Sentencing Guidelines Compliance FY2006
JUDICIALJUDICIAL CONCURRENCECONCURRENCE PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 FY2006FY2006 GuidelineGuideline WorksheetsWorksheets CodedCoded && KeyedKeyed asas ofof 3/10/063/10/06 (N=5,304)
Drug-1/2 32.4% Larceny 20.8%
Fraud 12.2%
Traffic 8.3%
Assault 5.5%
Burg-Dwell 3.9%
Drug-Other 3.8% Burg-Other 3.1% Nonviolent 87.7% Misc 3.0% Violent 12.3% Robbery 2.7%
Sexual Assault 1.7%
Murder 1.1%
Rape 0.9%
Kidnap 0.4% GENERALGENERAL COMPLIANCECOMPLIANCE Judicial Agreement with Guideline Recommendations Preliminary FY2006
General Compliance: The degree to which judges agree with the overall guidelines recommendation.
Overall Compliance Rate Direction of Departures
Mitigation 8.9% Aggravation 9.6%
Mitigation 48.1% Aggravation 51.9%
Compliance 81.5% FY05 81.2% RecommendedRecommended vs.vs. ActualActual DispositionDisposition PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
Dispositional Compliance: The degree to which judges agree with the type of sanction recommended by the guidelines.
Actual Disposition Recommended Probation / Incarceration Incarceration Disposition No Incarceration less than 6 months over 6 months
Probation/No Incarceration 74.4% 21.9% 3.6%
Incarceration less than 6 months 9.3% 79.3% 11.4%
Incarceration over 6 months 4.7% 7.9% 87.4% JudicialJudicial AgreementAgreement withwith SentenceSentence LengthLength PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
Durational compliance: The degree to which judges agree with the sentence length recommended in jail and prison cases.
Durational Compliance Direction of Departures
Aggravation 9.4% Mitigation 9.0%
Mitigation 49.0% Aggravation 51.0%
Compliance 81.6% DEPARTUREDEPARTURE REASONSREASONS MostMost FrequentlyFrequently CitedCited DepartureDeparture ReasonsReasons
Mitigating (8.9%) Aggravating (9.6%) • Plea Agreement • Plea Agreement • Cooperative with • Flagrancy of the Offense Authorities • Previous Conviction for • Good Potential for Same Offense Rehabilitation • Guidelines • Sentenced to Alternative Recommendation Too Low Sanction • Poor Potential for • Recommendation of CA/PO Rehabilitation COMPLIANCECOMPLIANCE BYBY JUDICIALJUDICIAL CIRCUITCIRCUIT Circuit Name Circuit Number Compliance Mitigation Aggravation Number of Cases Alexandria 18 76.4% 9.0% 14.6% 89 Arlington Area 17 74.0% 5.0% 21.0% 119 Bristol Area 28 75.8% 13.2% 11.0% 91 Buchanan Area 29 72.2% 10.2% 17.6% 108 Charlottesville Area 16 82.5% 7.2% 10.3% 97 Chesapeake 1 87.2% 5.4% 7.4% 202 Chesterfield Area 12 79.1% 7.2% 13.7% 249 Danville Area 22 74.5% 7.8% 17.7% 141 Fairfax 19 82.8% 6.9% 10.3% 262 Fredericksburg Area 15 73.0% 9.7% 17.3% 329 Hampton 8 86.5% 7.6% 5.9% 119 Harrisonburg Area 26 73.4% 14.5% 12.1% 207 Henrico 14 79.2% 9.2% 11.6% 251 Lee Area 30 85.3% 8.0% 6.7% 75 Loudoun Area 20 87.8% 7.5% 4.7% 106 Lynchburg Area 24 77.2% 15.5% 7.3% 220 Martinsville Area 21 88.7% 8.5% 2.8% 71 Newport News 7 85.0% 6.4% 8.6% 187 Norfolk 4 86.3% 8.8% 4.9% 365 Petersburg Area 11 89.9% 5.8% 4.3% 69 Portsmouth 3 80.6% 12.4% 7.0% 186 Prince William Area 31 79.8% 5.8% 14.4% 104 Radford Area 27 94.1% 3.6% 2.3% 221 Richmond City 13 84.4% 8.0% 7.6% 275 Roanoke Area 23 73.1% 14.6% 12.3% 130 South Boston Area 10 86.6% 10.4% 3.0% 134 Staunton Area 25 84.3% 9.4% 6.3% 256 Suffolk Area 5 81.1% 10.4% 8.5% 106 Sussex Area 6 77.3% 10.7% 12.0% 75 Virginia Beach 2 85.8% 7.6% 6.6% 316 Williamsburg Area 9 78.8% 9.2% 12.0% 142 ComplianceCompliance byby JudicialJudicial CircuitCircuit PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
