Judiciary Juvenile 2.9.26

Good afternoon. Well, hello. Good afternoon. Can anyone hear me? Alright.

Can everyone hear me now? Wonderful. Wonderful. Felt like I was in a Verizon commercial for a moment. I am excited everyone is here today.

Welcome to judiciary juvenile for unprecedented time at 03:00, 04:00, whatever time it is on Monday. Our normal meeting time is Wednesday, but we have a couple of bills that we're gonna hear today and let the committee make some decisions. First and foremost, represent or chairman Gullett. You are here. Chairman Gullett, this would be your your second time coming to this committee.

I believe it's the third time the bill's been heard, or is it second time? Second time. Second time. And, you're bringing the substitute for h b two five six, I believe. Please have a seat, and we're ready whenever you are.

Thank you, members. Members. Just a quick reminder. So, yeah, we tried to do it last time. We just weren't able to work out with the sub we had.

This is house bill two five six. It's, l c four eight one seven one one s. And what this does is it updates the Georgia's Georgia's Foster Parent Bill of Rights. I'll go through a little bit briefly what what the bill does and then just talk about what the changes were we made in the substitute and and then we can go from there. When the foster parent bill of rights was created in, early two thousands, that largely meant defects homes.

But today, children, aren't just placed in defects homes and not just defects foster parents, but, their private agency foster parents or relatives that are placed with their fictive kin that is placed with. And these bill this bill recognizes those caregivers, are essential, partners and ensures that they're treated consistently and fairly. It also focuses exclusively on the relationship between the caregivers and the department. It does not create new rights in juvenile court. It does not change custody or judicial authority.

It does not mandate new services or spending. What this does is just clarifies existing rights around communication, training, case plan participation, and normalcy for children. It reinforces the reasonable and prudent parent standard. It adds explicit protection against retaliation, and it creates a clear administrative grievance process. It, this bill also, really one of the most important parts about it, is it allows foster parents to request support from a trained certified volunteer advocate during administrative investigations or disputes.

And that advocate is not an, is not an attorney, does not interfere with investigations, and does not impact child safety decisions. But ultimately, this hopefully will make well, I believe this will make being a foster parent or being a fictive kid, someone who's taking care of children have the ability to have a better, relationship with, defects, and ultimately be a better foster parent to the kids. So what we did in the substitute last time we had it, there were a few suggestions by, defects department, and I think, they were they were in good faith, and I I appreciate those. If you look at section two, we did change so before we just, called a a foster I I can't remember exactly what we call it. Like, the certified vol certified volunteer advocate had the same definition as foster parent.

But we changed that to say foster placement, because not all, foster placements are foster parents. And there's a distinction, with those differences and those definitions with defects. Additionally, we included this language, as part of forty nine five two eighty one because that's where the confidentiality statute is. So the reason that these, certified volunteer advocates are able to help is because they're able to actually have some some understanding and and are able to get the information to help the foster parents. So today only the foster parent who's a defects, you know like a certified defects home is not right, the wording, but just the gist of it.

They get information that's confidential, but if you're an advocate, this will allow you to also get confidential information so that you can be an advocate and then you'll see on line 43, it says foster placement. That's a new definition posture placement. That's a new definition to kind of incorporate and encompass, everything we think about from a foster, relationship, a parental unit, whether it's foster parents, just a caregiver, a fictive kin, whatever that might be. It's just kind of the the new definition that we have. So it's not just foster parents.

And then throughout the bill, you'll see, like, line 51, struck out parents for placements. So we just really made placements kind of throughout, where we were talking when it was appropriate when we're talking about this new definition. If you see line 71, that's where we're talking about the prudent parent new standard. The right to use reasonable and prudent parent standard when determining the ability of a child in foster care to engage in extracurricular enrichment, cultural, social, or skill building activities. That's really current law today.

This is just restating it, very clearly in the bill of rights. And then you'll also see where online one fifty two, this is about the, right to be provided a fair, timely, and partial investigation of complaints, of the foster home, to have the opportunity, for a certified volunteer advocate in foster placement. So it's just having help along the way. So if you have something that's you're accused of, you're able to, to have help today. It's really you versus defects through that process.

And then line one sixty, that just talks about the certified volunteer advocate. That's what, gives them permission to be at the meetings. We already give them the right to have the, confidential information, but to be but to participate in the conversation, with you to help you. And then line one sixty six, that's the right to be free from retaliation or discrimination based upon the filing of any complaint or grievance against, defects. And then line one sixty eight is the right to seek or obtain independent legal advice or counsel regarding the fosters placement status.

Today you could do that but they can't get the confidential information and they can't really help you. So, I'm happy to answer any questions about this. Again, this is we talked about last time in 2020, 2023 this bill passed the senate. In 2024 this bill passed the house. The senate did not agree, not because they disagreed but because they what I understand they forgot to agree in the chaos of San Die.

So, here we are. We did change a few things because we did talk about initially the language talked about a certified foster home, or licensed foster home, I believe is what it was. We don't have licenses today for foster homes. We just have your certified foster home or not, through defects. But I'm happy to answer any questions about this.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. And so if it passed the senate in '23 and it passed the house in '24, and, of course, she did make some changes based on, deputy director Quick's recommendations, which

That's right.

