Interstate Commissioner for Audlt Offender Supervision (ICAOS) Logo

5.101-2 Discretionary process for disposition of violation in the sending state after a new crime conviction or incarceration as a result of revocation/violation proceeding RULES

Mindy Spring

Mindy Spring Photo

Full Name: Mindy Spring

Title: Training and Administrative Coordinator

Commission Title: Training and Administrative Coordinator

Role Group: Other

Agency: ICAOS

Unit: 836 Euclid Ave

Address:

Lexington, Iowa 40502

Region: South

Office Email: mspring@interstatecompact.org

Email: mspring@interstatecompact.org

Office Phone: 8597211054

Direct Phone: 859-721-1054

Cell/Mobile: 8597211054

Fax 1:

Fax 2:

Website: https://interstatecommission-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mspring_interstatecompact_org/

Note:

Mindy began her career with the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision’s National Office in 2004. As the Training Coordinator, Mindy administrates online trainings, updates training publications and provides support in onsite trainings through the Commission’s Technical and Training Assistance program. Mindy also assists in the Commission's annual compliance audits and serves as a project team member in the development and support of the Interstate Compact Offender Tracking System (ICOTS). Mindy is a graduate of the University of Tennessee with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration. 

Submitted by mspring on 8:06am EDT

This revision merges clarity and readability of the Midwest's proposal to 5.101-2 and the South's proposal to 5.101-2 (both regions have since withdrawn their versions) to not require retaking when the sentence is 'supervision.'  Given the complexity of navigating violation situations and retaking individuals under supervision across state lines, the aim of this rule is to ensure that violations are handled appropriately and timely, taking into account factors such as the severity of the violation, whether it's related or unrelated to a new crime conviction, violation, or revocation resulting in incarceration or a new term of supervision.

With the increase in remote sentencing and a focus on swift and certain supervision, the updated language clarifies that remote hearings are permissible for a sending state to address violations while concurrently dealing with a sentence of incarceration or supervision for a new crime/violation/revocation committed outside of the sending state.

Back to 2025 Rule Proposals

Please login to submit your comment.

Role Proposal Comments

Julie Lohman

Julie Lohman Photo

Full Name: Julie C. Lohman

Title: Deputy Compact Administrator

Commission Title: Deputy Compact Administrator

Role Group: Parole & Probation

Agency: Virginia Dept Of Corrections

Unit: 6900 Atmore Drive

Address: PO Box 26963

Richmond, Virginia 23225

Region: South

Office Email: vaicu@vadoc.virginia.gov

Email: Julie.Lohman@vadoc.virginia.gov

Office Phone: 804-674-3065

Direct Phone:

Cell/Mobile:

Fax 1:

Fax 2:

Website: https://vadoc.virginia.gov/

Note:

Julie Lohman is Virginia’s Deputy Compact Administrator for the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. Ms. Lohman oversees the day-to-day operations of the Virginia Interstate Compact Unit which monitors the transfer and community supervision of approximately 9,100 offenders into and out of Virginia. She serves on the Interstate Commission’s Technology committee, is an ICAOS trainer, and is the South Region DCA Liaison Chair. She is also the Secretary of the Virginia Probation and Parole Association. Ms. Lohman is a graduate of the University of Richmond.

Submitted by JohnsonJC on 12:24pm EDT

Permalink

I support this proposal
No
If no, explain
1) Ability to waive the revocation hearing and take a plea was not carried over into the revision and should still be available
2) This version includes absconders and Behavior Requiring Retake and not just new convictions which is too far reaching
3) If this version passes, if an supervised individual is given 2 years of supervision for a new crime by the Receiving State and the Sending State hears the violation remotely and imposes a period of supervision of 3 years, the sending state would then have to retake the individual 2 years into their supervision in the receiving state regardless of whether they are compliant or not which does not seem to make sense given the purpose of this rule proposal
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 South Region Rule proposal

Julie Lohman

Julie Lohman Photo

Full Name: Julie C. Lohman

Title: Deputy Compact Administrator

Commission Title: Deputy Compact Administrator

Role Group: Parole & Probation

Agency: Virginia Dept Of Corrections

Unit: 6900 Atmore Drive

Address: PO Box 26963

Richmond, Virginia 23225

Region: South

Office Email: vaicu@vadoc.virginia.gov

Email: Julie.Lohman@vadoc.virginia.gov

Office Phone: 804-674-3065

Direct Phone:

Cell/Mobile:

Fax 1:

Fax 2:

Website: https://vadoc.virginia.gov/

Note:

Julie Lohman is Virginia’s Deputy Compact Administrator for the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. Ms. Lohman oversees the day-to-day operations of the Virginia Interstate Compact Unit which monitors the transfer and community supervision of approximately 9,100 offenders into and out of Virginia. She serves on the Interstate Commission’s Technology committee, is an ICAOS trainer, and is the South Region DCA Liaison Chair. She is also the Secretary of the Virginia Probation and Parole Association. Ms. Lohman is a graduate of the University of Richmond.

Submitted by JohnsonJC on 2:51pm EDT

Permalink

I support this proposal
No
If no, explain
Correction of my previous comment:
1) Ability to waive the revocation hearing and take a plea/consent to the revocation sentence (which is normally how this process goes) was not carried over from the old rule into this version and should still be available.
2) This version seems to also allow Sending States to resolve absconder and Behavior Requiring Retake violations using a remote hearing option as well as new criminal convictions. Is that the case? The language is confusing in that regard. Is that too far reaching?
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
See above comments.

Julie Lohman

Julie Lohman Photo

Full Name: Julie C. Lohman

Title: Deputy Compact Administrator

Commission Title: Deputy Compact Administrator

Role Group: Parole & Probation

Agency: Virginia Dept Of Corrections

Unit: 6900 Atmore Drive

Address: PO Box 26963

Richmond, Virginia 23225

Region: South

Office Email: vaicu@vadoc.virginia.gov

Email: Julie.Lohman@vadoc.virginia.gov

Office Phone: 804-674-3065

Direct Phone:

Cell/Mobile:

Fax 1:

Fax 2:

Website: https://vadoc.virginia.gov/

Note:

Julie Lohman is Virginia’s Deputy Compact Administrator for the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. Ms. Lohman oversees the day-to-day operations of the Virginia Interstate Compact Unit which monitors the transfer and community supervision of approximately 9,100 offenders into and out of Virginia. She serves on the Interstate Commission’s Technology committee, is an ICAOS trainer, and is the South Region DCA Liaison Chair. She is also the Secretary of the Virginia Probation and Parole Association. Ms. Lohman is a graduate of the University of Richmond.

Submitted by JohnsonJC on 3:41pm EDT

Permalink

I support this proposal
No
If no, explain
My staff are very confused by this sentence and I was unable to explain what it means too: " to address violations that occur after a new crime conviction or a violation/revocation proceeding resulting in a sentence of incarceration or supervision outside the sending state. "

"Violations that occur after a new crime conviction" - is this supposed to mean, revocation proceedings in the SS based on a new crime conviction in the RS?

The next part of that new sentence - is that talking about concurrent supervision cases where the RS also has supervision and has violated the supervised individual? or is this talking about technical and absconding violations?
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
Clear up that first sentence and where ever that is repeated below to clarify because as it is written it is very confusion about what violation behaviors this applies to