The intent of the ICAOS is not to dictate judicial sentencing or place restrictions on the court’s discretion relative to sentencing. See Scott v. Virginia, 676 S.E.2d 343, 347 (Va. App. 2009). The ICAOS contains no provisions directing judges on sentencing in particular cases; and, it does not alter individual state sentencing laws, although the ICAOS may alter how those laws affect transfer decisions under the Compact. See, e.g., ICAOS Advisory Opinion 6-2005 (deferred sentencing) & Advisory Opinion 7-2006 (second offense DUI). The ICAOS only comes into play when an offender seeks to transfer their supervision to another state.
If part of complying with a judge’s sentence would require or permit travel or relocation to another state, the rules of the ICAOS may apply. When applicable, those rules would be binding on state officials in both the sending and receiving state.
Similar to its application relative to the courts, the ICAOS does not control the underlying decisions of a parole board except to the extent that the decision to parole requires or permits travel or relocation to another state. If the parole board permits such travel or relocation, the rules of the ICAOS apply and direct related actions of state officials in both states. The transfer of incarcerated offenders to serve their term of confinement in another state is not controlled by the ICAOS but may be controlled by the Interstate Corrections Compact.
PRACTICE NOTICE: The ICAOS is not an instrument imposing restrictions upon the discretion of courts or parole authorities in the sending state as to the nature of the sentence or conditions to impose on an offender. Limits on sentencing or parole conditions are generally a function of state law. The ICAOS becomes relevant to courts and parole authorities when an offender travels or relocates to a state other than the state that imposed the sentence or conditions.