Not sure if DFACS is here to speak on behalf of that or not. I know they're here. Okay. Do you wanna speak on this bill after questions? We just wanted to make sure we call it for working.

Can you see where we Come on up.

They just said I was awesome, and they appreciate that.

I I heard the awesome part. You definitely want that so that every other folks at home can hear that. Honestly, if somebody said that about me, I'd probably want a t shirt.

Absolutely. You got it.

Perfect.

No. We're fine with the the substitute language. We just wanna thank Chairman Gullet and the committee for allowing us to to work with you guys and to offer the the language that better suits us.

Alright. And since you were gracious enough to come, for anyone watching that's not in the room, can you introduce yourself and give your, your job title?

Yes. I'm the director of governmental affairs for the Georgia Department of Human Services. My name is Emma Lone, formerly Emma McCullough. So I've had the opportunity to work with most of this committee so far, but grateful to to have so many names in this committee and let us know if we can do anything for you guys.

Great. Thank you. Thank you for that information. Alright. We do have a question, 25, which Madam chair.

Okay. Please Thank

you, madam chair. Representative, I wanna say thank you for this. I appreciate the changes too, and it looks great to me and at the appropriate time.

Great. Thank you. Do are there any further questions on this matter? We talked about it a lot last time. I'm glad we were able to get the language hammered out with, defects.

So, they're in good shape, and you're in good shape. Are there any further questions of the committee? Alright. What's the will of the committee at this point?

Make a motion to do pass. Alright.

Thank you. A motion and a second. Alright. Any discussion? Alright.

Appears to be no discussion, no questions. We have a motion to pass. Alright. Let's let's vote.

Let's do

it. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed? Alright. Thank you.

Unanimous.

Thank you all.

Thank you so much. Make sure, you let me sign your rules form. Okay? Thank you. Alright.

Wonderful. Alright. So, our next bill today, representative Lim, I believe you have H B673. Alright. Representative Lim, whenever you're ready, make sure you share your LC number

with us, please. Thank you, madam chair and this committee. I do appreciate the opportunity to present H b six seventy three in front of you today. We are working off the originally introduced LC that is LC forty eight nine zero zero two. And I appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation.

If you haven't read the bill, obviously, I'll go over it quickly. So this bill extends our state's first offender act to those who are minor, specifically those age 13 through 16 and are tried, for serious crimes. Under our current first offender law, we permit defendants who have not been previously previously convicted of a felony an opportunity in the court's discretion to defer the entering of a judgment of guilt after a guilty plea of null or of a guilty verdict while still being placed on a sentence of probation or confinement.

Then, and this

is the the of probation or confinement. Then, and this is the the grand purpose of it, if they are then able to complete the terms of their first offender sentence, including, of course, not being convicted for any other crime, they will then be exonerated and discharged and their records sealed. This current law as it stands applies to people of all ages and it recognizes a few interests. Couple of them that we know that, of course, people can make serious mistakes while still being deserving if they prove themselves to be able to rebuild their lives, other interests such as prison overcrowding, etcetera. What h b six seventy three seeks to do is to recognize, and here I will mention, of course, especially this committee and the house in general, has been particularly committed to recognizing those who are minors, particularly those who are 17, that they are still they are still growing, that they are still in their in their formative years.

Thus, if they have committed one very serious crime, our courts under this bill, still in their discretion, should be able to consider giving them one chance, a chance to be clear, not to be released with absolutely no punishment or incapacitation. Here I will note that h b six seventy three unlike our current first offender law and consistent with the weight of the crimes to which we're attempting to extend first offender, possibilities, requires both probation and confinement, in sentencing for this group of youth with links that would be concurrent with sentencing for the crimes committed. Thus, automatically as the bill is written, it wouldn't apply to some crimes anyway. For example, first degree murder for which under our current laws you have to serve life. So to be clear, it is one chance upon the first and only the first commission of that crime and only if the court decides it's appropriate to allow them to show that they are not, a, at risk of recidivism and that, b, they deserve to be exonerated so as not to live with a serious criminal record for the rest of their lives.

Of course, if they do some, if they do commit crimes after their their sentence the first offender sentences, which again, they would have to serve anyway. Our current first offender law already provides access to that information by prosecutors and judges for appropriate sentencing. I will say two more things. One is I really appreciate the conversations that I've been able to have with the prosecuting attorneys, with with Gactyl, and and all of the supporters. I am very open to to having this this conversation, and I I do there I know there will be proposed changes, by others, and I'm I'm very open to those personally.

I know it is the will of the committee. But for now and the second thing, I would like to introduce mister Corey Clubinger whose story was the first inspiration this bill. I know a number of these committee members have, already listened to him, but I really want to be able to to hear from him.

Okay. Please just introduce yourself if you don't mind. And, I know you were constituent of representative Lembs, but now you're you are no longer living in our state. Correct?

No, ma'am.

Alright. If you could kinda give, just where you currently not your address, but you're sitting in your state where you currently reside, that would be wonderful.

