judicial concurrence with sentencing guidelines july 1, 2006 – june 30, 2007 (preliminary)
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES
July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007(Preliminary)
![Page 2: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Number of Guideline Worksheets ReceivedFY1997 – FY2007
1936820506 19912
18455
20910
23956 2419922927 23508
2446026093
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fiscal Year
![Page 3: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
FY07 Guideline Worksheets by Type of Primary Offense
(N=26,093)
0.5%0.7%
36.4%
18.3%
10.7%
8.4%
5.6%3.9% 3.5% 3.4%
2.5% 1.9% 1.9% 1.2% 1.1%
Drug-1/2 Larceny Fraud Traffic Assault Drug-Other
Burg-Dwell
Robbery Burg-Other
Weapon SexualAssault
Misc Murder Rape Kidnap
Primary Offense Conviction
![Page 4: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
GENERAL COMPLIANCE
![Page 5: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Overall Compliance Rate
Compliance79.2%
Mitigation10.0%
Aggravation10.8%
FY07 Judicial Agreement with Guideline Recommendations
General Compliance:
The degree to which judges agree with the overall guidelines recommendation.
FY0680%
Direction of Departures
Mitigation48.0%
Aggravation52.0%
![Page 6: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
FY07 Recommended vs. Actual Disposition
Dispositional Compliance:
The degree to which judges agree with the type of sanction recommended by the guidelines.
Recommended Disposition
Probation/No Incarceration
Incarceration <= 6 months
Incarceration > 6 months
Probation/No Incarceration 72.6% 23.5% 3.9%
Incarceration <= 6 months 11.2% 76.0% 12.8%
Incarceration > 6 months 5.9% 8.4% 85.7%
Actual Disposition
![Page 7: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
DEPARTURE REASONS
![Page 8: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
MOST FREQUENTLY CITED DEPARTURE REASONS
• Mitigating (10%)– Reason unclear
– Plea agreement
– Cooperative with authorities
– Good rehab potential
– Minimal circumstances
– Recommendation of Commonwealth/PO
• Aggravating (10.8%)– Reason unclear
– Plea agreement
– Flagrancy of offense
– Recommendation too low
– Jury sentence
– Poor rehab potential
![Page 9: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
COMPLIANCE BY CIRCUIT
![Page 10: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Highest Compliance Rates:
Circuit 27 (Radford Area) 91%
Circuit 7 (Newport News) 86%
Circuit 28 (Bristol Area) 85%
Lowest Compliance Rates:
Circuit 29 (Buchanan Area) 64%
Circuit 15 (Fredericksburg) 71%
Highest Compliance Rates:
Circuit 27 (Radford Area) 91%
Circuit 7 (Newport News) 86%
Circuit 28 (Bristol Area) 85%
Lowest Compliance Rates:
Circuit 29 (Buchanan Area) 64%
Circuit 15 (Fredericksburg) 71%
![Page 11: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Compliance VIOLENT VS. NONVIOLENT
CRIMES
![Page 12: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Percentage of FY07 Sentencing Events Involving Violent Offenders (Current and/or Prior Violent Offenses as defined by §17.1-805)
Violent20%
Nonviolent80%
![Page 13: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
FY07 Violent Offender ProfileCurrent and/or Prior Violent Offense*
*Note: Violent offenses are defined by §17.1-805. Category 1 prior violent offenses have a statutory maximum of 40 years or more while Category 2 prior violent offenses have a statutory maximum of less than 40 years.
0.8%
1.9%
3.2%
5.2%
9.2%
Instant Violent Offense & MoreSerious Violent P rior (Cat 1)
Instant Violent Offense & LessSerious Violent P rior (Cat 2)
More Serious Violent P riorOnly (Cat 1)
Instant Violent Offense Only
Less Serious Violent P rior(Cat 2)
![Page 14: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
FY07 ComplianceCurrent and/or Prior Violent Offenses*
82.173.4
64.4 61.4 60.1
6.4 19.9
23.4 26.6 33.5 33.3
11.5 6.712.2 10.2 5.1 6.6
63.2
No Instant or P riorViolent
Less SeriousViolent P rior (Cat 2)
Instant ViolentOffense
Instant Violent &Less Serious
Violent P rior (Cat 2)
More SeriousViolent P rior (Cat 1)
Instant Violent &More Serious
Violent P rior (Cat 1)
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation
*Note: Violent offenses are defined by §17.1-805. Category 1 prior violent offenses have a statutory maximum of 40 years or more while Category 2 prior violent offenses have a statutory maximum of less than 40 years.
