Minutes · 2016-02-23 · MSCCSP Meeting – Minutes May 19, 2015 3 efforts in Texas have a longer track record and recidivism and crime rates have both decreased. The Project tries

Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy www.msccsp.org

MSCCSP Meeting – Minutes May 19, 2015

1

Minutes

Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy

Judiciary Education and Conference Center

Annapolis, MD 21401

May 19, 2015

Commission Members in Attendance:

Honorable Diane O. Leasure, Chair

Delegate Curtis S. Anderson

Honorable Joseph I. Cassilly

LaMonte E. Cooke

William Davis, Esquire, representing Public Defender Paul B. DeWolfe

Paul F. Enzinna, Esquire

Richard A. Finci, Esquire

Senator Delores G. Kelley

Honorable Patrice E. Lewis

Megan Limarzi, Esquire, representing Attorney General Brian E. Frosh

Honorable Laura L. Martin

Rachel Sessa, representing Secretary Stephen T. Moyer

Colonel William M. Pallozzi

Honorable James P. Salmon

Delegate Joseph F. Vallario, Jr.

Staff Members in Attendance:

Justin Bernstein

Sarah Bowles

Stacy Najaka, Ph.D.

Katharine Pembroke

David Soulé, Ph.D.

Visitors:

Linda Forsyth, Chief of Staff for Senator Kelley; Honorable John P. Morrissey, District Court of

Maryland; Casey Pheiffer, Pew Charitable Trusts; Claire Rossmark, Department of Legislative

Services; Christopher B. Shank, Governor’s Office of Crime Control & Prevention; Zoë Towns,

Pew Charitable Trusts; Connie Utada, Pew Charitable Trusts

1. Call to order

Judge Leasure called the meeting to order.

2. Roll call and declaration of quorum

The meeting began at 5:39 p.m. when attendance reached a quorum.

3. Approval of minutes, December 9, 2014 meeting

The Commission approved the minutes as submitted.



2

4. Approval of minutes, December 9, 2014 public comments hearing


5. Report on Justice Reinvestment Coordinating Council

Chapter 42 of the 2015 Laws of Maryland (Senate Bill 602, cross-filed with House Bill 388)

creates the Justice Reinvestment Coordinating Council. The law directs the Council to use a

data-driven approach to develop a statewide framework of sentencing and corrections policies

to further reduce the state’s incarcerated population, reduce spending on corrections, and

reinvest in strategies to increase public safety and reduce recidivism. It also directs the Council

to request assistance from the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Public

Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on the States.

Ms. Utada and Ms. Towns from the Public Safety Performance Project gave a presentation

titled “Protecting Public Safety and Containing Corrections.” The goal of the Project is to help

states get a better return on public safety dollars using research on national trends and what

works and by providing technical assistance. The presentation reviews trends in the growth in

correctional spending and population beginning in the 1970s and the more recent turn towards

trying to reduce the population under correctional supervision and reign in expenditures without

sacrificing public safety by redirecting savings towards programs and practices that reduce

recidivism. The presentation reviewed Oregon as a case study, emphasizing however that the

Project does not pursue a one size fits all approach as each state’s situation is different.

Senator Kelley asked about type of probation or parole supervision, noting that in some cases

the emphasis is on catching violations and revocations while in others the emphasis is on

helping supervisees to adapt and reintegrate. Ms. Towns replied that we know now that

incentives are a better way to change offender behaviors than sanctions, though best practices

are to couple both.

Senator Kelley asked about structural problems and technical violations, for example requiring

parolees to have a job but also requiring meetings with parole and probation agents during work

hours. Ms. Towns responded that having conditions based on defendants’ specific risks and

needs was part of the reforms in Oregon.

Mr. Cooke asked how much of the reforms are about drug treatment. Ms. Towns stated that it is

a big part of it. The Project identifies what is driving costs, looking for ways to reduce spending

while keeping public safety paramount. If you can reduce that spending, based on the data, by

for example removing mandatory incarceration for certain drug offenders, redirecting that

spending to things that research supports, like drug treatment, can yield large public safety

dividends.

Judge Morrissey asked where the savings come from if a state is not planning to build a prison

that it can cancel, as was the case in Oregon. Ms. Towns indicated that reducing operational and

marginal prison costs can still save a lot, particularly if a state reduces incarceration to the point

where it can close prisons.

Mr. Cassilly asked about effects on crime rates and recidivism from the reforms. Ms. Towns

answered that crimes rates have continued to decline at the same rates as before, though not

enough time has elapsed (referring to Oregon) to study recidivism. The justice reinvestment



3

efforts in Texas have a longer track record and recidivism and crime rates have both decreased.