Yes. Thank you. My name is Corey Clevenger. I'm currently living in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. I moved there about a year and a half ago to begin my life with my lovely partner who is also here.

I'm the author of this bill. Obviously, many of you have already met with me and spoken with me about this bill. I wrote this bill, and I'm personally impacted by this bill. Today, actually, is the third anniversary of my release from a twenty year prison sentence that started based off of a crime that I committed twenty three years ago today, about a month after I turned 13 years old. So this day has always been a powerful day for me.

It's full of regret for my actions and layered with the remorse for the pain that I've caused to my victim and her family. Another layer was created when I was released and reconnected to my loved ones and my family three years ago. And now today, a new layer of hope exists for my future and for the future of others like me who went to prison when they were children and then worked every single day of their lives after that moment to become better people and to reenter our society. From my personal experience, when you're 13 and you receive a twenty year prison sentence, it's incredibly hard not to equate that with eternity. And then when you add a twenty year probation sentence after that prison sentence, it becomes even harder.

I knew many kids who felt that they had no future and no reason to rehabilitate or make better decisions. But like me, a lot of us did anyway in spite of the crushing feelings of hopelessness and despair. In the two decades that I spent incarcerated, I received my GED when I was 16. I had hoped to pursue college courses, but I wasn't eligible for financial aid because of the nature of my crime. So I spent all of my time reading everything that I could get a hold of to try to learn about the world that I would someday rejoin.

Eventually, I became a teacher's assistant, and for five years, I helped others get their education and their GEDs. I led a self help group at Riverbend Correctional Facility. I started a writing and poetry workshop in a faith based storm that I was in. I spent almost five years in a dog training program funded by Auburn University at Coffey Correctional Facility. And I got a non ABA paralegal certif certif certificate from the American Center for Legal Studies through Ohio University.

So far, it has not led to me being able to get a job in a law office, but it set me on the path of legal research and writing that led to this bill. When I got out, I struggled to find full time employment. I made it so far into interviews for positions only to get turned down after a background check. I was in the final round for a position at New York Life to be a financial advisor. I would have received paid training, full benefits, assistance in preparing for the financial adviser licensing exam, base pay, and commissions.

It was a dream opportunity. Before my background check, I told my hiring manager what they would find. He went and discussed it with the legal team and they said that it would be impossible for me to get the licensing to do the job because of my record. And on top of that, they could not take on the liability of hiring a felon. My experience is just one example where someone who started from a similar position as mine coming out of prison after starting as a child only to get out and hit barrier after barrier.

Thankfully, I had a lot of different types of support to lean on in my life, but others aren't so fortunate. Since I wrote this bill, I've been connecting with other people who were tried as adults when they were teens. They turned their lives around, got their educations, some even got pardons, but they're still getting turned down for great jobs because of their criminal records. This bill will seal records, open opportunities, and change lives. It will give kids and others incarcerated since they were kids hope for a brighter future than the one that they can imagine right now.

That hope is an incentive to rehabilitate and make better life choices. And those decisions will build habits that lead to successful reintegration into society. My efforts to get this bill passed aren't just for me. I'm driven by all the people who are struggling under the weight of the decision that they made as children. I'm driven by the kids who are sitting in youth detention centers right now, who are just beginning to understand the crime that they committed and have no idea about the journey that's ahead of them.

I'm fighting for the kids who are sitting in an adult prison right now, fighting their own battle against the despair of never being able to live a normal life. Although nothing can take back the choices that we made or the harm that we've caused, we can pay our debts to society, rehabilitate ourselves, and become members of our communities. If children aren't capable of redemption, what hope does anyone else have? Please give Georgia's children a second chance and vote to pass h b six seventy three.

Great. Thank you. And thank you for being here today and sharing

this story. Hearing me.

Alright. Committee members, do we have any questions for the bill's author and the inspiration for the bill? Alright. We do. Let's see.

Is that representative Fincher? Is that you down there? That's me. Okay. Alright.

Representative Fincher, go ahead and ask your question, please. Make sure you're in the mic.

I'm not sure you're the hook.

Oh, gracious. Are you number 24? No. Oh, it's Carmen Rice. I apologize.

I apologize. Representative Bryce, please go ahead.

Thank you, Kimberly. And, thank you for this bill. I do have a couple questions. So what do what would the procedures look like and that, courts would use to determine eligibility for retroactive first offender treatment?

So the the procedures for which they would determine whether that someone is eligible would be essentially the same as the procedures for which they are already, implemented for first offender. Courts look at a number of of different factors, as far as as as mister Clevenger said stated rehabilitation, in terms of completion of of classes, in terms of also risk. So there are not it's not purely scientific and it never has been, and it's looking at the benefits and risks essentially. And these are what courts consider. These are also what our state board of pardons and parole consider.

And so these are existing, and then we are, under this bill, attempting to apply it for for this class of people.

Also, if I may. So someone would have to, first of all, complete their incarceration, and they would be released. And then they would have to complete their supervision, whatever that is, parole, probation. Just as an example, I was sentenced to twenty years of probation. So I wouldn't be eligible for this bill until I've completed my my my supervision.