![Page 15: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
COMPLIANCE BY TYPE OF OFFENSE
![Page 16: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Guidelines Compliance by Primary OffenseFY2007
85.1%82.3% 82.3% 81.8%
79.8%
73.9% 72.0%69.6% 68.0% 67.3% 67.2% 66.0% 65.5%
62.3% 61.7%
8.6%
7.7% 8.1%5.8%
6.8%
13.4% 15.3%15.3%
22.7%
15.3% 14.4% 16.5% 19.0%
18.5%
27.5%
6.3%10.0%
12.4% 13.4% 12.8% 15.1%
9.3%
17.3% 18.4% 17.5% 15.5%19.2%
10.9%9.6%12.7%
Fraud Drug-1/2 Larceny Drug-Other Traffi c Assault Bur-Other Weapon Rape Sexual Assault Kidnap Misc Bur-Dwell Murder/Hom Robbery
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation
![Page 17: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Guidelines Compliance by Primary OffenseFY2007
85.1%82.3% 82.3% 81.8%
79.8%
73.9% 72.0%69.6% 68.0% 67.3% 67.2% 66.0% 65.5%
62.3% 61.7%
8.6%
7.7% 8.1%5.8%
6.8%
13.4% 15.3%15.3%
22.7%
15.3% 14.4% 16.5% 19.0%
18.5%
27.5%
6.3%10.0%
12.4% 13.4% 12.8% 15.1%
9.3%
17.3% 18.4% 17.5% 15.5%19.2%
10.9%9.6%12.7%
Fraud Drug-1/2 Larceny Drug-Other Traffi c Assault Bur-Other Weapon Rape Sexual Assault Kidnap Misc Bur-Dwell Murder/Hom Robbery
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation
Rape – Mitigation (23%)
Most frequently cited reasons:
•Plea agreement
•Victim request
Robbery – Mitigation (28%)
Most frequently cited reasons:
•Cooperation with law enforcement
•Plea agreement
•Recommendation of Commonwealth
•Age of offender/DJJ Sentence
80% or higher
![Page 18: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
NONVIOLENT RISK ASSESSMENT
![Page 19: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
![Page 20: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
NONVIOLENT RISK ASSESSMENT
• Drug, Fraud, & Larceny
• Purpose: To recommend alternative sanctions for offenders who are statistically less likely to recidivate
Percent of Nonviolent Cases by Primary Offense TypeFY2007
Drug I/II52.5%
Drug Other5.6%
Fraud15.5%
Larceny26.4%
![Page 21: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Sentencing Guidelines Compliance Rates for Nonviolent Offenders Screened with Risk Assessment
FY2007 (n=6,937)
Fraud
Larceny
Cases 7%
9%
8%
Drug 6%
61%
73%
50%
59%
22%
9%
37%
24%
10%
9%
5%
11%
6,937
1,788
1,177
3,972
Offense Mitigation
Compliance
AggravationNumber of CasesTraditional Alternative
83%
82%
87%
83%
![Page 22: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT
![Page 23: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT
• Rape & Other Sexual Assault
• Purpose:
– To extend the upper end of the guidelines recommendation for sex offenders who are statistically more likely to recidivate
![Page 25: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENTFY2007
Other Sexual Assault Risk Levels(n=490)
No Adjustment57%
Very High Risk3%
High Risk12%
Moderate Risk28%
Rape Risk Levels (n=194)
No Adjustment55%
Very High Risk2%
High Risk17%
Moderate Risk26%
![Page 26: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Sentencing Guidelines Compliance Rates for Rape Offenders by Risk Assessment Levels
FY2007 (n=194)
Moderate Risk
High Risk
Very High Risk 25%
16%
23%
No Level 24%
50%
45%
60%
63%
25%
29%
15%
---
0%
10%
2%
13%
4
31
47
112
RiskAssessment Level Mitigation
Compliance
AggravationNumber of CasesTraditional Adjusted
75%
74%
75%
![Page 27: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Sentencing Guidelines Compliance Rates for Other Sexual Assault Offenders by Risk Assessment Levels
FY2007 (n=490)
Moderate Risk
High Risk
Very High Risk 18%
23%
18%
No Level 13%
55%
61%
57%
63%
27%
14%
17%
