
to
say.
H
I
don't
want
to
supervise
this
person
anymore.
If
the
courts
order
them
to
supervision,
then
we
supervise
them
and
we
supervise
them
with
all
the
tools
that
are
at
our
disposal
and
then
it's
our
responsibility
to
paint
that
picture
for
the
court
of
why
they're
not
supervisable,
so
that
when
we
go
for
the
revocation
hearing,
then
the
court
can
decide.
H
Do
we
revoke
them
or
do
we
return
them
to
supervision?
If
they
get
returned,
then
we
continue
the
process
and
if
they
continue
to
be
non-compliant
well,
they've
already
exhausted
many
l
levels
of
of
the
graduated
sanction
matrix,
we'll
just
bring
them
back
to
court
quicker,
but
we're
not
going
to
check
in
we're
not
going
to
not
supervise
them,
because
it's
inconvenient
or
they're
just
not
going
to
comply.
We're
going
to
use
the
tools
at
our
disposal
throughout
the
period
of
our
authority
over
them.
A
G
Jeremy,
for
the
indulgence,
just
a
real,
a
couple
of
real
quick
questions
going
back
to
the
economic
hardship
factors.
What
does
the
division?
Do?
They
have
set
factors?
Do
they
look
at
the
income
of
the
person
being
supervised,
whether
they've
got
steady
work
or
whether
they're
doing
day
labor
I
mean
what
kind
of
things
do
they
look
at
in
terms
of
whether
that
might
make
them
have
a
negative
termination
or
not.
H
Tom
austin
for
the
record,
we
look
at
all
that
if
they
don't
have
a
job
coming
out,
then
we
put
them
in
touch
with
dieter.
We
put
them
in
touch
with
work,
programs
and
and
ways
to
find
themselves
a
a
steady
job,
and
if
they
have
a
job
and
it's
not
quite
meeting
their
bills,
will
we
help
them
try
to
find
a
better
job.
H
H
It's
we
want
to
to
instill
in
the
offender
long-term
success
and
part
of
that
is,
is
stable,
work
and
the
ability
to
maintain
a
job,
because
once
you
have
a
job,
then
you
can
and
the
ability
to
maintain
a
job,
because
once
you
have
a
job,
then
you
can
feed
yourself
and
you
can
provide
shelter
for
yourself
and
your
family,
and
so
all
those
things
are
a
factor,
and
so
you
know
that
initial
budget
we
looked
at
their
their
cost
versus
their
income.
H
You
know
that
may
change.
If
they
go
get
a
better
job,
then
we
reevaluate
what
they're
able
to
pay
towards
their
restitution.
You
know,
like
I
said,
we're,
not
we're
not
bill
collectors,
we're
not
going
to
shake
them
down
to
get
every
penny
out
of
them.
The
goal
is
long-term
stability
and
rehabilitation
of
the
person
throughout
the
rest
of
their
life.
Not
just
collection
of
restitution
by
any
means
necessary.
H
Part
of
owning,
taking
responsibility
is
meeting
your
financial
obligations,
and
so
that
is
an
element
we
look
for,
and
you
know
work
with
them
on
for
their
long-term
stability
and
rehabilitation.
But
again
we
look
at
every
every
factor
they
have,
you
know,
are
they
receiving
family
support?
Are
they
staying
with
the
family?
H
Well,
if
they're
staying
with
the
family,
there's
probably
less
rent
involved,
which
means
that
their
income
level
would
go
farther
for
quote-unquote
discretionary
expenses,
and
so
you
know
if
they
have
a
lot
of
discretionary
expenses,
we
talk
to
them
about
cutting
those
down
and
paying
more
towards
their
restitution
and
their
obligations.
But
every
everything
is
a
factor
of
those
discussions.
A
Thank
you
and
with
that
we
are
ready
to
move
on
to
testimony.
I
believe
we
do
have
people
here
in
person
to
testify,
so
we
will
call
the
first
person
to
the
table
to
testify
in
support
of
ab17.
O
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
holly
welborn
policy
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada.
Would
you
like
me
to
spell
my
name
on
the
record
great
I
I
want
to
just.
I
want
to
use
an
example.
So
there
were
a
couple
of
questions
and
I
think
I
can
address
two
of
those
with
an
example
from
intake
that
we
receive
the
first
exam.
The
the
first
is
the
question
of
whether
or
not
the
economic
hardship
provisions
actually
provide.
O
You
know
this
this
type
of
cover
that
we
think
it
does
and
then
also
to
talk
about
the
collateral
consequences
of
what
it
is
to
have
a
dishonorable
discharge
on
your
record.
So
we
had
one
intake.
This
was
a
gentleman.
He
made
quite
a
bit
of
money.
He
did
have
a
math
addiction.
He
wasn't
put
into
a
drug
court
program.