Fredericksburg Area (15) 73%
Roanoke (23) 73%
Buchanan Area (29) 72% ComplianceCompliance byby JudicialJudicial CircuitCircuit PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 ComplianceCompliance byby JudicialJudicial CircuitCircuit PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
Petersburg Area (11) 90%
Martinsville Area (21) 89%
Radford Area (27) 94% ComplianceCompliance byby JudicialJudicial CircuitCircuit PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
58%58% ofof CircuitsCircuits ComplianceCompliance RateRate atat leastleast 80%80% JUDICIALJUDICIAL CONCURRENCECONCURRENCE BYBY TYPETYPE OFOF OFFENSEOFFENSE JudicialJudicial ConcurrenceConcurrence byby TypeType ofof OffenseOffense PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
100% 9.1% 6.2% 8.9% 8.0% 9.0% 10.4% 12.3% 12.0% 12.0% 10.3% 10.9% 10.7% 15.5% 8.7% 5.6% 5.5% 7.7% 5.0% 8.9% 16.0% 12.7% 15.2% 19.4% 34.8% 80% 17.4% 20.0% 17.2%
60% 13.0%
85.3% 85.2% 84.1% 83.3% 82.7% 40% 79.1% 76.0% 75.3% 74.5% 71.7% 71.5% 69.3% 67.2%
52.2%
20%
0% Larceny Fraud Drug-Other Drug-1/2 Traffic Misc Rape Bur-Other Assault Sexual Robbery Bur-Dwell Murder Kidnap Assault
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation NONVIOLENTNONVIOLENT RISKRISK ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT
NonviolentNonviolent RiskRisk AssessmentAssessment PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
• Drug, Fraud, & Larceny • Purpose: To recommend alternative sanctions for offenders who are statistically less likely to recidivate – Shorter jail sentence – Probation Larceny – Treatment Programs 30.0%
Drug I/II 46.8%
Fraud 17.7% Drug Other 5.5% NonviolentNonviolent RiskRisk AssessmentAssessment PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
Eligible Risk Assessment Cases Alternative Sanctions Recommended & Received
Not Recommended for Alternative & Received 11.2
Not Recommended for Recommended for Alternative & Did Not Alternative & Received Receive 20.1 41.7
Recommended for Alternative & Did Not Receive 27.0 SEXSEX OFFENDEROFFENDER RISKRISK ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT
SexSex OffenderOffender RiskRisk AssessmentAssessment PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
• Rape & Other Sexual Assault • Purpose: – To extend the upper end of the guidelines recommendation for sex offenders who are statistically more likely to recidivate SexSex OffenderOffender RiskRisk AssessmentAssessment PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
Other Sexual Assault Risk Levels Rape Risk Levels (n=92) (n=50)
Level 3 Level 3 21% 28%
No Adjustment No Adjustment Level 2 56% 57% 17% Level 2 10% Level 1 Level 1 5% 6% SentencingSentencing inin SexSex OffenderOffender CasesCases PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
O th e r S e xu al Assau lt C ase s (n =92)
17.4% 64.1% 7.6% 10.9%
Mitigation Regular Compliance Adjusted High Aggravation Compliance
Ra pe Ca s es (n=5 0 )
16% 66% 10% 8%
Adjusted High Mitigation Regular Compliance Aggravation Compliance JURYJURY SENTENCINGSENTENCING JuryJury SentencingSentencing ParoleParole vs.vs. TruthTruth--inin--SentencingSentencing