And then once that was done, then, there is language in there where the prosecutor must consent, and then it would go to a motion to the courts. Basically, as far as the criteria to complete this bill, as representative Lim mentioned, it is very similar to the original First Offender Act, but we did add a section that would relate to sex crimes so that someone would have to be a first, a level one, the lowest tier of sex offender registry to be eligible for this bill. And, that they could not have, there is an exception for violations of probation, but only as it pertains to, technical violations of probation.

Okay. Thank you. And may I do one more follow-up? So, so how exactly would we ensure consistency? As we give, you know, the judges, they have judicial discretion, right?

And so, depending in order to be charged as adult had has to be one that's what's considered the seven deadly sins, right?

Yes.

So the judges have that discretion. And how do we how would this bill ensure consistency on who would be would qualify for this and who would not?

Yes. So in in my view, the consistency comes a lot from because I feel it cannot be emphasized enough. The completion of the sentence, we know that there are those, whether they're first offender or otherwise, that violate the terms of their probation, whether that is technical or nontechnical violations. So if the belief or the theory is that if you have committed a crime, you have a chance to to prove yourself, then the main safeguard to releasing someone before they're ready is truly completing the terms of those sentences. And, of course, even that still is not enough.

We do lead to some discretion. It's never going to be absolutely consistent. We do give, again, for example, with our state board of pardons and paroles, we give, certain criteria that that people have to meet and yet the state board in pardon parole quite, I won't say frequently, but often does say, despite you meeting these criteria, we still feel that you are a risk. We are not seeking to change that. Some level of discretion is, yeah, we think important.

But the main safeguard again is that you are completing, what is again, for these specific crimes, pretty lengthy sentences for a lot of chances for you, I'll just say colloquially, to mess up. But also to say, if you can actually do that, then you are, meriting the consideration under here. So I think that's the most important thing in my opinion that will ensure the consistency and not everyone will be able to meet that.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you, representative Rice, for those questions. Representative Oliver, I believe you have a question for us.

I was asking one of my friends here. There is no retroactive first offender status for adults.

The, if you look at section four of,

the For crimes that were committed by adults. This is only limited to crimes that were committed by 17.

Oh, you mean under this current bill? Oh, yes. Yes.

Yes. And is there retroactive first defendant for adults?

Yes. There to my orch order retroactively granting first offender treatment and discharge the defendant pursuant to this article if the court finds by preponderance of the evidence the defendant was eligible for sentencing under the terms of this article at the time he or she was originally sentenced or that he or she qualifies for sentencing under paragraph two of sub section a of the code section. So that, as you can see, is not underlined. That is existing existing law.

And it seems to be, if I'm reading this correctly, which I might not be, less hurdles for an adult to get retroactive than it does for the language that you've set out for a child? Or is it the same criteria, the same for a 17 year old as for an adult? It

the nature of the the comparison to me comes from not their age

Mhmm.

But the seriousness of the offense.

Okay.

As the current first offender law exists, and you'll see that both in reference to section 15, but also in in section three of the biller lines, basically, 63 through 80 or 90, Excuse me. They these are some of the or these are an exhaustive list of the offenses for which you do not currently qualify under first offender status. Under this bill, we are still not saying if you're an adult and you commit these offenses that you would qualify for first offender treatment. But But you would as a go ahead. Please, sir.

Forgive me for interrupting you, but an adult has an option for retroactive, first amendment under current law, and the child a a person who commits a crime as a child does not have that option. Is that current law? And this would change it for the child to have an option for first offender treatment. Am I understanding what we're saying here? Somebody's nodding in that out there.

Yes. If I if I'm gonna answer it.

I think I'm under you go ahead.

Yes. So currently, children who are adjudicated of, any of the seven deadly sins under s b four forty, they do not currently have this option for first offender.

So we're only doing seven deadly sins.

Yes. Because usually if you're charged in the juvenile court, once you've turned 18 and you've completed all the requirements, then usually your record is sealed anyway. Right.

Thank you so much for that great question. Representative Townsend, I believe you've got a question

next for us. Thank you. Thank you, madam chairwoman. Couple questions, representative. I appreciate this bill, your efforts in it.

On page, I guess, line seventy, seventy one, then just, let's say, 75, 76, You mentioned specific codes, like, with the exception of serious felony, such terms code section seventeen ten six dash one and sexual offense, seventeen ten six dash two. So you're saying they would not be able to get that second offend that first offender status and it everything sealed. What are those offenses per se? What's the serious felony? What's the sexual offense?

I assume sexual offense is rape where it's not consensual and it's not statutory, anything like that. It's pure just rape itself,

what it says. I I don't I don't have the exhaustive list committed to memory, but for seventeen ten six point one, it would include laws such as murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and the like. And the sexual crimes would be aggravated aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, rape, and I believe aggravated sexual battery. Okay. I I don't have the exhaustive list.

No. I

understand. That's that's fine. Thank you. And so they would not qualify for what we're for the bill is. Correct?

They they would qualify. They would qualify. Those are the crimes that actually allow juveniles to be prosecuted in the superior court. Juveniles cannot be prosecuted in the superior court for any other crimes. So the rest of this list below that are really not at issue here because those are not crimes that juveniles can be tried as adults for to begin with.