O
He
was
dishonorably
discharged
because
he
made
too
much
money.
He
he
didn't
qualify
for
economic
hardship.
They
had
to
graduate
him
out
of
that
drug
court
program.
It
went
back
to
his
sentencing
judge
and
it
was
they
determined
dishonorable,
the
consequences
that
has
had
for
his
life.
A
he's
you
know
it's
dishonorable,
so
he's
no
longer
responsible
for
paying
that
restitution,
which,
I
don't
think
is
you
know
we
want
to
be
the
public
policy
of
the
state
and
two
he
had
a
young
daughter
because
he
had
the
dishonorable
discharge
on
his
record.
O
He
was
unable
to
participate
in
after
school
programs
and
to
take
her
on
different
school
trips,
because
there
were
was
this
dishonorable
discharge
on
his
record.
So
I
think
you
know
when
we
think
about
it
in
terms
of
that,
it
has
severe
consequences
for
employment,
severe
consequences
for
other
opportunities
that
could
be
available
to
a
person
that
they're
otherwise
not
able
to
get
because
they
have
that
that
status
of
discharge.
O
So
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
chief
lawson.
You
know
there
are
a
lot
of
questions
that
have
to
be
answered
here
and
I
think
what
we're
looking
at
is
some
some
deep,
deep
dive
policy
decisions
that
we
have
to
work
on
making
in
the
future.
But
I
think
that
this
was
a
great
start
and
that
the
line
between
honorable
and
dishonorable
discharge
has
been
thinned,
given
the
restoration
of
civil
rights
and
different
policies
that
this
legislature
has
considered.
O
A
C
Ready
it's
been
a
while,
since
I've
had
to
do
that.
Thank
you,
chair
marcos,
lopez,
americans
for
prosperity,
nevada.
So
one
of
the
main
reasons
we're
supporting
this
is
because
we
support
expanding
the
access
to
discretionary
discharges
having
to
to
see
record
ceilings.
C
And
if
we
look
at
nrs
179.2445,
the
dishonorable
discharge
makes
it
more
difficult
for
individuals
to
be
able
to
seal
their
records
in
the
long
term,
and
we
support
in
sealing
these
records
because
we
believe
that
individuals,
after
a
certain
amount
of
time,
they're
able
to
prove
to
a
court
that
they
have
made
an
effort
to
rehabilitate
their
lives
and
that
they've
made
an
effort
to
become
a
functioning
member
of
society
again,
that
they
should
be
able
to
have
their
records
to
be
sealed
and
they
should
have
the
same
amount
of
process
as
everyone
else.
C
Currently
in
this
nrs
it.
The
rebuttable
presumption,
makes
it
a
harder
barrier
for
individuals
who
do
have
that
discharge
on
them.
So
that
is
one
of
the
main
reasons.
We
support
this
as
well
as
the
fact
that
we
are
the
only
state
that
makes
this
distinction
in
the
entire
country,
and
we
don't
necessarily
believe
that
it
contributes
much
in
helping
make
those
judgment
cases.
C
In
fact,
it's
probably
too
binary
in
being
just
honorable
or
dishonorable,
so
I
mean
we
do
support
if
to
ken
azero
said,
making
sure
that
we
provide
all
that
evidence
to
the
judge
and
to
the
court
to
be
able
to
make
those
decisions,
and
you
know
that's
the
main
reasons
why
we're
supporting
this
and
you
know.
Hopefully,
everyone
comes
out
and
supports,
and
if
we
can
make
some
of
those
changes,
I
think
it'd
be
a
very
positive
impact
for
individuals
across
the
state.
Thank
you.
A
D
Caller,
with
the
last
three
digits,
zero
eight
zero,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You'll
have
two
minutes
to
speak
and
may
begin:
hi,
jim
hoffman,
representing
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
We
support
ab17
and,
in
addition
to
the
points
made
by
the
bill's
proponent,
I'd
like
to
thank
cherish
I'd
like
to
discuss
chair
scheible's
question,
because
I
think
that's
a
really
helpful
framework
for
thinking
about
this
issue.
I
have
two
points
that
I
would
make
in
support.
D
The
first
is
like
miss
welborn.
I
also
have
a
real
world
example
of
how
the
current
statute
hurts
people.
I
have
a
friend
from
high
school
who
developed
a
drug
addiction
in
college
and
he
was
convicted
of
drug
possession.
He
got
put
on
probation
for
it
and
he
did
everything
he
was
supposed
to.
He
went
into
treatment.
He
got
clean
and
otherwise
fulfilled
all
those
conditions,
but
he
was
a
broke
college
student
at
the
time,
so
he
couldn't
afford
to
pay
all
the
fines
and
fees
that
he
had.
D
His
probation
officer
told
him.