The Project tries to ensure that reforms include the infrastructure to be able to evaluate policies

to know whether they are working.

Mr. Cassilly asked about drug treatment success rates, noting concerns about quality of

treatment and providers. Ms. Towns stated that Utah found large differences in quality of

treatment between public and private providers and a lack of accountability. Utah adopted best

practices and standards for correctional drug treatment.

Dr. Soulé asked how justice reinvestment has worked in states with sentencing guidelines and

the role (if any) for the Commission. Ms. Towns stated that the Project surveys the policies

driving prison populations, including sentencing guidelines. In states with guidelines the Project

has worked with sentencing commissions to understand the guidelines, compliance, and

historical context. Sentencing guidelines are also a policy lever to which the Coordinating

Council can look. In Utah, for example, a reform involved the legislature directing the

sentencing commission to adjust the guidelines, taking into account particular guidance. Mr.

Shank stated that the GOCCP would keep the Commission updated. The timeline calls for the

Coordinating Council to complete its work as quickly as possible.

Delegate Anderson asked that the Coordinating Council be mindful of recently changed laws

and policies that may have affected incarceration. Mr. Shank stated that the Coordinating

Council will look at the data and let the data be the guide.

6. Executive Director report – Dr. David Soulé

Dr. Soulé reported that he had three items to review. He first introduced Katharine Pembroke,

who joined the Commission staff on March 9 as the new Administrative and Training

Coordinator.

Next, Dr. Soulé provided an update on the Maryland Automated Guidelines System (MAGS).

Commission staff, working with the Administrative Office of the Courts, has developed a

deployment timeline for MAGS on a circuit-by-circuit basis. The entire Sixth Circuit uses

MAGS as of March 2, 2015, when Frederick County began using MAGS. As Calvert County

currently uses MAGS, the Seventh Circuit will be next. Charles County is scheduled to deploy

MAGS on July 1st. A new county will deploy MAGS approximately every three months after

that. The deployment timeline is available on the Commission’s website.

Lastly Dr. Soulé provided an update on the juvenile delinquency study. The intent of the study

is to determine the most appropriate way to assess juvenile offending in the calculation of the

offender score. The Commission has been collaborating with the Department of Criminology

and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland on this project. The Department initially

applied for funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics for the project. The Department has

since received a grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to support creating a state-

of-the-art criminal justice data center at the University of Maryland, College Park. This

Maryland Data Analysis Center will compile data from various criminal justice agencies across

the state and will integrate those records into a centralized database. The Center has agreed to

conduct the juvenile delinquency study as its first research project. The University’s legal

department and Internal Review Board are now reviewing the project. Once approved the



4

Commission will submit a data request to Maryland’s Department of Juvenile Services to

obtain the data required for this study from the Automated Statewide System of Information

Support Tools. The Center expects to receive the requested data from the Department of

Juvenile Services and complete work on this project over this summer. The Center plans to

report to the Commission at the September 2015 meeting.

7. Guidelines Subcommittee report – Dr. David Soulé

Drs. Soulé and Najaka presented the report of the Guidelines Subcommittee on behalf of Judge

Sonner.

a. Review of seriousness category for Criminally Negligent Manslaughter by Vehicle or

Vessel (CR, § 2-210)

Dr. Soulé noted that Effective October 1, 2011, individuals convicted of criminally negligent

manslaughter by vehicle or vessel (CR, § 2-210) face a maximum penalty of 3 years and a

maximum fine of $5,000. When the Commission initially categorized this offense following its

creation by the General Assembly in 2011, there was considerable debate as to the appropriate

seriousness category. At the time, the MSCCSP considered comparable offenses with

seriousness categories ranging from IV to VI, but the Commission ultimately decided to adopt

the lowest possible seriousness category (VII) and to revisit the seriousness category in three

years. Criminally negligent manslaughter by vehicle or vessel was added to the Offense Table

on March 1, 2012, and thus March 1, 2015 marked the end of the three year follow-up period.

The average sentence from the 25 sentencing guidelines worksheet received for criminally

negligent manslaughter by vehicle or vessel was 2.8 years, with an average of 1.3 years not

suspended. This was slightly higher than the 1 year average sentence (not including suspended

time) for all other seriousness category VII offenses (not controlling for the offender score).

Most sentences (68%) were within the recommended guidelines range while 20% were below;

and 12% above. The components of the Offense Score for the 25 instances of criminally

negligent manslaughter by vehicle or vessel were very similar: all offenders received 1 point for

the seriousness category VII; all received 2 points for the death of the victim; none received any

additional points for weapon presence; and only one received 1 point for special victim

vulnerability.