---
0%
2%
8%
24%
11
49
120
310
RiskAssessment Level Mitigation
Compliance
AggravationNumber of CasesTraditional Adjusted
82%
75%
74%
![Page 28: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
JURY SENTENCING
![Page 29: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
PERCENT OF FELONY SENTENCING EVENTS ADJUDICATED BY JURIES
FY1986 – FY2007
6.4% 6.3% 6.5%
5.8%
5.2% 5.1%4.7%
4.2% 4.2%3.9%
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Parole System
1.4%
2.2%
2.7%
2.2% 2.1%1.7% 1.6% 1.7%
1.5% 1.7% 1.6%1.4% 1.5%
95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Truth-in-Sentencing
![Page 30: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMPLIANCE IN JURY VS. NON-JURY CASES
FY2007
Jury Cases(N=379)
Aggravation50%
Mitigation15%
Compliance35%
Non-Jury Cases(N=25,714)
Compliance80%
Mitigation10%
Aggravation10%
![Page 31: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
NEW GUIDELINE OFFENSESFY2007
![Page 32: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
NEW GUIDELINE OFFENSES(effective 7/1/2006)
• Fraud Worksheet– Uttering public record FRD-2535-F4– Identity fraud, value >$200 FRD-2509-F6– False application, public assistance FRD-2700-F5
• Traffic Worksheet– Eluding police with endangerment REC-6624-F6
• Miscellaneous Worksheet– Extortion, threat by letter, etc. EXT-2106-F6– Arson, unoccupied dwelling ARS-2005-F4– Escape from correctional facility ESC-4921-F6
• Weapons Worksheet– Discharge firearm from vehicle WPN-5248-F5– Possess firearm on school property WPN-5252-F6– False statement on consent form WPN-5281-F5
![Page 33: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
IDENTITY FRAUD > $200FY2007 (N=40)
Compliance87%
Mitigation8%
Aggravation5%
![Page 34: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
ELUDING POLICE WITH ENDANGERMENTFY2007 (N=421)
Compliance71%
Mitigation16%
Aggravation13%
![Page 35: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
FALSE STATEMENT ON WEAPON CONSENT FORMFY2007 (N=66)
Compliance67%
Mitigation30%
Aggravation3%
Most Frequent Mitigating Reasons:
•Minimal circumstances
•Plea agreement
•Lack of serious prior record
•Recommendation of Commonwealth
![Page 36: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
SENTENCING REVOCATION REPORTS & PROBATION VIOLATION
GUIDELINES
Preliminary FY2007
![Page 37: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Sentencing Revocation Report
For all felony violations:
•Probation
•Good Behavior
•Suspended Sentence
![Page 38: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Number of Sentencing Revocation Reports Received by YearFY2004 – FY2007
8646
9436
1092511362
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Pre-Probation Violation
Guidelines
![Page 39: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Number of Sentencing Number of Sentencing Revocation Reports (SRRs) Revocation Reports (SRRs)
Received by CircuitReceived by Circuit
Technical & New Law Violations
Probation, Suspended Sentence, Good Behavior, etc., Violations
Current & Old Forms
Circuit 4 (Norfolk) +152%Circuit 4 (Norfolk) +152%
Circuit 15 (Fredericksburg Area) +42%Circuit 15 (Fredericksburg Area) +42%
Circuit 17 (Arlington) +55%Circuit 17 (Arlington) +55%
Circuit 27 (Radford Area) +43%Circuit 27 (Radford Area) +43%
![Page 40: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
PROBATION VIOLATION GUIDELINESFor NON-NEW CONVICTION PROBATION Violators
FY2007
![Page 41: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Apply50%
Do Not Apply50%
FY2007 PROBATION VIOLATION GUIDELINESDO GUIDELINES APPLY?