I
don't
think
you're
any
danger
to
reoffend.
So
I'm
just
going
to
dishonorably
discharge.
You
now
and
you
can
worry
about
paying
the
fees
later.
So
that's
what
happened.
My
friend
got
dishonorably
discharged
and
he
did
pay
the
fines
and
fees,
but
the
problem
was:
he
still
had
that
on
his
record.
D
So
when
he
was
applying
to
grad
schools,
he
got
rejected
several
times
because
they
saw
this
on
his
record,
wouldn't
accept
it.
He
eventually
got
accepted
to
an
english
grad
program,
but
this
is
the
kind
of
trouble
that
dishonorable
discharges
can
cause.
And
again
my
friend
did
everything
right,
except
he
was
poor,
that's
the
kind
of
problem
that
we're
causing
under
the
current
statute.
D
D
So
if
we
keep
this
framework
of
honorable
discharge
and
dishonorable
discharge,
the
main
information
we're
providing
the
judge
is
that
this
person
is
too
poor
to
pay
their
fines.
In
most
cases,
I
don't
believe
that's
a
useful
kind
of
information
for
judges
and
I
don't
believe
our
statutes
should
reflect
that.
D
D
M
Good
afternoon
churchill,
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee-
this
is
kendra,
burchie,
k,
e
n
d,
r,
a
c
e
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y,
and
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office,
as
well
as
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
I
first
want
to
thank
captain
lawson
for
bringing
forward
this
bill.
We
agree
that
it
provides
additional
conformity
and
consistency
within
our
laws
and,
more
importantly,
we
agree
with
the
statement
that
currently
we
do
believe
that
we
are
relying
sometimes
on
misleading
information.
M
I
do
not
believe
that
this
bill
is
trying
to
say
that
an
individual
should
not
pay
restitution
or
is
trying
to
work
with
a
way
to
have
them,
prevent
it
and
still
receive
a
favorable
probation
outcome.
If
someone
is
not
able
to
pay
restitution
by
the
time
that
their
period
of
probation
ends,
they
would
sign
a
civil
confession
of
judgment.
So
I
don't
believe
that
this
is
precluding
people
from
being
able
to
receive
restitution
regarding
the
statement
that
this
bill
would
remove
accountability
from
someone
who
is
unsuccessful
or
not
completely
compliant
with
probation.
M
I
just
want
to
remind
the
committee
that
if
someone
is
not
compliant
with
their
probation,
there
are
those
sanctions
that
will
be
imposed.
There
would
be
a
revocation
hearing
and
if
the
court
decides
that
they
are
not
complying,
then
they
that
sentence
would
be
imposed
and
they
would
be
sent
to
prison.
I
think
that's
important
to
note
that
that
would
also
appear
on
their
record,
and
that
would
help
in
terms
of
if
there's
any
future
discussions
about
the
probationary
status.
That
would
be
very
evident
in
that
pre-sentence
investigation
report.
M
I
appreciate
captain
lawson's
statements
regarding
providing
additional
information
on
someone's
probationary
status
and
their
period
if
there's
any
future
violations,
because
that's
something
that
we
don't
currently
always
have
access
to.
Sometimes
we
get
information
about
ways
that
they
failed
in
that
pre-sentence
investigation
report,
but
we
also
don't
get
the
ways
that
they
succeeded
the
times
that
they
were
successful
in
an
inpatient
treatment
program
or
that
they
did
comply.
So
we
do
appreciate
that
the
system
has
changed
to
allow
for
that.
M
Regarding
the
there
are
some
conversations
for
negotiations
or
at
revocation
hearings,
different
abilities
to
request
a
discharge.
I
would
just
note
that
it's
very
apparent,
especially
in
the
conversations
of
this
bill,
that
our
prosecution
and
defense
attorneys
are
negotiating
and
handling
cases
in
different
ways
and
different
jurisdictions.
M
With
that,
I
would
just
note
that
the
honorable
and
dishonorable
discharge
has
a
huge
impact
on
our
clients,
particularly
with
housing,
where
sometimes
clients
have
to
prove
that
they
received
an
honorable
discharge
in
order
to
be
able
to
obtain
housing,
and
so
we
do
believe
that
this
bill
will
have
a
huge
impact
on
the
lives
of
our
clients,
even
if
they
are
not
involved
in
the
criminal
justice
system
again.
So
that,
thank
you
and
I
appreciate
your
time.
A
Thank
you.
We
will
move
to
testimony
in
opposition
to
ab17
there's
nobody
present
in
the
committee
room
to
give
testimony
so
we'll
go
straight
to
the
phones.
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
I
do
want
to
thank
a
parole
probation
for
meeting
with
us
to
discuss
this
bill
as
district
attorneys.