The Guidelines Subcommittee reviewed the information concerning criminally negligent

manslaughter by vehicle or vessel at its April 27, 2015 meeting. The Guidelines Subcommittee

did not have a recommendation for the full Commission and requested that the Commission

consider whether to change to the seriousness category. The Commission discussed the matter.

Mr. Cassilly asked why criminally negligent manslaughter by vehicle or vessel would have a

seriousness category VII if causing a life threatening injury by motor vehicle or vessel while

under the influence of alcohol and negligent homicide by motor vehicle or vessel while

impaired by alcohol, drugs, or CDS are both seriousness category VI. All three are person

offenses with a 3 year/$5,000 statutory maximum penalty. The first two are both misdemeanors.

Mr. Finci noted that the latter two offenses each involve aggregating elements of drugs or

alcohol. And because seriousness categories V-VII all entail 1 point in the Offense Score the

actual guidelines would not change if the Commission recategorized the offense. Mr. Finci

further noted that the offense inherently involves the death of a victim, offenders automatically



5

receive an additional two points as a component of the Offense Score. Finally the categorization

appears consistent with how judges are sentencing these offenders.

Ms. Martin disagreed about drugs or alcohol being aggravating factors; the guidelines do not

consider them. She noted that the difference with seriousness category VI and VII would be in

calculating the prior adult criminal record if the person reoffended.

Senator Kelley recommended that given the data do not show enough difference to make a

change that the Commission keep the seriousness category the same.

There was no motion to adopt a new seriousness category for this offense.

b. Update #3 on review of guidelines compliance for individual matrix cells.

Dr. Najaka referred the Commission to the memorandum with the subject line “Update #3 on

Review of Guidelines Compliance for Individual Matrix Cells” and to the materials referenced

therein. Dr. Najaka summarized the potential revisions to the guidelines ranges for the two rows

of the drug matrix corresponding to seriousness categories V and IV considered by the

Guidelines Subcommittee at its April 27, 2015 meeting. She noted that there was general

agreement among Subcommittee members that that the proposed revisions were warranted, but

before calling for a vote on the revisions, the Subcommittee would like to consider the potential

impact that the revisions would have on Maryland’s correctional population. As such, the

Subcommittee has requested that staff conduct the relevant impact analyses using the recently

developed sentencing/correctional simulation model. Dr. Najaka stated that these analyses are

expected to be completed in advance of the Commission’s next meeting and that no action by

the Commission was being requested.

Delegate Vallario inquired as to the necessity of using the correctional simulation model. Dr.

Soulé explained that the Commission’s governing legislation requires that it use a correctional

simulation model to project the effects of proposed changes and also that this will be a good

opportunity to test the model. The Commission has been developing the simulation model for

several years but has not had a specific proposed change to the guidelines with which to use it.

Commission staff had asked the Guidelines Subcommittee for additional time to run the model

before returning to this issue at the next meeting. Senator Kelley added that when the General

Assembly is in session, the model is also to be made available upon request.

Mr. Cassilly asked if drug courts or other diversions are driving the apparent high levels of

departures. Dr. Soulé noted that drug court or other diversions are not departures, as long as the

sentencing guidelines worksheet indicates a drug court commitment.

8. Date, time, and location of next meeting

The next Commission meeting will take place on Tuesday, July 14, 2015, at the Judiciary

Education and Conference Center.

9. Old business

None.

10. News business and announcements



6

Mr. Finci acknowledged former Commissioner Anthenelli’s work and contributions to the

Commission, expressed his hope for recovery from his illness, wished him well, and

encouraged the other Commissioners to thank him when they have an opportunity to do so.

Delegate Anderson stated that the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate had

appointed a task force on public safety and police practices in Maryland. He asked about the

availability of sentencing guidelines data to assist this effort. Dr. Soulé indicated that

Commission staff would be happy to comply.

The meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m.


MSCCSP Meeting – Minutes September 22, 2015

1

Minutes

Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy

Judiciary Education and Conference Center

Annapolis, MD 21401

September 22, 2015

Commission Members in Attendance:

Honorable Glenn T. Harrell, Jr., Chair

Delegate Curtis S. Anderson

Honorable Shannon E. Avery

LaMonte E. Cooke

William Davis, Esquire, representing Public Defender Paul B. DeWolfe

Barbara Dorsey Domer

Paul F. Enzinna, Esquire

Richard A. Finci, Esquire

Honorable Patrice E. Lewis

Megan Limarzi, Esquire, representing Attorney General Brian E. Frosh

Honorable Laura L. Martin

Rachel Sessa, representing Secretary Stephen T. Moyer

Colonel William M. Pallozzi

Honorable James P. Salmon

Staff Members in Attendance:

David Soulé, Ph.D.

