I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

I do not feel it provides enough clarity on the inconsistencies between states.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

Remove course of action and just say define: means a sending state authority rescinding a supervised individual's supervision term and imposing a jail or prison sentence.

Comments

I do not see this definition clarifying the issues in interpretation we see across states. I think "course of action" is open to the same interpretation issues we have. For example, it is a common course of action for probation in my state to request a court rescind supervision but that does not equal a court actually rescinding the supervision term and imposing jail or prison. I've done a lot of training to try to prevent violations from being submitted just because my locals would initiate the process when the likelihood is the court would not revoke such a case.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

Comments

Good to have a standardized definition to assist with each state's intent and application.

I support this proposal

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

This does not account for instances of supervision being "revoked and reinstated" Someone can be found in violation but be returned to supervision by our parole board with special conditions. This definition does not capture all the options afforded to the determining authority thereby limiting revocation to "lock-em up" only.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

Comments

I think this is a huge help. Revocation should have a standard definition, so everyone is aware it is about what probation is seeking not the judge's final decision. Usually what is recommended in a VOP.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

Comments

DCAs have been asking for a definition of "retaking" and I think this is a good attempt to provide consistency.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

Change "and impose a jail or prison sentence" to "and impose a jail/prison or suspended sentence". Further clarify that this would not include a continuation of a previously imposed term of supervision; that the previous term of supervision must be terminated and a new sentence imposed.

Comments

Revise definition to account for instances where a jail or prison sentence is recommended but is ultimately not imposed by the sentencing authority after term of supervision is revoked. This revision would further contribute towards gaining a universal understanding of the concept of revocation.

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

"impose a jail or prison sentence" should be removed. Must be able to account for those revoke/regrant cases where no sentence was served.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

No

Comments

The rule does not take into consideration that some states do not know what the court is going to do with the violation.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

Comments

This is a great proposal. This would help with a lot of confusion surrounding the submission of violations.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

WI would recommend striking "the course of action by a court, sentencing authority or paroling authority."

Comments

WI DOC is autonomous from our courts, so this would be more inclusive and just focus on the action versus the action takers. WI likes the consistency this definition creates. If the intent of retaking is to say that a supervised individual can no longer be properly supervised in the community, it seems counter intuitive to include reinstatements to community supervision to the definition of revocation. Revocation should mean the intent is to be returned to custody.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

Although I would support this rule as is, the "course of action" could be removed to just include the definition/intent. That is truly what revocation means. I understand that states have different processes, but process is different than definition.

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

Revocation in my state can mean more than jail or prison time. It can mean amended conditions of supervision for example or tolling time being added which extends the length of probation, but a jail or prison sentence might have been imposed. Does rescind in the new definition mean the probation is terminated or does it allow for the probation to continue after a sentence might be served in jail?

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

See Comments section

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

See comments

Comments

PA does not support this definition. Feedback from legal counsel expressed the following concerns. This definition defines revocation as “the course of action by a court, sentencing authority or paroling authority to rescind a supervised individual’s supervision term …” We do not believe using the word “rescind” in this definition is reflective of what revocation is. Rescind is generally defined as a means to annul or nullify an action – like it never happened. Yet to revoke means to recall one’s power or authority to do something. Our counsel suggested using words such as “revoke” or “recall the authority” rather than rescission. Further, counsel found that “course of action” was not clear and to its meaning.
If the Commission defines revocation, it will reach beyond its scope as a rulemaking body concerned with interstate transfer, supervision and retake. This definition draws the Commission into an individual state’s action by dictating what is an acceptable outcome of a violation hearing. The proposed definition does not allow for judicial discretion. To further bolster such statements, we can look directly at the justifications provided in 2 other proposals. This is taken verbatim from the justification for the proposal of Rule 3.103: “It's important to note that the compact rules do not dictate how judges or sentencing authorities should sentence individuals who commit crimes or violate supervision requirements. Instead, they focus on managing the supervision imposed by these authorities and ensuring proper communication occurs between states.” This is taken verbatim from the justification for the proposal of Rule 5.101-2: “Compact rules primarily manage supervision and aren't intended to dictate sentencing or sentencing practices. Therefore, this language focuses on outlining communication and documentation requirements for resolving violations before retaking individuals when deemed appropriate.”
The Commission should not be in a position to define terms on matters that are post-retake. The lack of the Commission’s authority on a court’s discretion to act on a violation precludes the Commission from defining such a term. Locking in the requirement, per se, to impose only a jail term after a court rescinds an individuals’ supervision will impact only a very finite number of revocations. The trend as we see today is not for courts to invoke jail terms in most instances. The definition creates unrealistic expectations. We have no true measure of how a court will react to each individual’s supervision upon retake. The alternative is to have receiving states be more proactive in vetting a VR before it is submitted to ensure retake is warranted and all measures to address a violation have been exhausted. This definition does not appear to be the solution in this context.
The actions taken by a judge, parole board, or similar authority for a former interstate individual must be consistent with any other similarly-situated person before that authority. The Commission’s attempt to define revocation would create a new class of individuals in all signatories. The Commission must not exceed its authority.

I support this proposal

No

If no, explain

This proposal does not consider the outcome of reinstatement or continued supervision following a revocation proceeding.

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

No

I support this proposal

No

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

No

Comments

Some states revoke and reinstate supervision without any incarceration time being imposed.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

Comments

This is needed for consistency when receiving states require sending states to retake.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

If yes, what are those changes

The proposal should include an outcome of "reinstatement" or "continued supervision" as a result of the revocation hearing because a revocation hearing may not result in jail or prison time.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

No

I have suggested changes

Yes

Comments

The issue surrounding revocation generally is regarding the individual appearing before the court, sentencing authority, or paroling authority for a behavior and not the outcome or intention. It may help to include language for the intention behind returning someone before the authorities since the outcome is typically not known at the time these proceedings are initiated.

I support this proposal

Yes

Does this proposal resolve the issue outlined in the justification and problem statement?

Yes

I have suggested changes

No