proposed recommendations for guidelines revisions november 6, 2013

Proposed Recommendations for Guidelines Revisions

November 6, 2013

2

Proposals for New Guidelines Offenses

Proposals reflect the best fit for the historical data.

Proposals are designed to closely match the

historical rate of incarceration in prison and jail.

Current guidelines worksheets serve as the base

for scoring historical cases, but the points

assigned to those factors may be adjusted and new

factors may be added.

3

Proposals for Revisions to Existing Guidelines

Proposals are designed to maximize compliance

and balance mitigation and aggravation rates to the

extent possible.

Current guidelines worksheets serve as the base

for scoring historical cases, but the points

assigned to those factors may be adjusted and new

factors may be added.

Background Information forRecommendations 1 and 2

5

In 2006, the Commission recommended adding online

solicitation of a child and child pornography offenses

to the sentencing guidelines.

The recommendation, submitted in the Commission’s

2006 Annual Report, was accepted by the 2007

General Assembly.

However, the 2007 General Assembly enacted

legislation elevating penalties and adding mandatory

minimum sentences for certain online solicitation and

child pornography crimes.

Online Solicitation of a Child (§ 18.2-374.3) andChild Pornography (§§ 18.2-374.1 & 18.2-374.1:1)

6

The guidelines that became effective on July 1, 2007,

were implemented as approved and, therefore, did

not account for the new penalty structures.

Five years of sentencing data are now available for

cases falling under the new penalty structures.

Online Solicitation of a Child (§ 18.2-374.3) andChild Pornography (§§ 18.2-374.1 & 18.2-374.1:1)

Proposed Recommendation 1:

Modify the Sentencing Guidelines for

Online Solicitation of a Child (§ 18.2-374.3)

8

Online Solicitation Offenses § 18.2-374.3

Statutory Penalty

Mandatory Minimum

Propose sex act by communications system Child age < 15

1-10 years

Propose sex act by communications system Child age < 15, Offender 7+ years older

5-30 years 5 years

Propose sex act by communications system Child age < 15, Offender 7+ years older2nd or subsequent conviction

10-40 years 10 years

Propose sex act by communications system Child age 15+, Offender 7+ years older

1-10 years

Propose sex act by communications system Child age 15+, Offender 7+ years older2nd or subsequent conviction

1-20 years 1 year

Procure minor for obscene material by communications system

1-5 years

Procure minor for prostitution, sodomy, or pornography by communications system

1-10 years

9

Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines forOnline Solicitation of a Child (§ 18.2-374.3)

FY2009 – FY2013 (Preliminary)

Number of Cases = 321

10

ActualPractice

Recommendedunder Current

Sentencing Guidelines

Probation or Incarceration Up to 6 Months

35.5% 55.8%

Incarceration More than 6 months(Range includes prison)

64.5% 44.2%

Current guidelines are not closely aligned to the actual

prison incarceration rate

Actual versus Recommended Prison Incarceration Rates forOnline Solicitation of a Child (§ 18.2-374.3)


11

Received Probation or Jail up to 6

Months

Received Incarceration More than 6

Months

Total

Recommended for Probation or Incarceration Up to 6 months

59.8% 40.2% 100.0%

Recommended for Incarceration More than 6 months

4.9% 95.1% 100.0%

Dispositional Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines forOnline Solicitation of a Child (§ 18.2-374.3)


Proposed

12

These offenses carry mandatory prison sentences of at least 1 year and will be automatically recommended for Section C

Split Primary Offense Group M and increase points for certain offenses

M. Online solicitation Procure minor for obscene material Procure minor for prostitution, sodomy or pornography Propose sex act with child age 15+, offender 7+ years older (1 count) …………….................. 6 N. Online solicitationPropose sex act with child under age 15, offender NOT 7+ years older (1 count) ……..…….. 8

O. Online solicitationPropose sex act with child under age 15, offender 7+ years older (1st/2nd or subsequent)Propose sex act with child age 15+, offender 7+ years older (2nd or subsequent) ……..…... 9

Current guidelines are not closely aligned to the actual


13

Actual versus Recommended Prison Incarceration Rates forOnline Solicitation of a Minor (§ 18.2-374.3)


ActualPractice




35.5% 55.8%


64.5% 44.2%

Recommended under Proposed

Sentencing Guidelines*

Proposed guidelines are closely aligned to the actual


62.8%

37.2%

* Worksheets with scoring errors were excluded from the analysis.