Stacy Najaka, Ph.D.

Justin Bernstein

Sarah Bowles

Katharine Pembroke

Rosy Shrestha, MSCCSP intern

Visitors:

Claire Rossmark, Department of Legislative Services

Jinney Smith, Maryland Data Analysis Center

1. Call to order

Judge Harrell called the meeting to order.

2. Roll call and declaration of quorum

The meeting began at 5:30 p.m. when attendance reached a quorum. All present introduced

themselves. Dr. Soulé noted that James V. Anthenelli (Public Representative) passed away

shortly after the May meeting. Judge Harrell added that Joseph I. Cassilly (State’s Attorney)

had sent a letter to the Governor indicating his intention to resign from the Commission.

3. Approval of minutes, May 19, 2015 meeting




2

4. Guidelines Subcommittee report – Judge Shannon Avery

Judge Avery reported on the Subcommittee’s September 2, 2015 teleconference to the

Commission.

a. Review of Committing a Crime of Violence in the Presence of a Minor

At the September 2 teleconference the Subcommittee discussed how the sentencing guidelines

ought to consider committing a crime of violence in the presence of a minor—whether as a

separate offense from the underlying crime of violence or as a sentencing enhancement. The

Commission had initially treated committing a crime of violence in the presence of a minor as a

separate offense for purposes of the sentencing guidelines; the Subcommittee decided to

recommend not changing the status quo.

Mr. Enzinna asked whether treating committing a crime of violence in the presence of a minor

as a separate offense would make it unavailable as an enhancement unless charged in the

indictment. Judge Avery responded that she did not believe so, as long as the state meets the

statute’s required notice and evidentiary standard. Mr. Finci added that he believed that because

of the required additional element the State’s Attorney would separately need to charge and

prove the presence of a minor beyond a reasonable doubt. Ms. Martin agreed with Mr. Finci.

For these reasons and given the benefits to the defense and the public of being on notice about

the increased penalty, the Subcommittee recommended taking no action.

Judge Harrell asked whether the Commission has ever reached out to the General Assembly to

note what appears to be an inconsistency or lack of clarity in a law and asked the General

Assembly to clarify its intent. Dr. Soulé responded that while nothing precludes the

Commission from doing so, he was unaware of it ever occurring. Judge Harrell noted that the

Commission might want to do so in the future to avoid the risk of misconstruing the statutory

intent.

By consensus the Commission agreed to take no action. The sentencing guidelines will

therefore continue to treat commit a crime of violence in the presence of a minor as a separate

offense.

b. Update #4 on review of guidelines compliance analysis for individual cells

At the May 2014 meeting, the Commission authorized MSCCSP staff to conduct an updated

analysis of guidelines compliance for individual matrix cells using data from fiscal years 2009

through 2013. The Guidelines Subcommittee reports at the September 2014, December 2014,

and May 2015 Commission meetings included updates from this analysis.

Concerning the current update, Judge Avery noted that at the May 2015 meeting the

Commission decided to allow MSCCSP staff time to run the proposed changes to the drug

offense matrix through the sentencing simulation model. MSCCSP staff did so, and the

Guidelines Subcommittee reviewed the results from the simulation model at its September 2,

2015, teleconference. For the sake of transparency and credibility, the Guidelines

Subcommittee now recommended that the Commission allow criminal justice stakeholders the

opportunity to comment at the Public Comments Hearing on the proposed changes to the drug

offense matrix before definitively going forward with changes to the matrix. The Guidelines

Subcommittee determined that when the Commission sends out its yearly announcement

concerning the Public Comments Hearing to key criminal justice stakeholders the materials



3

should explicitly state that the Commission was considering the proposed changes and invite

comment from interested persons. Judge Avery asked MSCCSP staff to review the results of

the simulation model.

Before presenting the results of simulation model analysis, Dr. Soulé briefly recapped the work

that was previously completed. He stated that the first step on the review was to identify matrix

cells with a guidelines compliance rate of less than 65% (with at least 50 observations). The

second step was to closely examine the sentences within these specific cells. During this review

process, it was observed that 27 (12%) of the total 224 cells across three matrices met the

criteria of less than 65% compliance and a sample size of at least 50 offenders during the 5-year

review period. For the most part, the 27 cells that met this criteria were scattered throughout the

matrices with one general exception. Specifically, it was observed that 8 of these cells were

grouped together among the seriousness category IV and V drug offenses. The Guidelines

Subcommittee felt it was reasonable to consider a revision to these two rows of the drug matrix

and directed the MSCCSP staff to develop revised cell ranges to reflect sentencing practices

more accurately, while maintaining proportionality across rows and columns of the matrix to be

consistent with the principles of the guidelines.