Truth-in-Sentencing Parole System
6.5% 6.4% 6.3% 5.8%
5.2% 5.1% 4.7% 4.2% 4.2% 3.9%
2.7% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5%
'86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 Prelim 06 JuryJury vs.vs. NonNon--JuryJury SentencingSentencing
Jury Cases Non-Jury Cases (N=77) (N=5,227)
Aggravation Aggravation 9% 34%
Compliance Mitigation 9% 56%
Compliance 82%
Mitigation 10% SENTENCINGSENTENCING REVOCATIONREVOCATION REPORTSREPORTS && PROBATIONPROBATION VIOLATIONVIOLATION GUIDELINESGUIDELINES
JulyJuly 1,1, 20052005 –– DecemberDecember 31,31, 20052005 Ci rc uit Name Judic ial Ci rcuit Frequency Al exa ndria 18 107 Ar lingto n Ar ea 17 26 Number of Sentencing Revocation Reports Br istol Ar ea 28 81 (SRRs) Received by Circuit Buc han an A rea 29 112 Char lottesville A rea 16 107 Chesap eake 1 312 Ches terfield A rea 12 129 Da nv ille Are a 22 222 Fai rfax 19 227 • Technical & New Law Violations Fr ederi cksbu rg Ar ea 15 118 Ha mpton 8 152 (Condition 1) Har risonb urg Ar ea 26 202 He nri co 14 154 Lee A rea 30 23 Lo udoun Ar ea 20 98 • Probation, Suspended Sentence, Ly nch bur g Ar ea 24 136 Good Behavior, etc., Violations M arti nsvi lle Area 21 123 Ne wpor t Ne ws 7 200 Norfo lk 4 68 Pet ers bu rg A rea 11 28 • Current & Old Forms Por tsm out h 3 193 Prince Wil lia m Ar ea 31 177 Radfo rd Area 27 132 Richm ond C ity 13 245 Roanok e A rea 23 123 South Bos ton Ar ea 10 102 Sta unton Ar ea 25 113 Suffol k A rea 5 114 Suss ex A rea 6 46 Vi rginia B each 2 169 Wi lli am sbur g A rea 9 117 To tal 4156 ProbationProbation ViolationViolation GuidelinesGuidelines
•Issues – Number of SRRs & guidelines received by Circuit – Number of revocations received that are missing guidelines (9%) – Number of guidelines received on old forms • 19% • Significant changes in FY2006 • Letter to specific jurisdictions reminding them to use new forms ProbationProbation ViolationViolation GuidelinesGuidelines Sentenced July 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005 (n=1,791)
Percentage of Violation Guidelines Received by Type of Original Offense
Drugs 38.3 Larceny 21.9 Fraud 13.6 Burglary 8.2 Tra ffi c 5.6 Assault 4.1 SexOffense 3.4 Robbery 1.8 Technical Violators Weapons 1.0 by Type of Most Serious Original Offense Arson 0.5 Vandalism 0.4 Nonviolent Offenders 88.6% Family 0.3 Prisoner 0.2 Violent Offenders 11.4% Kidnap 0.2 Supervision 0.1 Perjury 0.1 Murder 0.1 Esca pe 0.1 Obscenity 0.1 FTA 0.1 ConditionsConditions CitedCited inin TechnicalTechnical ViolationViolation CasesCases (n=1,791)
Use, etc., controlled substances 29.6
Abscond from supervision 29.5
Special court-imposed conditions 29.0
Use alcohol to excess 5.6
Move without permission 3.2 Restitution/court costs 46% Fail to report to PO as instructed 2.3 Substance abuse treatment 25% Alternative programs 11% Fail to follow instructions, truthful/cooperative 0.3 Sex offender restrictions 3% Fail to report arrest to PO 0.2 Mental health treatment 2% No contact w/ victim/minor 2% Use, possess, etc., firearm 0.1 Community service 2%
Fail to maintain regular employment 0.1 PROBATIONPROBATION VIOLATIONVIOLATION GUIDELINESGUIDELINES JUDICIALJUDICIAL CONCURRENCECONCURRENCE
JulyJuly 1,1, 20052005 –– DecemberDecember 31,31, 20052005 PVGPVG JudicialJudicial ConcurrenceConcurrence PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006