So short of the first two?

Yes.

Okay. So I'm sorry.

Oh, so the on you're pointing to line seventy and seventy one. There is a quite large universe of those crimes, and I also don't have the exhaustive list in front of me. The crimes that mister Clevenger referenced to the seven deadly sins, that is a subset of those crimes. Now for all that entire, seventy and seventy one right now, those are crimes that minors would be tried in or could be tried in superior court for. And so what we are attempting to do is if you are a minor and you commit one of these crimes, then you would be eligible for first offender status, but not if you're an adult and commit these crimes.

Okay. So that that would include, 16 year old raping someone or and it wouldn't be the consensual type. It wouldn't be the statutory, like, sixteen fourteen. It'd be just

a pure So as this bill is written, they would be eligible. But when you read the the actual penalties that are available for sentencing for rape, for example, the minimum sentence that you can get is twenty five years incarceration and then, key point, a lifetime of probation. Under this bill, you have to complete your supervision. So if you never complete your supervision, you would never actually become eligible. So there are checks and balances that that weigh out these things.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your response. Chairman Smith, go ahead with your question.

Yes. Thank you, to the bill author, representative Lamb. We've known each other over ten years now, I believe. So I don't know if that makes us old, but, real quick. What is the minimum age that you say the seven deadly is pursued?

13.

13.

Under section 15 of the code.

Okay. Alright. And your bill wouldn't change that?

Correct. It would the the background of, the substantive crime and the sentencing would not change at

all. K.

Thank you. I appreciate the robust participation. Are there any further questions at this time for the bill's author? Alright. I do believe.

Do we have some folks signed up to speak? I think we do, don't we? We do. Alright. So, if you gentlemen will take a moment Take your madam.

And, we will certainly allow some folks to speak to the bill. Thank you very much for being here today, mister Clavenger. Alright. Alright. Alright.

First person we have in our list is, Sarah Japore, and here with the West Georgia Judicial Circuit District Attorney. Is that correct? Alright. Wonderful. Alright.

Please go to the podium whenever you're well, podium. Yeah. Podium. If you don't mind. No.

You're fine. You're fine. I should have specified.

So I good morning or good afternoon. It's afternoon. I've been here all day. So I'm Sarah Japore. I'm the district attorney in the newly created West Georgia Judicial Circuit.

I represent Carroll and Heard Counties. I became a prosecutor in the state of Georgia in November 2001. I went to work for Pete Skandalakis in the Coweta Judicial Circuit. I spent my first eighteen years in Heard County where I did everything from speeding to murder and including children and adults. So I have eighteen years' worth of experience in juvenile court.

I then worked in Carroll, the Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit, and last year, the governor appointed me as the district attorney. I'm grateful and honored to be able to come and speak with y'all today. I was asked to look at, this bill. I'm new to kind of this whole process. I had an opportunity that was wonderful this morning to meet with representative Lim and kinda talk about, the bill and, what was behind it and just kind of some of the concerns from a practical sense.

I did, at his request, draft kind of some proposed changes, that I think he kind of hit on and talked about, but I do have that. I don't know if it's appropriate or proper for me to provide that or not.

Well, if you'd like to share, you don't have to read word for word, but if you'd like to share some of the points that you have found, that would be helpful.

I can. Yes. Yes, ma'am. So let me just start off by saying that, just in my this is my 20. I really find this bill enlightening and refreshing.

We find ourselves a lot of times in situations where we're dealing with children that have committed horrible crimes, and sometimes there's this middle ground. We don't feel like it's quite appropriate to stay in juvenile court, but the confines of what we find ourselves in adult court don't seem right either. And I think that this bill gives that opportunity to be able to to give grace tempered with, the justice system and accountability, that I think could really be a positive impact on our ability to prosecute. We're just concerned with some of the way that it's written and maybe the practical aspect of how it will be applied. For example and I I everything that I'm saying to you, I had a conversation with representative Lim.

He was open to the conversation about that. The way that the bill is written starting on line 45, it includes all of code section fifteen eleven five sixty. Fifteen eleven five sixty is the code that grants the state the ability to take a child 13 to 17 into adult court. And then there are two aspects to that code section. There's the original jurisdiction in Superior Court, those that, we were talking about that some people refer to as the seven deadlies, although there's more than seven, there's actually 12.

That would be murder, murder in the second degree, which is, would be cruelty to children, murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, armed robbery if committed with a firearm, aggravated assault if committed with a firearm. That was a new ad this year that we're dealing with in the DA's office. Aggravated battery upon a public safety officer, a terroristic act upon a school in violation of subsection c, and attempt to commit murder. Those all have original jurisdiction. So if anybody 13 or older commits any of those crimes, they originally go to superior court.

And, you have to have a hearing within a certain number of hours for them to understand and appreciate the fact that they're in superior court. And then the district attorney's office has to make a determination as to whether they're gonna stay in superior court or or whether we're going to put it down into juvenile court. Those are the only options that we have. In fifteen eleven five sixty, there is also a list of crimes where we have concurrent jurisdiction. And the concurrent jurisdiction, allows us to pull a case into superior court or leave it in juvenile court.