Ms. Bowles directed the Commission to the memorandum with the subject line “Update #4 on

Review of Guidelines Compliance for Individual Matrix Cells.” The memorandum shows that

offenders in rows IV and V of the drug offense matrix comprise approximately 12% of

guidelines offenders in FY09 to FY13. Approximately 11% of those offenders received

sentences to state prison. These offenders likely therefore represent approximately 1% of the

Division of Correction (DOC) annual intakes. Hence any changes to the drug offense matrix

will likely only affect a small number of offenders.

The simulation model shows that the proposed changes to the matrix could slightly reduce the

DOC’s population, but the extent of any decrease depends on compliance with the proposed

revisions and other factors. As an important caveat, Ms. Bowles noted, because the intent of the

proposed changes is to reflect better what judges are already doing, the proposed changes might

not have any effect on the DOC’s population at all. The changes might, however, induce some

judges to sentence defendants to lower terms of incarceration. The simulation model also

cannot speak to any effects on local jails.

Mr. Cooke asked whether the proposed revisions could potentially have an effect on local

correctional agencies Dr. Soulé replied that the proposed revisions could potentially impact the

local population. However, the Commission does not have data on local jails. The model is

therefore unable to address effects on local correctional populations. One might reasonably

expect some of the state prison sentences to become local commitments under the proposed

revisions. Delegate Anderson noted that in all likelihood, the proposed changes to the

guidelines only reflect what judges already do, so the local facilities should not experience

much displacement from the state prisons. Dr. Soulé agreed that there is a chance that the

revisions would have no effect, and only reflect what judges are already doing. Whether some

judges will change their practices is unknown. Mr. Cooke stated this will probably depend on

political conditions in different jurisdictions. Mr. Cooke indicated that the local agencies have

not raised this as in issue; he was noting only that it could raise budgetary and programmatic

concerns.



4

At Mr. Finci’s request, Dr. Soulé elaborated upon the proposed changes to the drug offense

matrix originally presented at the May 2015 Commission meeting. For each cell in the matrix

MSCCSP staff calculated what the range would need to be to capture the middle 65% of cases.

MSCCSP staff then proposed changes to the existing cell ranges, attempting to balance

capturing the middle 65% of cases and proportionality across offender scores and offense

seriousness categories. Incorporating appropriate increases and decreases across rows and

columns involved comparing cells to those above (less serious), below (more serious), to the

left (lower offender score), and right (higher offender score), and required changing cell ranges

for cells that already had at least 65% compliance for consistency and proportionality. Under

the proposed revised ranges all cells in rows IV and V of the drug offense matrix would have

had more than 65% compliance. Some of the cells already above 65% compliance would now

have lower compliance rates, though still above 65%, as detailed in the document presented at

the May 2015 Commission meeting titled Sentencing Guidelines Compliance by Cell for V and

IV Drug Offenses Based on Current and Proposed Ranges – Fiscal Years 2009-2013 – Single

Count Cases.

Mr. Finci expressed concern that the lower bounds in the proposed new cell ranges were still

too high, based on sentencing trends. The lower bound to capture the middle 65% for offenders

with an offender score 5, offense seriousness category IV, for example, would need to be .02

months (i.e., less than one day but greater than zero days). The proposed lower bound of 9

months might therefore send the wrong message about an appropriate sentence. To capture the

middle 65% of cases, the lower bound of cell 2-IV would need to be probation, as compared to

the current lower bound of 6 months and a proposed revised lower bound of 3 months. Mr.

Finci suggested decreasing the lower bound for cell 2-IV to probation, then increasing by 2

month increments as the offender score increases might be more appropriate. The currently

proposed new lower bounds, Mr. Finci opined, would still be too high. He did not take issue

with the proposed upper bounds.

Mr. Davis expressed similar concerns with respect to cell 4-V, where the lower bound for the

middle 65% would be .23 months (1 week), but the proposed new lower bound is 3 months

(decreased from the current lower bound of 1 year).

Ms. Martin noted that decreasing the lower bounds still further would undermine

proportionality, as the lower bounds for several additional cells would need to be probation.

The proposed new ranges, she stated, reflect what judges are doing as they capture at least 65%

of cases, she stated.