Aggravation 21.2%
Compliance 49.5%
Mitigation 29.3% Preliminary FY05 37% DispositionalDispositional ComplianceCompliance
Actual Disposition Received
Recommended Disposition Probation Jail <= 12m Prison >= 1y
Probation 44.8 42.1 13.1
Jail <= 12m 17.1 72.4 10.5
Prison >=1y 12.0 36.1 51.9 DurationalDurational ComplianceCompliance
Aggravation 17.1 Avg 9 months above
If recommended for probation, avg 6 month sentence Compliance 52.8
Mitigation 30.1
Avg 9 months below DEPARTUREDEPARTURE REASONSREASONS ReasonsReasons forfor MitigatingMitigating (Of 525 cases, 300 have written departure reasons)
Progress in 11% rehabilitation
Mental/physical 9% health
Substance abuse 8% problem
Facts of case 7%
Sentenced to time 7% served
No new law violation 5%
Plea bargain 5% ReasonsReasons forfor MitigatingMitigating (Of 525 cases, 300 have written departure reasons)
Progress in 11% rehabilitation
Mental/physical 9% health
Substance abuse 8% problem
Facts of case 7%
Sentenced to time 7% served
No new law violation 5%
Plea bargain 5% ReasonsReasons forfor AggravatingAggravating (Of 380 cases, 220 have written departure reasons)
2nd/subsequent 16% revocation Substance abuse 15% problems Poor rehabilitation 13% potential
PVG too low 11%
Needs rehab thru 7% jail
Facts of case 6%
Failed to cooperate 6% with PO, etc.
Alternative failed 6% ReasonsReasons forfor AggravatingAggravating (Of 380 cases, 220 have written departure reasons)
2nd/subsequent 16% revocation
nd Substance abuse 2 /subsequent revocation 15% problems •Original offense Poor rehabilitation 13% po•50%tentia ldrug •44% property PVG too low 11% •Conditions cited Needs rehab thru •50% drug/alcohol violations 7% jail •Average departure sentences Facts of case 6% •Jail/prison cases = 9 months above recommended high
Failed to cooperate •Aggravating probation cases = 6%2.5 months average sentence with PO, etc.
Alternative failed 6% ReasonsReasons forfor AggravatingAggravating (Of 380 cases, 220 have written departure reasons)
2nd/subsequent 16% revocation 2nd/subsequent revocation Substance abuse 15% •Originalprobl offenseems Poor rehabilitation •50% drug 13% potential •44% property PVG too low 11% •Conditions cited Needs rehab thru 7% •50%jail drug/alcohol violations •Average departure sentences Facts of case 6% •Jail/prison cases = 9 months above recommended high Failed to cooperate 6% with•Aggravating PO, etc. probation cases = 2.5 months average sentence
Alternative failed 6% ReasonsReasons forfor AggravatingAggravating (Of 380 cases, 220 have written departure reasons)
2nd/subsequent 16% revocation
Substance abuse Guidelines Too Low 15% problems •Original offense Poor rehabilitation 13% po•52%tentia lproperty •22% drug PVG too low 11% •22% person (incl. sex offenses) Needs rehab thru •Conditions cited 7% jail •43% drug/alcohol violations Facts of case 6% •Average departure sentences
Failed to cooperate •Jail/prison cases = 11.5 months6% above recommended high with PO, etc. •Aggravating probation cases = 6 months average sentence Alternative failed 6% ReasonsReasons forfor AggravatingAggravating (Of 380 cases, 220 have written departure reasons)