14

Proposed

Split Primary Offense Group F and increase points for certain offenses

F. Online solicitation Procure minor for obscene material Procure minor for prostitution, sodomy or pornography (1 count) ……………........................ 1 G. Online solicitationPropose sex act with child under age 15 (1 count) .……..…………………………………..…….. 6

H. Online solicitationPropose sex act with child age 15+, offender 7+ years older (1 count) ……..…....................... 2

When scored on Section B, these cases will always result in a jail recommendation

Proposed

15

Add a new factor to Section B of the Other Sexual Assault guidelines

SCORE THE FOLLOWING FACTOR ONLY IF PRIMARY OFFENSE ISONLINE SOLICITATION (§ 18.2-374.3)

Victim Injury (Threatened, Emotional, Physical or Life Threatening) If YES, add 5

When scored on Section B, online solicitation cases involving victim injury will always result in a jail recommendation

16

Section BActual

Practice

Recommended under Current


Probation 58.9% 81.3%

Incarceration 1 Day to 6 Months 41.1% 18.7%

For cases scored on Section B, proposed guidelines more closely

reflect the jail incarceration rate

Actual versus Recommended Jail Incarceration Rates forOnline Solicitation of a Minor (§ 18.2-374.3)




59.5%

40.5%

This stage of the analysis only includes offenders who were recommended for and received a sanction of probation or incarceration up to six months.


17

Proposed

Split Primary Offense Group O and increase points for certain offenses

Category I Category II Other O. Online Solicitation

All online solicitation except as listed below (1 count) ………… 68 …………… 34 …………… 17

P. Online Solicitation

Propose sex act with child under age 15, offender 7+ years older (1st & 2nd or subsequent)

1 count ……………………………..…………………………… 148 …………… 74 …………... 37

18

Proposed

Split Additional Offense factor and increase points for certain offenses

Additional Offenses

Primary offense OTHER THAN Primary offense Online Solicitation § 18.2-374.3 Online Solicitation § 18.2-374.3

Maximum Penalty Points Maximum Penalty Points

Years: Less than 1 .......................... 0 Years: Less than 1 ............................ 0 1 ...….................................... 1 1 ...…...................................... 1 2 …….................................... 2 2 ……...................................... 2 3 …….................................... 3 3 ……...................................... 3 4 ............................……….... 4 4 .............................…………. 4 5 ............................………… 5 5 .............................…………. 8 10 ..............................……… 10 10 ..........................……..…… 12 20 ..............................……… 19 20 .............................………... 15 30 ............................….……. 29 30 ............................………… 18 40 or more................………. 39 40 or more...............………… 22

19

Proposed

Split Victim Injury factor and increase points for certain offenses

Victim Injury

Primary offense OTHER THAN Primary offense Online Solicitation § 18.2-374.3 Online Solicitation § 18.2-374.3

Points Points

Threatened or emotional ……...... 6 Threatened or emotional ……..... 14 Physical or life threatening …….. 9 Physical or life threatening ……. 15

20

Actual versus Recommended Prison Sentences forOnline Solicitation of a Minor (§ 18.2-374.3)


ActualPractice



Mean Sentence 8.14 years 7.67 years

Median Sentence 5.0 years 5.0 years



7.75 years

5.0 years

For cases scored on Section C, the proposed guidelines reflect

actual sentencing practices

This stage of the analysis only includes offenders who were recommended for and received incarceration of more than six months.* Worksheets with scoring errors were excluded from the analysis.

