STATE OF UTAH UTAH SENTENCING COMMISSION 2020 Adult Sentencing & Release Guidelines 2020 Adult Sentencing & Release Guidelines Utah Sentencing Commission Marshall Thompson, Director Utah State Capitol Complex P.O. Box 142330 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2330 Phone: (801) 538-1031 Fax: (801) 538-1024 Email: [email protected] This manual and interactive forms can be found at https://justice.utah.gov/Sentencing/ Utah Sentencing Commission Copyright. All rights reserved. Effective March 1, 2020 *Not Retroactive Index I. Statutory Charge of the Sentencing Commission 1 II. Philosophy Statement 1 III. Statement of Purpose 2 IV. Evidence-Based Sentencing Framework 3 A. Goals 3 1. Risk Management 3 2. Risk Reduction 3 3. Restitution 4 B. Process 5 1. Swift, Certain, Consistent & Proportionate 5 2. Fundamental Fairness 5 C. Tools 6 1. Policies 6 2. Grids & Guidelines 6 a. Risk Management Forms 6 b. Risk Reduction Tools 6 3. Risk & Needs Assessments 6 a. The Big Four 6 b. The Moderate Four 7 c. Appropriate Use of Risk and Need Assessment Tools 7 d. Validated Tools in Use in Utah 8 e. Re-assessment 9 V. Action Research Approach 11 VI. Policy Implicit in the Guidelines 9 A. Prosecution 9 B. Presentence Investigations 10 C. Sentencing Judges 11 D. Board of Pardons and Parole 11 E. Alternate Probation Providers 12 Utah Sentencing and Release Guidelines Instructions 12 Risk Management Forms Instructions Criminal History Scoring – Forms 1, 2 & 5 12 Matrix Calculation – Forms 1, 2 & 5 16 Sex & Kidnap Offense Criminal History Scoring – Form 3 18 Sex & Kidnap Offense Matrix Calculation – Form 3 19 Jail as an Initial Condition of Felony Probation Matrices – Form 4 20 Misdemeanor Matrix – Form 5 21 Aggravating & Mitigating Circumstances – Form 6 22 Risk Management Forms Form 1 - General Matrix 24 Form 2 - Criminal Homicide Matrix 25 Form 3 - Sex & Kidnap Offender Matrix 26 Form 4 - Jail as a Condition of Felony Probation Matrices 27 Form 5 - Misdemeanor Matrix 28 Form 6 - Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances 29 Risk Reduction Structured Decision-Making Tools Instructions 30 Risk Reduction Structured Decision-Making Tools Tool 1 - Supervision & Treatment Levels Framework 33 Tool 2 - Decision-Making Authority Matrix 34 Tool 2A – Supervision Accomplishments Table 35 Tool 2B – Supervision Violations Table 36 Tool 3 - Response Magnitude/Proportionality Decision-Tree 37 Tool 4 - Graduated Incentives 38 Tool 5 - Graduated Responses & Sanctions 39 Tool 6 - Exceptions to Incarceration Caps 40 Addenda Addendum A - Crime Column Severity Listing 41 Addendum B - Crime Categories 43 Addendum C - Categorization of Sex Offenses 52 Addendum D - Central Eight Criminal Risk Factors 56 Addendum E - The Responsivity Principle & Factors 58 Addendum F - Stages of Change Model 60 Addendum G - PSI Process for Low Risk Offenders 62 Addendum H - References 64 I. STATUTORY CHARGE • establish guidelines for incarceration for probation and parole conditions The Utah Sentencing Commission consists violations and revocations, including: of twenty-seven statutorily delegated and the seriousness of the violation, appointed members representing all facets conduct while on probation or of the criminal justice system including: parole, and criminal history; judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, • establish graduated sanctions to legislators, victim advocates, law facilitate the prompt and effective enforcement, treatment specialists, ethnic response to an offender’s conduct minorities, corrections, parole authorities, while on probation or parole, juvenile justice representatives, citizen including: sanctions in response to representatives, and others. probation or parole conditions violations, when violations should be The Sentencing Commission is charged reported to the Court or Board of pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 63M-7-404 Pardons, and a range of sanctions with developing guidelines and not exceeding three consecutive recommendations to all three branches of days incarceration and a total of five government regarding the sentencing and days in a 30 day period; release of juvenile and adult offenders • establish graduated incentives to which: facilitate a prompt and effective response to an offender’s • respond to public comment; compliance with probation or parole • relate sentencing practices and conditions and positive conduct correctional resources; exceeding those terms. • increase equity in criminal sentencing; • better define responsibility in II. PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT criminal sentencing; and • enhance the discretion of sentencing The Sentencing Commission promotes judges while preserving the role of evidence-based sentencing policies that the Board of Pardons and Parole effectively address the three