Judge Avery stated that for the structure and credibility of the process, if the Commission

wanted to explore other cell range boundaries, she would want to run those changes through the

simulation model to give the public the opportunity to comment. Judge Harrell noted that the

Commission could still tentatively approve the Subcommittee and MSCCSP staff’s

recommendation for purposes of receiving public comment. Putting a target out for people to

shoot at should be the outcome of the instant meeting, so that people who disagree could come

to the Public Comments Hearing in December prepared to offer alternate suggestions, and to

explain why the alternate proposal would be better.

Delegate Anderson suggested that the proposal(s) be available at least a month in advance to

give the public an opportunity to review. Judge Harrell agreed, noting that there ought to be



5

specific counterproposals to focus the debate. Mr. Finci asked whether the simulation model

could address the effects of specific counterproposals. Dr. Soulé indicated that was possible.

Judge Avery moved to tentatively approve the Subcommittee/MSCCSP staff-recommended

changes to the drug offense matrix subject to input received at the December 8 Public

Comments Hearing and Commission business meeting. Judge Salmon seconded.

Mr. Davis expressed concern that previous Public Comment Hearings have not produced much

meaningful public comment. In the absence of meaningful public comment he would not want

the Commission to just automatically move ahead without further discussion. Judge Harrell

indicated that use of the word tentative referred to its use in the Commission bylaws, which

state “[t]he Commission may tentatively but not officially approve actions pending

dissemination and reporting of the preliminary vote and receipt of feedback from relevant

practitioners and related parties.” He indicated that he wanted a focused concrete

counterproposal with an explanation of why it would be better and more consistent with the

Commission’s mandate than the current proposal.

The motion passed by consensus.

c. Review of new and/or revised criminal penalties, 2015 Legislative Session

Judge Avery noted that the 2015 legislative session did not produce any new offenses with a

maximum carceral penalty greater than 1 year, increase any existing maximum carceral

penalties of 1 year or less to be greater than 1 year, or substantively revise any existing offenses

with maximum carceral penalties greater than one year. The Guidelines Subcommittee

recommended no action concerning the new and revised criminal penalties from the 2015

legislative session. (By MSCCSP rule, any offense with a maximum carceral penalty of 1 year

or less automatically receives a seriousness category VII (COMAR 14.22.01.09B(2)(f)) unless

the Commission chooses to adopt a different seriousness category.) Based on the Guidelines

Subcommittee’s recommendation the Commission took no action, allowing the default

category VII rule and existing seriousness category classifications to cover the new and revised

offenses. Some nonsubstantive changes to COMAR 14.22.02.02 and the Guidelines Offense

Table will nevertheless be necessary to reflect, e.g., changes to subsection designations. The

2015 laws considered are:

i. Chapter 393 (HB 9) – Maryland Licensure of Direct-Entry Midwives Act –Violation of

any provision of Health Occupations Article, Title 8, Subtitle 6c (Licensed Direct-Entry

Midwives) (HO, § 8-6C-24);

ii. Chapter 419 (HB 431) – Public Health & Safety, Crimes Against – Burying or disposing

of a dead human body other than as permitted by law (HG, § 5-514);

iii. Chapter 444 (HB 630) – Motor Vehicle Offenses – Offer, sell, negotiate a mechanical

repair contract if not a licensed vehicle dealer or registered obligor (TR,

§ 15-311.2(c)(5), TR, § 27-101(ff) (penalty));

iv. Chapter 453 (HB 744) – Consumer Protection Laws – Failure to remove mug shot photo

within 30 days without charge (CL, § 14-1324, CL§ 13-411 (penalty));



6

v. Chapter 462 (HB 871) – Tax Preparer Prohibited Acts – Violating any provision of

Business Occupations and Professions Article, Title 21 (Individual Tax Preparers),

subsequent (BO, § 21-405(b));

vi. Chapter 5 (SB 69 / CF HB 181) – Pharmacists and Pharmacies Prohibited Acts –

Violations of certain provisions of Health Occupations Article, Title 12 (HO, § 12-701,

HO § 12-702, HO, § 12-703, HO, § 12-704, HO, § 12-6B-12, HO, § 12-6D-15, HO,

§ 12-707(b) (penalty));

vii. Chapter 69 (HB 106) – Public Health and Safety, Crimes Against – Unlawfully cause or

unlawfully dump, deposit, throw, etc., litter, no more than 100 lbs. in weight or 27 cubic

feet in volume (CR, § 10-110(f)(2)(i)) – Unlawfully cause or unlawfully dump, deposit,

throw, etc., litter, greater than 100 lbs. in weight or 27 cubic feet in volume (CR,