21

Current As Proposed

Compliance 59.2% 60.1%

Mitigation 8.4% 20.1%

Aggravation 32.4% 19.8%

Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines forOnline Solicitation of a Child (§ 18.2-374.3)


22

Proposed Recommendation 1


Online Solicitation of a Child (§ 18.2-374.3)

as proposed



Child Pornography (§§ 18.2-374.1 & 18.2-374.1:1)

24

Child Pornography Offenses – § 18.2-374.1:1

Statutory Penalty

Mandatory Minimum

Possess child pornography (1st offense) 1-5 years

Possess child pornography (2nd offense) 1-10 years

Reproduce, transmit, etc., child pornography(1st offense)

5-20 years

Reproduce, transmit, etc., child pornography(2nd offense)

5-20 years 5 years

25

Child Pornography Offenses § 18.2-374.1*

Statutory Penalties

Mandatory Minimums

Entice a minor to perform in pornography1-20 years to 15-40

years depending on

child’s age, offender’s

age, and previous

convictions for same

offense

Varies

Finance child pornography

Produce, make child pornography

Take part in or film child pornography

* This statute encompasses 24 distinct offense/penalty combinations

26

Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines forChild Pornography Offenses


Number of Cases = 57 Number of Cases = 362

Production (§ 18.2-374.1)

Possession/Reproduction (§ 18.2-374.1:1)

27

Production-Related Offenses Actual

Practice




12.3% 19.3%


87.7% 80.7%

Current guidelines could be more closely aligned to the

actual prison incarceration rate

Actual versus Recommended Prison Incarceration Rates forProduction, etc., of Child Pornography Offenses (§ 18.2-374.1)


28

Possession/Reproduction Offenses Actual

Practice




33.4% 30.9%


66.6% 69.1%

Current guidelines could be more closely aligned to the

actual prison incarceration rate

Actual versus Recommended Prison Incarceration Rates forPossession/Reproduction of Child Pornography Offenses (§ 18.2-374.1:1)


Proposed

29

Offenders convicted of production offenses are more likely to be recommended for Section C.

Offenders convicted of 1st offense possession will no longer be recommended for Section C if they have fewer than four points scored on the remainder of the work sheet.

Revise Points for Primary Offense Groups I and J

I. Production, publication, sale or financing child pornography (1 count) …………………………….. 5

J. Possess child porn (1st offense) (1 count) ………………………………………………………………… 6

K. Possess child porn (2nd offense) (1 count) ……………………………………………………………….. 9

L. Reproduce, transmit, etc., child porn (1 count) …………………………………………………………… 5

X 6

X 5

Proposed

30

Split Additional Offense factor and increase points for certain offenses

Additional Offenses

Primary offense OTHER THAN Primary offense Production or Possession of Child Porn Production or Possession of Child Porn § 18.2-374.1 or § 18.2-374.1:1(A,B) § 18.2-374.1 or § 18.2-374.1:1(A,B)

Maximum Penalty Points Maximum Penalty Points

Years: 5 – 26 ................................... 1 Years: 5 – 26 ................................... 2 27 – 52 …………………........ 2 27 – 52 …………………........ 3 53 or more ........................... 3 53 or more ........................... 4

31

Production-Related Offenses Actual

Practice

Recommendedunder Proposed



12.3% 15.8%


87.7% 84.2%

Proposed guidelines are more closely aligned to the actual


Actual versus Recommended Prison Incarceration Rates forProduction, etc., of Child Pornography Offenses (§ 18.2-374.1)



32

Possession/Reproduction Offenses Actual

Practice

Recommendedunder Proposed



33.4% 32.3%


66.6% 67.7%

Proposed guidelines are more closely aligned to the actual


Actual versus Recommended Prison Incarceration Rates forPossession/Reproduction of Child Pornography Offenses (§ 18.2-374.1:1)



