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% Mis c 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 Other Sexual Assault Cases (n=92) 17.4% 64.1% 7.6% 10.9% Mitigation Regular Compliance Adjusted High Aggravation Compliance Rape Cases (n=50) 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 Circuit Name Judicial Circuit Frequency Alexandria 18 107 Arlington Area 17 26 Number of Sentencing Revocation Reports Bristol Area 28 81 (SRRs) Received by Circuit Buchanan Area 29 112 Charlottesville Area 16 107 Chesapeake 1 312 Chesterfield Area 12 129 Danville Area 22 222 Fairfax 19 227 • Technical & New Law Violations Fredericksburg Area 15 118 Hampton 8 152 (Condition 1) Harrisonburg Area 26 202 Henrico 14 154 Lee Area 30 23 Loudoun Area 20 98 • Probation, Suspended Sentence, Lynchburg Area 24 136 Good Behavior, etc., Violations Martinsville Area 21 123 Newport News 7 200 Norfolk 4 68 Petersburg Area 11 28 • Current & Old Forms Portsmouth 3 193 Prince William Area 31 177 Radford Area 27 132 Richmond City 13 245 Roanoke Area 23 123 South Boston Area 10 102 Staunton Area 25 113 Suffolk Area 5 114 Sussex Area 6 46 Virginia Beach 2 169 Williamsburg Area 9 117 Total 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 Frau d 13.6 Burglary 8.2 Tr a f f i 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 Es c a 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