We
truly
value
the
work
that
pro
and
probation
does
to
both
protect
our
community
and
to
assist
in
the
rehabilitation
of
offenders,
but
da's
believe
that
ab-17
would
remove
a
layer
of
accountability
for
defendants
who
complete
community
supervision.
B
Having
the
designation
of
honorable
or
dishonorable
discharge
both
serves
as
an
incentive
for
those
currently
under
community
supervision
to
do
their
best
and
also
serves
as
a
reference
point
for
those
in
the
justice
system.
Should
the
defendant
reoffend
in
the
future
and
request
probation
again.
While
the
courts
issue
the
discharge
in
virtually
all
cases,
they
follow
the
recommended
recommended
discharge
from
parole
probation.
B
You
will
regularly
see
a
negotiation
where
defendant
may
earn
a
reduction
in
the
charge
to
which
they
pled.
It
means
they
can
withdraw
their
plea
to
a
felony
and
plead
guilty
to
a
gross
misdemeanor
or
misdemeanor.
The
trigger
for
this
reduction
in
the
guilty
plea
agreement
is
whether
the
defendant
received
an
honorable
discharge
from
probation.
B
B
Potentially
we
could
add
a
general
discharge
option
for
those
defenders
who
do
not
easily
fit
into
the
honorable
or
dishonorable
designation,
but
either
way
we
look
forward
to
working
with
cnp
and
chief
lawson,
specifically
on
making
the
current
system
more
equitable,
rather
than
discarding
the
honorable
dishonorable
designation
altogether.
Thank
you
for
your.
B
A
P
Good
afternoon
chair,
thank
you
so
much
no
problem,
I
I
might
for
the
record
victoria
gonzalez
executive
director
of
the
department
of
sentencing
policy.
I
am
here
to
testify
in
support
of
ab
17..
P
Our
department
serves,
assists
the
sentencing
commission
in
developing
data-driven
recommendations
for
sensing
corrections
and
over
that
time,
we've
developed
partnerships
with
various
criminal
justice
agencies,
including
chief
lawson,
at
the
division
of
probation
and
one
of
the
things
that
our
understanding
of
the
bill
is
that
the
impact
is
neutral
as
far
as
what
chief
lawson
testified
to
in
regards
to
ab236
and
those
additional
the
technical
violations
and
those
temporary
verifications
and
the
graduated
sanctions
that
are
in
place
to
offer
those
additional
opportunities.
P
However,
because
our
agency
is
data-driven,
we
also
want
to
make
sure
that
the
legislature
knows
we
are
here
to
support,
along
with
a
chief
lawson
in
collecting
that
data.
That's
going
to
be
really
important
to
determine
what
are
the
outcomes
of
legislation
like
this,
and
so
I
think
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
came
up
are
things
that
we'll
be
able
to
assist
with
in
the
future
as
we
partner
with
chief
lawson
and
his
team
in
determining
the
actual
impacts
of
this.
P
And
so
we
can
help
the
legislature
and
the
agencies
evaluate
whether
the
impact
of
this
is
neutral
as
it
was
intended,
or
there
ends
up
being
other
consequences
and,
as
we
work
with
the
other
criminal
justice
agencies,
we
work
with
everybody.
We
can
figure
out
what
all
those
impacts
are
not
just
the
fiscal
impacts,
but
the
policy
impacts
and
the
practical
impacts
of
making
a
change
like
this.
P
That
that
has
one
intent
and
we
can
help
evaluate
whether
or
not
that
intent
is
actually
able
to
be
realized
in
the
end
of
the
legislation
and
that's
what
we
hope
to
offer,
but
again,
victoria
gonzales
for
the
record,
testifying
and
support,
as
far
as
our
understanding
and
support
and
collaboration
with
chief
lawson,
that
the
intent
of
this
is
to
continue
to
promote
the
effectiveness
of
the
criminal
justice.
Justice
system
and
their
supervision,
and
as
it
is
complementary
to
what
was
enacted
in
ab236
with
those
graduated
sanctions
and
temporary
revocations.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
and
so,
if
the
record
could
please
reflect
that
victoria
gonzalez
with
the
department
of
sentencing
policy
is
in
support.
Thank
you,
and
now
we
will
move
to
testimony
in
the
neutral
position.
There's
still
nobody
to
give
testimony
in
the
room,
so
we'll
go
directly
to
the
phones.
Please.
D
A
All
right,
then.
That
concludes
our
hearing
on
ab17.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
and
that
takes
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
I
don't
see
anybody
in
the
room
to
give
public
comments,
so
we'll
go
to
the
phones.
Mr
kyle,
could
you
see
if
there's
anybody
who
wishes
to
give
public
comment.
D
D
A
All
right,
then,
that
is
a
wrap
on
this
meeting.
We
will
be
adjourned
until
tomorrow,
at
1.