It can either start where law enforcement takes out, criminal warrants and we start with it in superior court, or they can do a juvenile complaint and it starts in juvenile court. Those are all of the other serious violent, felonies under 17,010.61, any sexual offense under seventeen thousand and ten point six point two, trafficking of humans, neglecting, disabled adults, elder persons, exploitation of disabled and elderly people, sexual exploitation of a minor, electronically furnishing obscene material to minors, computer and child pornography. And then it goes into another list of if committed against a law enforcement officer, aggravated assault, aggravated a battery, certain felony obstructions. And so those are the non exclusive jurisdiction felonies. And so the way that this bill is currently written, it would require that the First Offender Act be applicable to all of that.

It doesn't differentiate between the exclusive jurisdiction and the concurrent jurisdiction. And that is concerning, for the state with respect to, certain crimes. I will say that well, for several of the crimes, but I will say that, we also were concerned if you look at forty nine and fifty, and I think maybe we're gonna just at the end of all this, the the, the, at the conclusion, you know, my recommendation is that we table the bill to give us time to be able to work on it going forward, which is the conversation I had with representative Lynn Lynn. But the and, which in a legal community actually means or, It it's confusing as to whether it allows for just a straight sentence or if it continues to require a split sentence. Some of these crimes under other laws that are on the books require that you have split sentences aggravated child, molestation, rape.

There was a lot of legislation on that. I tried lots of those cases where we had to go back and resend it and then figure out exactly what it meant. And so then when you followed it on 51 where it said if the defendant was serving a probated sentence led me to believe, okay, well, some might not have a probated sentence, so there could in fact be a straight sentence. That, confusion was concerning and concerning also to the effect that it doesn't anywhere in here explicitly state that the, that the crimes would have to follow the same sentencing guidelines that are already on the books. And while I was, encouraged by listening to the the testimony that was taken before me that that is the intent, that those sentencing ranges stay in effect, I think that there is some, it's vague.

There's a vagueness there that I think needs to be addressed. Also, when it comes to the First Offender Act and successfully completing it, under the adult version of the First Offender Act and the the statute, that we follow with respect to that. There isn't a carve out anywhere that allows you so many technical violations. So subsection subsection first offender would be inconsistent with the adult version. When you say only technical violations, well, you may have special conditions of your probation that require you to do certain things.

Those would be technical, I guess, under this because it's not a new law violation. But some of those may be super important based on the nature of the offense, whether it be counseling. Then you also have, special sex offender conditions. If it's a sex offense that require you to do the counseling and the testing and have all of the different restrictions and under the way that this is written, it doesn't appear that that would be preclusive from you getting to successfully complete your first offender. B requires you b requires you to, do the, the leveling.

That is not in the law as it stands because just to make it clear, the First Offender Act doesn't apply to most of these crimes for adults at all. This is completely completely different. Most of the crimes that we're talking about, if you were an adult, first offender would never be granted. So, the leveling, this is used when you're able ten years. I think it's now just been changed to five after your sentence concludes from a sex offense and you're off of your sentence when you are petitioning to come off of the sex offender registry, that's what they use this for.

And I can tell you from personal experience, less than five times in my almost twenty five years worth of experience have I ever had anyone not leveled as a one. So it doesn't happen very often, unfortunately, and that's probably a discussion for a different place in a different time. And then, c, I appreciated, although my initial conversation with representative Lynn was that it was vague, but I do think that when if we are dealing with kids and juvenile offenders and we are trying to figure out a place to be able to show grace because there are extraordinary circumstances where you want the ability to do that. I do think it is important, and I don't know if this is the proper wording, but to be able to look at other factors or, extrinsic factors to it to see, you know, have they gone above and beyond and and taken measures to to really become productive members of society and not reoffend in order to grant that first offender. And so those are some concerns.

Additionally, the so I I get well, let me just say this. The other concern that we have is the first offender and the ceiling provision, which would be affected by OCG section forty two eight sixty two point one subsection b. There would have to be some sort of pairing or amendment with respect to that part of the law, having to do with the sealing, because again, these are not crimes that normally would be available to be sealed. So if a child was able to be charged with one of like an aggravated child molestation and they got a first offender, in the adult world, when somebody commits a theft by taking and they get first offender, they can automatically seal that record. And the sealing, it goes to the direct purpose so that an employer won't see it when they run an e code on a criminal history because we're trying to give people grace and give them the opportunity to continue to be productive because usually this is only done on crimes that are low level, and nonviolent and not sexual in nature.

And so the concern is that if you include all of these sexual crimes, that at the point that they receive that first offender status, it is not a conviction and the law allows for that record to be sealed, which then would become problematic. There was a law passed having to do with, schools be after the school shooting at I always say it wrong. I wanna say it Apalachee, high school. There was a law that was passed. I think that it's 20 dash two dash one thirty three, that allows schools to get information that they used to not be able to get.