separate goals and Youth Parole Authority. of criminal sentencing: Pursuant to House Bill 348 in the 2015 • Risk Management General Legislative Session, a number of • Risk Reduction specific directives were added to the • Restitution Sentencing Commission’s statutory charge. Those directives include and the Sentencing The Sentencing Commission has discussed Commission has fully incorporated the and advocated the incorporation of what are following: commonly referred to as “evidence-based practices” into sentencing, supervision, and • modify the guidelines to implement treatment standards for nearly a decade. the recommendations of the CCJJ Evidence-based practices are also referred for reducing recidivism for the to as “principles of effective intervention” or purposes of protecting the public “what works in corrections.” It is not a and ensuring efficient use of state specific program or intervention, but a body funds; of knowledge based on over thirty years of • modify criminal history scoring in the research conducted by numerous scholars guidelines, including eliminating in North America and Europe. Such double-counting and focusing on research has demonstrated empirically that factors relevant to the accurate theoretically sound, well-designed programs determination of risk to re-offend; 2020 - Utah Sentencing Commission 1 implemented with fidelity can appreciably professional judgment and experience; and reduce recidivism. the best research and data available. The advocacy of risk reduction as a separate and legitimate goal of sentencing Best Research should not be presumed to ignore or & Data supersede the other two legitimate goals of Available sentencing. Nevertheless, it may not be realistic to address all three goals of sentencing simultaneously, as the three Professional Public Input Judgment & goals may at times conflict with one & Concerns another. The Sentencing Commission Experience recognizes that the appropriate balancing and prioritization of the three goals of sentencing in any given case is a difficult and heavy task for the sentencing authority. III. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The following diagram illustrates that the Utah law provides the basis for the term “evidence-based” refers to the strength sentencing and release of criminal of research, not simply the existence of offenders. Statutes provide significant opinions, studies or research. Expert latitude in decision-making. The guidelines opinion, individual case studies, and cohort are an attempt to further structure decision- studies, while potentially promising, do not making relative to sentencing and release, constitute evidence-based practices. A yet still retain the flexibility to deal with minimum of two or more randomized individual cases. The guidelines also controlled trials or a systematic review (also provide a means of identifying and known as a “meta-analysis”) constitutes allocating required resources. Utah’s evidence-based practices. guidelines are intended to maintain judicial and parole board discretion, and at the same time incorporate a rational criminal justice philosophy, eliminate unwarranted disparity, and provide a tool to match resources with needs. While the elimination of unwarranted disparity has long been one of the purposes of the guidelines, the Sentencing Commission recognizes the over- representation of minorities in our criminal justice system. The guidelines do not The guidelines incorporate the concept of attempt to determine where, why, or evidence-based practices comprehensively. whether discrimination exists. Rather, they It should be noted that evidence-based provide an objective method of decision- practices does not refer to a simple making aimed at achieving the goals of formulaic calculation, nor is it a synonym for sentencing through the most current the replacement of professional judgment research and data available. Examining the and experience with research. The following effect of such practices in the future should diagram illustrates that evidence-based improve our ability to formulate policy and practices refers to the confluence and avoid potentially discriminatory practices. continual interaction of three key factors in the development of best policies and The guidelines, as structured, provide a practices: public input and concerns; forum for discussion regarding sentencing and a common frame of reference on which 2020 - Utah Sentencing Commission 2 to base discussion. Equally important, they provide a means to assess the demand for • GOALS: resources based on policy changes. o Risk Management o Risk Reduction It is important to note that Forms 1-6 are o Restitution guidelines only. They are intended to inform • PROCESS: the sentencing authority, but do not dictate o Swift their decision. They do not create any right, o Certain