33

No changes proposed for Section B

34

Proposed

Increase points for 2 counts of certain production-related offenses

Category I Category II Other J. Entice, etc., minor to perform in porn;

take part in child porn (1 count) ……………………………………….… 68 …………… 34 …………. 17

K. Produce child porn; finance child porn

1 count ……………………………………………………….. 100 …………… 50 …………. 25

2 counts ……………………………………………………… 216 ………….. 108 …………. 54

Score attempts and conspiracies for production –related offenses

the same as completed acts

35

Proposed

Reduce points for possession offenses only

Category I Category II Other

L. Possess child porn (1st offense)

1 count ……………………………………………………….. 48 …………….. 24 ………….. 12

M. Possess child porn (2nd or subsequent offense)

1 count ……………………………………………………….. 76 …………….. 38 ………….. 19

N. Reproduce, transmit, etc., child porn

1 count ……………………………………………………… 100 …………….. 50 ………….. 25

36

Actual versus Recommended Prison Sentences forProduction, etc., of Child Pornography Offenses (§ 18.2-374.1)


ActualPractice







10.8 years

7.1 years

For cases scored on Section C, the proposed guidelines reflect

actual sentencing practices


37

Actual versus Recommended Prison Sentences forPossession of Child Pornography Offenses (§ 18.2-374.1:1)


1 count

ActualPractice







2.3 years

1.9 years

For cases scored on Section C, the proposed guidelines better

reflect actual sentencing practices


38

Current Proposed




Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines forChild Pornography Offenses


Production (§ 18.2-374.1)

Possession/Reproduction (§ 18.2-374.1:1)

Current Proposed




39



Child Pornography (§§ 18.2-374.1 & 18.2-374.1:1)

as proposed


Split Obscenity Offenses from the Other Sexual Assault Guidelines

into a New Offense Group

41

Currently, a large number of offenses are covered

by the Other Sexual Assault guidelines

These crimes vary considerably in nature,

ranging from indecent liberties, carnal

knowledge, aggravated sexual battery, incest,

production of child pornography, possession

of child pornography and online solicitation of

a child

Other Sexual Assault Sentencing Guidelines

42

Splitting the Other Sexual Assault guidelines

into two offense groups will allow for more

refined analysis in the future, which could

result in improvements to the guidelines for

particular offenses

This proposal does not modify the guidelines

scores, except as approved by the Commission,

and would not otherwise change the sentence

recommendations for offenders

Other Sexual Assault Sentencing Guidelines

44


Split obscenity offenses from the Other Sexual Assault Guidelinesinto a new offense group

as proposed



Aggravated Malicious Wounding (§ 18.2-51.2)

46

Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines for Aggravated Malicious Wounding (§ 18.2-51.2)


* Worksheets with scoring errors were excluded from the analysis

Number of Sentencing Events = 327*

47

Disposition PercentMedian

Sentence

No Incarceration 1.2% N/A

Incarceration Up to 6 Months

.3% 6 Months

Incarceration More than 6 Months

98.5% 13.1 Years


Aggravated Malicious Wounding (§ 18.2-51.2)FY2009 – FY2013 (Preliminary)

327 Sentencing Events*

Proposed

48

All offenders convicted of this offense will be recommended for Section C (prison sentence)

Increase the points for attempted or conspired aggravated malicious wounding on Section A of the Assault guidelines

G. Any attempted, conspired or completed aggravated malicious injury 1 count ………………………..…………………….……...………….…….. 7

Proposed

49

Increase the points for Aggravated Malicious Wounding on Section C of the Assault guidelines

Increase points on Section C for aggravated malicious injury

Category I Category II Other

F. Aggravated malicious injury (1 count) …………………………… 321 ………….. 214 …….… 107

50

Actual versus Recommended Prison Sentences forAggravated Malicious Wounding (§ 18.2-51.2)


ActualPractice







16.0 years

12.6 years

For cases scored on Section C, the proposed guidelines more closely


This stage of the analysis only includes offenders who were recommended for and received incarceration of more than six months.