So I think that it would have to be paired up with that. I think that also, if you had someone going forward that was a sex offender that then applied for work, if they were able to seal the record under the traditional first offender statute immediately upon taking that plea, they would be able to apply to a daycare, a school, coaching, and there would be no ability to be able to determine whether or not what their background looked like. So the state had put together I say the state because I'm in court all the time. But, I put together a list together with a couple of other district attorneys today after meeting with representative Lim. We would be looking maybe as a first step towards this at not including the exclusive jurisdiction, but the concurrent jurisdiction.

I could see a situation, and I talked to, a high school last week. They like me to come and scare the kids, in a in a fun and proper way. I I I feel like I could go on a circuit. But I talk a lot about sexting and I talk a lot about child pornography and how harsh those rules are and how quickly you can become a sex offender because you're dating somebody and you think it's cool to send them stuff and then you're not dating anymore and a parent finds it and they lose their mind and they're in our office demanding prosecution, you know, that would be a crime where I could see that there would be an opportunity for a first offender, in, you know, situation where, situation where, it might be something that, you know, we're able to handle and give them that ability to have a first offender on, you know, so that's one of the crimes, you know, maybe not aggravated child molestation, but child molestation would be a situation where if we were able to figure out some of this other stuff. But the notion that we leave on here murder, that would give as the bill is written today, you know, a school shooter could be convicted, and they could end up getting first offender status and their their record sealed.

And kind of the way not kind of. The way that we read it, it would also give the judge the ability to sentence however they would wanna send it. So I think there needs to be, some tweaking to this that could potentially allow for a really great opportunity for us to be able to, give grace in kind of those middle ground circumstances. And maybe we need to start there and kind of see how it works in order to to get maybe even further in. But to start off with all of these cases, you know, especially understanding that really, I don't think any of these do adults get the opportunity to have first offenders.

So there's a lot of laws to look at.

Alright.

Oh, and I the other thing I wanted to say, it does not the other law that it touches that is not contemplated in this is the behavioral incentive date. So adults, when they get a first offender, sentence so let's say they get a five year probated sentence on a theft by taking under the first offender act, the there's another law that says they get a safe behavioral incentive date. And so it might be a two year bid. It might be a three year bid, which means that the senate, if they do well, could be over within those first couple of years. I do this all the time with Tyler Paul.

And so, that isn't contemplated in this, and it would have there would be some awkward moments, I think, trying to figure out how that would apply. So

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Just you mentioned the sexting issue. I was on a school board for a number of years, and that is that is a real issue. And I'm glad you're going to school and kind of scaring these kids straight because I think a lot of them don't fully understand they are operating in child pornography and not realizing that's happening.

So that was a good point. I did speak to the bill's author prior to the meeting today, and he seemed very motivated to work with you and your colleagues on this. Is this something that that you would be willing to do?

Oh, absolutely. We met with him this morning, and and that was my ask was again, I I, I find myself a lot of times dealing with parents in their worst moments, dealing with children that have brains that aren't fully formed, that are making decisions that are gonna tragically affect the rest of their lives. And that's not lost on me. And I think that there's a middle ground here that maybe we can come to, that will allow some of the citizens in Georgia the ability to have that grace. There's just some of these crimes that I'm not sure that that's appropriate.

And so that's kind of where we left it.

Alright. And don't leave. You have a couple of questions. Yes. Chairman Gollitt, go ahead with your question.

Thank thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony, and for your ideas. I just have a a question of a scenario. So if if first offender so a juvenile prosecuted for some sort of sex offense, and prosecuted as a seven deadly, so, you know, sexual battery or something, molestation, they are then they they complete their their prison sentence. They terminate they get their probation terminated after five years or whatever of the twenty year probation sentence.

There's still a sex offender on the sex offender registry, I'm assuming. But theoretically, they could get this they could petition to court with the agreement of the prosecutor to then get first offender status on this and basically it's sealed, but they would still be a sex offender. Is that would they still be a sex offender? I guess that's the question. As you take it?

I okay.

So A

registered sex offender, I guess. I'm sorry. Not, you know

So if a if a child was prosecuted for aggravated child molestation under this bill, is that what you're asking me?

Yeah.

If they were prosecuted in adult court for aggravated child molestation, and yes, you're right. I think that under the way that the bill is written currently, I think a judge could sentence them any way that they would wish to sentence them. Based on that, those two lines. I think that that's not contemplated in the bill and that's a great point that it doesn't, speak well, it doesn't speak to that. So the problem is I don't know if they would have to register or not because it's not an adjudication of guilt.

The adjudication is withheld. So I think that that too would be problematic because it doesn't it's a it's a fiction because it doesn't exist today, if that makes sense. You can't be an adult and go into adult court and be sentenced under an aggravated child molestation and and be sentenced under the First Offender Act. So that isn't contemplated experience.

And so as you work through this, that's something you guys will contemplate and try to figure out.

I will write it down now. Okay.

Thank you so much. Uh-huh.

Alright. Thank you. And appreciate your question.

Representative Panich, please go

ahead with your question. Representative Panich, please go ahead with

your question. Thank you for being here

Yes, ma'am.