§ 10-110(f)(2)(ii)) – Unlawfully cause or unlawfully dump, deposit, throw, etc., litter

greater than 500 lbs. in weight or 216 cubic feet in volume or for commercial purposes

(CR, § 10-110(f)(2)(iii));

viii. Chapter 140 (HB 942 / CF SB 772) – Apprenticeship and Job Training Standards –

Knowingly offer, establish, maintain, or operate an apprenticeship or on-the-job training

program other than as permitted (LE, § 11-405(b)(6));

ix. Chapter 198 (SB 767) – Election Offenses – Knowing and willful violation of Election

Law Article, Title 14 (Disclosure by Persons Doing Public Business) (EL, § 14-107(d))

– Knowing and willful violation of Title 14 Disclosure by Persons Doing Public

Business (GP, § 5-716(l));

x. Chapter 261 (HB 566) – Fraud, Miscellaneous – Knowing and willful false statement in

connection with an application under Heath—General Article, Title 7, Subtitle 9 (HG,

§ 7-910(b));

xi. Chapter 293 (HB 1032) – Weapons Crimes—In General – Carrying or possessing

firearm, knife, or deadly weapon on school property, other than handgun (CR, § 4-102);

xii. Chapter 312 (HB 485 / CF SB 593) – Election Offenses – Knowing and willful violation

of General Provisions Article, Title 5, Subtitle 7 (GP, § 5-903(a), (b));

xiii. Chapter 321 (SB 67) – Burglary and Related Crimes – Home Invasion (CR, § 6-202(d));

xiv. Chapter 351 (SB 456) – CDS and Paraphernalia – Possession—unlawful possession or

administering to another, obtaining, etc., substance or paraphernalia by fraud, forgery,

misrepresentation, etc.; affixing forged labels; altering etc., label; unlawful possession

or distribution of controlled paraphernalia—marijuana because of medical necessity

(CR, 5-601(c)(3)) – Paraphernalia —use or possession, with intent to use, subsequent—

marijuana because of medical necessity (CR, § 5-619(c));

xv. Chapter 357 (SB 520) – Prostitution and Related Crimes – Prostitution, etc.—General

assignment and solicitation (CR, § 11-306(a))



7

xvi. Chapter 361 (SB 549 / CF HB 52) – Identity Fraud – Possess, obtain personally

identifying information or willfully assume the identity of another, benefit $100,000 or

greater (CR, § 8-301(b), (c), CR, § 8-301(g)(1)(iii) (penalty)) – Possess, obtain

personally identifying information or willfully assume the identity of another, benefit at

least $10,000 but less than $100,000 (CR, § 8-301(b), (c), CR, § 8-301(g)(1)(ii)

(penalty)) – Possess, obtain personally identifying information or willfully assume the

identity of another, benefit at least $1,000 but less than $10,000 (CR, § 8-301(b), (c),

CR, § 8-301(g)(1)(i) (penalty)) – Possess, obtain personally identifying information or

willfully assume the identity of another, benefit less than $1,000 (CR, § 8-301(b), (c),

CR, § 8-301(g)(2) (penalty));

xvii. Chapter 396 (HB 73) – Election Offenses – Violate election laws as defined in Election

Law Article, § 16-201, Annotated Code of Maryland (EL § 16-201);

xviii. Chapter 402 (HB 120) – Influence of Intimidating Judicial Process – Failure to appear in

connection with a felony (CP, § 5-211(c)(1)) – Failure to appear in connection with a

misdemeanor or for appearance as witness (CP, § 5-211(c)(2));

xix. Chapter 410 (HB 236 / CF SB 705) – Assault and Other Bodily Woundings – Assault on

law enforcement officer or parole or probation agent or first responder, 2nd degree (CR,

§ 3-203(c));

xx. Chapter 454 (HB 769) – Election Offenses – Knowing and willful violation of Election

law Article, Title 20 (EL, § 14-107(d), (e));

xxi. Chapter 470 (HB 1172) – Fraud, Miscellaneous – Knowing and willful false statement

in connection with an application under Health—General Article, Title 7, Subtitle 9