51

Current As Proposed




Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines for Aggravated Malicious Wounding (§ 18.2-51.2)


52



Aggravated Malicious Wounding (§ 18.2-51.2)

as proposed



Burglary in Cases Involving an Additional Offense of

Aggravated Malicious Wounding

54

In 2012, the Commission recommended adding a factor to the Burglary worksheets for cases involving completed burglary with a deadly weapon and an additional offense of:

─ Attempted/Conspired 1st degree murder or

─ Attempted/Conspired/Completed 2nd degree murder, felony murder, or malicious wounding

The recommendation, submitted in the Commission’s 2012 Annual Report, was accepted by the 2013 General Assembly.

Completed Burglary with a Deadly Weapon

55


Beginning in 2013, a new factor was added to Section A of the Burglary/Dwelling and Burglary/Other guidelines

This factor ensures that all offenders convicted of this combination of offenses will be recommended for Section C (prison sentence)

56


This factor increases the recommended prison sentence for offenders convicted of this combination of offenses

Beginning in 2013, a new factor was added to Section C of the Burglary/Dwelling and Burglary/Other guidelines

57

Because there were no cases in five years of data

involving completed burglary with a deadly weapon with

an additional offense of aggravated malicious wounding,

this scenario was not covered by the 2013 modifications

Since this presents a face validity issue, staff have

continued to monitor the data to determine if this factor

could be expanded to include aggravated malicious

wounding

─ Two cases involving completed burglary with a

deadly weapon and aggravated malicious wounding

are now available due to the updated FY2012 and

FY2013 data


58


Sentence

No Incarceration 0% N/A


0% N/A


100% 38.5 Years

Completed Burglary with a Deadly Weapon (§§ 18.2-89, 18.2-90, 18.2-91, 18.2-92, 18.2-93)

with Additional Offense of Aggravated Malicious WoundingFY2009 – FY2013 (Preliminary)

2 Sentencing Events

Proposed

59

Include Aggravated Malicious Wounding in the following factor on Section A of the Burglary guidelines

Additional Offense with VCC Prefix of “MUR” ……………………………………………………………………….. 10 Additional Offense of Malicious or Aggravated Malicious Wounding (§ 18.2-51 or § 18.2-51.2) ………….…. 10

All others ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 0

Proposed

60

Include Aggravated Malicious Wounding in the following factor on Section C of the Burglary guidelines

Additional Offense with VCC Prefix of “MUR” ………………………………………………………………………… 140 Additional Offense of Completed Aggravated Malicious Wounding (§ 18.2-51.2 )…………………………….... 55

Additional Offense of Completed Malicious Wounding (§ 18.2-51) ………………………………………………… 35

Additional Offense of Attempted/Conspired Malicious or Aggravated Malicious Wounding …………………… 8

61

Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines forCompleted Burglary with a Deadly Weapon (§§ 18.2-89, 18.2-90, 18.2-91, 18.2-92, 18.2-93)

with Additional Offense of Aggravated Malicious WoundingFY2009 – FY2013 (Preliminary)

Current As Proposed

Compliance 50% 100%

Mitigation 0% 0%

Aggravation 50% 0%

62


Modify the Burglary Sentencing Guidelines

as proposed



Daytime Burglary of a Dwelling

without a Deadly Weapon (§ 18.2-91)

Historical time served from 1988-1992 (which served as the base recommendation for the new guidelines) was increased or “enhanced” by 100%, 300%, or 500% for offenders with current or prior violent felony convictions.

Level of Guidelines Enhancement

Current Offense/No Violent Priors

Less Serious Violent Priors

More Serious Violent Priors

In the 1994 reform legislation, violent offenders, as defined in § 17.1-805,

were targeted for longer terms of incarceration

64

Burglary of a dwelling, statutory burglary of a dwelling and any burglary committed while armed with a deadly weapon were defined as violent for the purposes of current offense enhancements.

These enhancements are built into the current guidelines.