(N=11,362)
Reasons Probation Violation Guidelines Do Not Apply
1.9
4.8
28.1
82.9
MisdemeanorOriginal
Parole Case
Not SupervisedProbation
New Conviction(Felony/Misd)
![Page 42: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Probation Violation Guidelines
![Page 43: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Number of Probation Violation Guidelines Received by YearFY2005 – FY2007
46434860
5584
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
![Page 44: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
1.8
5.8
11.9
38.7
41.8
Other
Traffic
Person
Drug
Property
Non-New Conviction Probation Violators by Type of Original Offense*
FY2007 (n=5,584)
3.4% Sex Offenders
8.4% Other Person
*Offense categories taken from “Appendix E: Offense Types” in the 3rd Edition of the Sentencing Revocation Report & Probation Violation Guidelines manual.
![Page 45: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
0.4
0.8
3.9
4.0
10.9
19.9
26.2
37.7
41.6
55.7
50.0
Use, possess, etc., firearm
Fail to allow PO to visit
Use alcohol to excess
Fail to report arrest to PO
Fail to maintain regular employment
Move without permission
Special court-imposed conditions
Abscond from supervision
Fail to report to PO as instructed
Fail to follow instructions
Use, etc., controlled substances
Conditions Cited in Non-New Conviction Probation Violator Cases* FY2007 (n=5,584)
Restitution/court costs12%Substance abuse treatment 6%Alternative programs 3%Report for probation 1%Community service 1%Sex offender restrictions 1%
*Percentages do not total 100% because there may be multiple violations cited for each defendant.
![Page 46: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
34.5%47.1% 46.3% 49.2%
19.4%
29.0% 30.2% 24.5%
46.1%
23.9% 23.5% 26.3%
FY05 FY06 FY07 Prelim FY08
Compliance Mitigation Aggravation
Overall Probation Violation Guidelines Compliance and Direction of Departures
(FY2005 – FY2008)
N = 4,643 N = 5,584N = 4,860 N = 327
![Page 47: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Probation Violation Guidelines Dispositional Compliance and Direction of Departures
FY2007
Actual Disposition
TotalRecommended Disposition Probation Jail <= 12m Prison >=1y
Probation 40.1 43.5 16.4 1223
Jail <= 12m 17.2 68.9 13.8 1887
Prison >=1y 14.3 34.5 51.3 2357
Total 21.1 48.4 30.5 5584
Median Jail
Sentence = 6 mos
Median Prison
Sentence = 22 mos
![Page 48: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Compliance49.5
Mitigation32.0
Aggravation18.6
Probation Violation Guidelines Durational Compliance and Direction of Departures*
FY2007
Median Below9 mos
Median Above9 mos
*Includes cases recommended for jail or prison incarceration only.
![Page 49: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
DEPARTURE REASONS
![Page 50: JUDICIAL CONCURRENCE WITH SENTENCING GUIDELINES July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 (Preliminary)](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020102/5697c00a1a28abf838cc7d23/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Probation Violation Guidelines Most Frequently Cited Departure Reasons
FY2007
Mitigation
• 789 of 1,685 have written departure reasons
• Most frequently cited:– Progress in rehabilitating– Recommendation of CA/PO– Guidelines too high– Alternative sentence
• Treatment• Drug Court• Detention/Diversion
– Mental/physical health– Substance abuse problem
Aggravation
• 591 of 1,312 have written departure reasons
• Most frequently cited:– Prior record
• 2nd/subseq revocation– Rehabilitation
• Failed given opportunity• Needs rehab through jail
– Substance abuse problem– Guidelines too low– Fail to follow instructions– Absconded