(HG, § 7-910(c)); and

xxii. Chapter 490 (HB 121) – CDS and Paraphernalia – Unlawful distribution, manufacture,

counterfeiting, possession, etc., of certain equipment for illegal use; keeping common

nuisance, narcotics and hallucinogenics (e.g., heroin, cocaine, oxycodone, and

methadone), subsequent (CR, § 5-608(b), CR, § 5-609(b), CR, § 5-608(c), CR,

§ 5-609(c), CR, § 5-608(d), CR, § 5-609(d)) – Unlawful distribution, manufacture,

counterfeiting, manufacture, possession, etc., of certain equipment for illegal use;

keeping common nuisance, MDMA, 750 grams or more, subsequent (CR, § 5-609(b),

CR, § 5-609(c), CR, § 5-609(d)) – Unlawful distribution, manufacture, counterfeiting,

manufacture, possession, etc., of certain equipment for illegal use; keeping common

nuisance, Schedules I through V non-narcotics (e.g., amphetamines, marijuana, MDMA

under 750g), and buprenorphine, subsequent (CR, § 5 607(b))

d. Proposed Classification of Select Unclassified Existing Offenses Punishable with More

Than 1 Year of Incarceration

Judge Avery indicated that MSCCSP staff had identified two existing offenses with maximum

carceral penalties greater than 1 year that the Commission had not previously classified.

xxiii. Alcoholic Beverages – County-specific provisions concerning giving, serving,

dispensing, keeping, or allowing alcoholic beverages without license; bottle clubs;



8

places of public entertainment – Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Caroline, Charles,

Dorchester, Frederick, Kent, Prince George’s, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, Talbot,

Wicomico, or Worcester Counties, or Baltimore City (2B, § 20-101, 2B, § 20-103, 2B,

§ 20-103.1, 2B, § 20-103.2, 2B, § 20-105, 2B, § 20-105.1, 2B, § 20-106, 2B,

§ 20-107.1, 2B, § 20-108.1, 2B, § 20-108.2, 2B, § 20-110, 2B, § 20-111, 2B, § 20-112,

2B, § 20-113, 2B, § 20-102). By consensus vote, the Commission adopted the

Subcommittee’s recommendation to add this offense to the Guidelines Offense Table

as a property offense with a seriousness category of VII.

xxiv. CDS & Paraphernalia – Distribute, possess, manufacture, or use cannabis diverted from

a qualifying patient, caregiver, licensed grower, or licensed dispensary (HG,

§ 13-3313(b)). By consensus vote, the Commission adopted the Subcommittee’s

recommendation to add this offense to the Guidelines Offense Table as a drug offense

with a seriousness category of IV.

5. Executive Director report – Dr. David Soulé

MSCSSP staff has continued to work on deployment of the Maryland Automated Guidelines

System (MAGS). On June 1, an updated version (MAGS 4.0) became operational in the

counties then-currently using MAGS (Calvert, Frederick, and Montgomery). On July 1 Charles

started using MAGS. Between the current (September) meeting and the next (December)

meeting Prince George’s County will deploy on October 1 and St. Mary’s County should

deploy on either November 1 or December 1, at which point the entire sixth and seventh

circuits will be using MAGS, together covering approximately 30% of guidelines cases in

Maryland. The Office of the Attorney General (OAGS) now also has the ability to log in to

MAGS, allowing its attorneys to use MAGS when prosecuting cases in MAGS jurisdictions.

The OAGS will likely begin using MAGS after a scheduled training session in October.

Dr. Soulé also discussed progress in the juvenile delinquency score study. The Commission has

partnered with the Maryland Data Analysis Center (MDAC) at the University of Maryland due

to the complexities involved in working with juvenile data and to allow the Commission to

benefit from the research expertise MDAC can provide. The University’s Institutional Review

Board approved the project in May, MDAC submitted a research application to the Department

of Juvenile Services (DJS), and MDAC is awaiting the results of the research approval

committee DJS. MDAC also requested adult recidivism data from the Department of Public

Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS), which DPSCS approved pending completion of a

memorandum of understanding.

The third item in the Executive Director report concerned the risk assessment feasibility study.

Dr. Soulé noted that the research team from the University of Maryland was planning to

provide, at the December 2015 meeting, a follow-up to the initial white paper seeking to

address the main issues raised at the September 2014 meeting. Those issues are (1) the desire

for a risk-only versus a risk-and-needs instrument; (2) the informational demands of risk-and-

needs instruments, and the availability of such information in Maryland; (3) more specific

information on the feasibility of adapting existing tools; and (4) information on the advantages

and disadvantages of different measures of recidivism. The research team will provide

additional information and research, to help guide the Commission through each decision point

in the risk assessment instrument implementation process.



9

6. Date, time, and location of annual Public Comments Hearing

The annual Public Comments Hearing will take place on Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at

5:30 pm in the House Office Building. The Commission’s business meeting will follow at 7:00

pm.

7. Old business

None.

8. News business and announcements None.

The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.

Documents

Minutes · 2016-02-23 · MSCCSP Meeting – Minutes May 19, 2015 3 efforts in Texas have a longer track record and recidivism and crime rates have both decreased. The Project tries