65


Sentence

No Incarceration 18.8% N/A


18.4% 2.7 months


62.8% 2.5 years

Daytime Burglary of a Dwelling without a Deadly Weapon (§ 18.2-91)FY2009 – FY2013 (Preliminary)

3,911 Sentencing Events*


Proposed

66

Expand the factor for the Type of Additional Offenses on Section A of the Burglary guidelines to apply to all burglary offenses

If expanded to apply to all burglary cases, this factor would increase the likelihood that offenders convicted of this combination of offenses will be recommended for Section C (prison sentence)

Proposed

67

Proposed Worksheet C Modifications:

1. Slightly decrease the primary offense points for completed daytime burglary of a dwelling without a deadly weapon (§ 18.2-91)

C. Dwelling with intent to commit larceny, etc., without deadly weapon

Completed: 1 count ……………………………..… 51 ……… 34 ………. 17 Attempted/conspired: 1 count ………………………………. (36) ……. (18) ……… (9)

Proposed

68

Proposed Worksheet C Modifications, cont.:

2. Expand the factor for the Type of Additional Offenses on Section C of the Burglary guidelines to apply to all burglary offenses

If expanded to apply to all burglary cases, this factor increases the recommended prison sentence for offenders convicted of this combination of offenses

69

Actual versus Recommended Prison Sentences forDaytime Burglary of a Dwelling without a Deadly Weapon (§ 18.2-91)


ActualPractice




Median Sentence 3 years 3.6 years



3.5 years

3.4 years

For cases scored on Section C, the proposed guidelines better


This stage of the analysis only includes offenders who were recommended for and received incarceration of more than six months.


70

Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines forDaytime Burglary of a Dwelling without a Deadly Weapon (§ 18.2-91)


Current As Proposed




71


Modify the Burglary Sentencing Guidelines

as proposed

Analysis Not Resulting in Proposal:

Examining the Interaction Between the Fraud (False Pretense) and Larceny (Grand Larceny) Worksheets

Interaction Between the Fraud and Larceny Worksheets

Scenario: Cases with convictions for obtaining money by false pretense (§ 18.2-178) and completed grand larceny (§ 18.2-95)

Both offenses have a 20-year statutory maximum

Grand larceny is usually the primary offense because it scores more points on Section C than false pretense

With completed grand larceny scored as the primary offense, the recommendation is a short jail sentence

With completed false pretense scored as the primary offense, the recommendation is a prison sentence

73

Data: 216 cases from SG FY2009-FY2013

(preliminary) with at least 1 count of completed

false pretense and at least 1 count of completed

grand larceny

Alternative model tested: Increase primary offense

points for false pretense on Fraud Section C so that

false pretense will be the primary offense in cases

involving this combination of offenses

75


Alternative model tested:

− 8 points (up from 6) for 1 count of false pretense, 9 points (up from 7) for 2 counts

− Cases with grand larceny of a firearm (17 points for primary offense) were dropped

− When cases had 2 or more counts of grand larceny of property, grand larceny was usually still the primary offense - these cases were also dropped

− 133 sentencing events remained for analysis

76


77

CurrentAlternative

Model




Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines forCases involving Grand Larceny and Obtaining Money by False Pretense*


* Analysis included cases involving one count of each offense

Number of Sentencing Events = 133

Compliance Comparison: Current (Larceny) versus Alternative (Fraud) Scoring Methods

Scoring the GL/FP cases on the Fraud worksheets

leads to an excessive number of cases recommended

to Section C (prison recommendation: 79% versus 49%)

− This increases the mitigation rate

Reason: Fraud Section A threshold for a case being

sent to Section C is 11 points; for Larceny, it is 16 points

78

Legal restraint on Fraud Section A scores high points relative to the threshold

− 4 points for unsupervised probation

− 9 points for supervised probation

This is not the case for legal restraint on Larceny Section A

A high proportion of these cases score points for legal restraint

− Of the cases recommended for Section C when scored on the Fraud worksheet, almost one-third score 4 points and another one-third score 9 points

79

Compliance Comparison: Current (Larceny) versus Alternative (Fraud) Scoring Methods