2nd/subsequent 16% revocation Guidelines Too Low Substance abuse 15% •Originalprobl offenseems Poor rehabilitation •52% property 13% potential •22% drug PVG too low 11% •22% person (incl. sex offenses) Needs rehab thru 7% •Conditionsjail cited •43% drug/alcohol violations Facts of case 6% •Average departure sentences Failed to cooperate 6% with•Jail/prison PO, etc. cases = 11.5 months above recommended high
Altern•Aggravatingative failed probation cases = 6%6 months average sentence TECHNICALTECHNICAL VIOLATIONSVIOLATIONS INVOLVINGINVOLVING SEXSEX OFFENDERSOFFENDERS ConditionsConditions CitedCited in Technical Probation Violation Cases involving Sex Offenders (n=60)
Special court-ordered 35.0 conditions
Use alcohol to excess 25.0
Use, etc., controlled 16.7 substances Sex offender counseling 52% No contact w/ minor 10% Court costs 10% Abscond from supervision 13.3 No contact w/ victim 10% Sex offender registry 10% Medical treatment 5% Move without permission 8.3 Sex offender restrictions 5%
Fail to report arrests to 1.7 PO ComplianceCompliance WhenWhen OriginalOriginal OffenseOffense isis aa SexSex OffenseOffense
Aggravation 28% Avg 19 months Compliance above recommended high 42%
Mitigation Avg 18.5 months 30% below recommended low PVGPVG ComplianceCompliance byby OffenseOffense
6% 14 % 12 % 17 % 18 % 25% 25% 28% 32%
18 %
38% 33% 24% 50% 61% 17 % 29% 30%
65%
51% 51% 49% 49% 46% 42% 38% 33%
Traffic/DWI Burglary Fraud Drugs Assault Larceny Sex Offense Robbery Weapons
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation PVGPVG ComplianceCompliance byby OffenseOffense
Sex Offense (17 aggravating) 6% 14 % 12 % 17 % Reasons: 18 % 25% 25% 28% 32%•47% no reason •18% PVG too low 18 % •18% danger to community 38% •18% contact w/ 33%victim/minor 24% 50% 61% 17 % 29% Recommended Disposition: 30% •2/3 recommended for probation
Avg sentence above recommendation 65% •19 months 51% 51% 49% 49% 46% 42% 38% 33%
Traffic/DWI Burglary Fraud Drugs Assault Larceny Sex Offense Robbery Weapons
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation 1 4
1 5
2 9 PVGPVG ComplianceCompliance byby OffenseOffense
6% 14 % 12 % 17 % 18 % 25% 25% 28% 32% Sex Offense (18 mitigating) 18 % Reasons: 38% 33% •67% no 24%reason 50% 61% 17 % 29% •11% PVG too high 30% •11% mental/physical health
Avg sentence below recommendation •18.5 months 65%
51% 51% 49% 49% 46% 42% 38% 33%
Traffic/DWI Burglary Fraud Drugs Assault Larceny Sex Offense Robbery Weapons
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation 4 0 SectionSection CC ComplianceCompliance ifif ViolationViolation ofof SexSex OffenderOffender RestrictionsRestrictions isis ScoredScored
Compliance 15.4%
Avg departure from recommended low 34 months Mitigation 84.6% DEPARTUREDEPARTURE PATTERNSPATTERNS FORFOR CONDITIONSCONDITIONS CITEDCITED 1 5 All except Move w/o Permission DepartureDeparture PatternsPatterns forfor ConditionsConditions CitedCited
Report to PO 5.6 94.4
Move w/o Permission 28.6 71.4
Use Alcohol 40.4 59.6
Special Conditions 49.0 51.0
Use Drugs 62.4 37.6
Abscond 73.2 26.8
Mitigation Aggravation SpecialSpecial ConditionCondition Detention/DiversionDetention/Diversion CenterCenter 1 3 Detention/Diversion 1 5
Fail to follow special conditions
2 8 SpecialSpecial ConditionCondition Detention/DiversionDetention/Diversion (n=25)(n=25)
• Failing to complete Detention/Diversion Center – 68% cited are recommended for probation – Nearly 3 out of 4 • Given jail/prison time • Median sentence 9.5 months • Will continue to monitor