80

Fraud Section A Worksheet

Larceny Section A Worksheet

81

By scoring the Grand Larceny/False Pretense cases on the Fraud worksheets, compliance would decrease

from 82.7% to 58.6%

Therefore, the staff has no recommendation for modifications at this time

Analysis Not Resulting in Proposal


Re-evaluating Sentencing Guidelines for Prescription Fraud

Re-evaluating Sentencing Guidelines for Prescription Fraud on the Drug/Other Worksheets

Issue: Guidelines users requested a review based on an increase in the number of convictions

Guidelines for prescription fraud were last revised January 1995

SG FY2009-FY2013 (preliminary) data yielded 1,850 prescription fraud sentencing events for analysis

Relatively few of these cases were recommended for prison

− Only 152 (8.2%) went to Section C when scored on the Drug/Other Section A worksheet

− The vast majority (91.8%) went to Section B

83

Compliance/Departure Rates

Offense Number Compliance Mitigation Aggravation

Obtain by Fraud 1,662 87.7% 2.8% 9.6%

Utter Forged Prescription

97 85.6% 2.1% 12.4%

First Offender Viol. 81 85.2% 1.2% 13.6%

Other PrescriptionFraud

10 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1,850 87.5% 2.6% 9.8%

84

In general, compliance is very high in these cases. Some benefit could be gained by achieving a better balance between mitigation and aggravation.

Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines forPrescription Fraud


85

Focus: Drug/Other Section B worksheet

Many scenarios were explored that altered scores on the Drug/Other Section B worksheet for factors such as:

− Primary Offense

− Primary Offense Remaining Counts

− Prior Incarcerations/Commitments

− Legally Restrained at Time of Offense

In general, a better balance between mitigation and aggravation could only be achieved at the expense of a loss in overall compliance

87

Re-evaluating Sentencing Guidelines for Prescription Fraud on the Drug/Other Worksheets

88

CurrentAlternative

Model




Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines forPrescription Fraud Cases


– Scenario 1 –

Scenario 1 scores 1 point for 1-2 counts, 2 points for 3-4 counts, and 3 points for 5 or more counts of the Primary Offense

89

CurrentAlternative

Model




Scenario 2 scores 1 point for 1-2 counts, 2 points for 3 or more counts of the Primary Offense

Points for Legal Restraint are also increased: 3 points for Other Than Supervised, 4 points for Supervised (same as for Sale of Schedule III Drug Cases)

Compliance with Sentencing Guidelines forPrescription Fraud Cases


– Scenario 2 –

90


Under the various scenarios tested, compliance for Prescription Fraud decreased by 4-10 percentage points

Therefore, the staff has no recommendation for modifications at this time


Consider Adding Felony Synthetic Marijuana Offenses to the Drug/Other Guidelines

Consider Adding Felony Synthetic Marijuana Offenses to the Drug/Other Guidelines

Issue: Guidelines users suggested developing sentencing guidelines for felony synthetic marijuana offenses:

─ § 18.2-248.1:1 (C) - Distribute synthetic cannabinoids

─ § 18.2-248.1:1 (D) - Distribute synthetic cannabinoids to inmate

─ § 18.2-248.1:1 (E) - Manufacture synthetic cannabinoids

─ § 18.2-255(A,i) - Distribute synthetic cannabinoids to minors

Effective: March 23, 2011

According to court and jail databases, only 6 offenders have been convicted of a felony involving synthetic marijuana since the law was passed in 2011

Staff will continue to monitor convictions for these offenses and may recommend adding them to the guidelines if a sufficient number of cases exists

92

93


Since only 6 offenders have been convicted of a felony offense involving synthetic marijuana, the staff has no

recommendation for these offenses at this time

proposed recommendations for guidelines revisions november 6, 2013

Documents

child pornography offenses

child pornography crimes

years of sentencing

years older2nd

guidelines revisionsnovember

mitigati guidelines

online solicitation

certain online solicitation