And giving your input. My question is,

every time I'm in court, I have to ask the DA, are you okay with first offender? So it's it's already has

to be granted or agreed upon by the state and

the defense, and then the judge has to accept it before it's done. Right? Not in my experience. I mean, maybe different jurisdictions are different, but in the law, that is not required. I have cases all the time where, the state and the defense may be taking a plea.

It may qualify under first offender. There are times where I agree that, you know, with first offender, ultimately, the judge makes that decision. There are times where I just stand neutral and let it be in the court's discretion, and sometimes I oppose it. And sometimes if the case involves victims and they wanna speak to that behalf, but ultimately, the judge makes that decision. I do not have to agree to first offender to apply for it to be applied, not in my jurisdiction with my judges.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Alright. Thank you so much for being here and your input, and I look forward to seeing what you and representative Blim are able to craft. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you all for the time.

Of course. Alright. Our next person up is Bill Dape. Dupee. Dupee.

I apologize.

No. No problem.

Oh my goodness. Alright. And

Committee members, thanks for listening to us. My name is Bill Dupee. I'm the district attorney in the Tomb Circuit, which are the six counties of Lincoln, Wilkes, Tolliver, Warren, Glasscock, and McDuffie. As you're cruising out I 20 and you come across, Lake Oconee and all you see is nothing but pine trees for about an hour, that's us. I've been a prosecutor.

I'm in my thirty first year, and before that, I had about five years as a public defender. And I come to you as somebody who may may be a little bit unusual for a prosecutor, but I'm very active in the restorative justice, retroactive first offender, record restriction, field. In fact, I handle all the applications in my office personally, in making those decisions. I work with the Georgia Justice Project. We fund, events where people come in.

And and if you wanna get your heart warm, come out to one of these, and you'll see people walking out that have been toting felonies for over twenty years and walk out the door without that felony. So I'm I'm very in tune with this. But every time I engage in that, it's always a balancing act of what's gonna make the community safer. Because the bottom line is as much as I wanna help, the offenders and see them excel, my my number one duty is to protect my community. And that is, is something that that overrides what I do in making these decisions because I have to look at the fact that when I sign off and I agree to a lot of retroactive first offender applications, consent to them, for offenders, when they walk out, the next stop they can go to is the pawnshop and buy a firearm.

I have literally just put a handgun in their pocket. And to make that decision, I've got to be it it worries me because the last thing I wanna be is sitting at a table with the victim's family, and they wanna know how this person who committed a voluntary manslaughter, with a firearm was able to lawfully possess a firearm, and I'd have to look him in the eye and say, well, I agreed to it, and I don't ever wanna be in that position. So for that reason, if if the prior offense dealing with adults involves a firearm, it it's it's not going to be consented to by me. And this bill takes it a bit further. You have some of the most violent offenses that that can be done, and and are can be committed, and that person, if they get first offender, is going to be able to walk the streets amongst us with a firearm, and that to me is is just not in the interest of the safety of my community.

I want to, commend mister Cleppinger for his story. It's very moving. It's very positive, but but it also illustrates the problem that we as prosecutors face is is wanting to help out the individual with redemption versus versus public safety. Somebody whose whose job prospects because of what they did when they were much younger are limited versus keeping the society safe as a whole. And I I wanted to point out too that we were I was notified about this Friday evening after work that this bill was gonna come up, and I know it's been floating around, but I've never seen it.

Our association, the, the District Attorney Association, we haven't met and discussed this and voted on what our official position is. We're coming to you as three individuals who all put our heads together to try and come up with a resolution, that would help. And, DA, Japore has really summed it up accurately, and I'm with her in spirit. I've the the juvenile cases are some of the toughest ones to deal with because we know we're dealing with children, but we also know we're dealing with very dangerous people, who have done, bad things and and it's always going to come back to what I can do to keep my community safe. So, I think all of the technical points, I I share the same analysis as DA Japore, that that this bill is is well meaning, but it's got some unintended consequences that that are not going to make us safer.

And that's why I'm committed to working with representative Lim to to try and get something that that would be, feasible and would strike that balance of, of redemption and, giving somebody a path forward with public safety. Thank you.

Alright. Mister DuPage, please don't leave yet. Thank you for being here. We certainly appreciate it. I believe representative Oliver has a question for you.

Thank thank you very much for the work you're doing. This is kind of a where are we in the process? I don't know how many other people. I don't know whether mister Scandalakis is gonna testify. We're obviously on a path here to look at this very technical statute and work on it together.

I hear good faith efforts to do that.

Yes, ma'am.

There were, last time I checked, about 200 juveniles are in the category of, seven deadly sins, incarcerate incarceration. And the number of young people that are gonna complete a sentence and a probation, thinking in terms there's gonna be very few numbers. It's very unusual that that would be totally completed to be eligible for this statute. I wanna support this, but I'm confident that y'all are gonna work on it in good faith. Are there any other people that are gonna get up and say we need technical work on this statute?

We have, I believe, one more and possibly two more people that's gonna say technical work. Then we do have some individuals who are for the measure. So at this point in time today, I'm gonna say this is a hearing only, and because I I believe that we needed some more work on the bill to make it more perfected, so we can address some of these issues that have been brought up by, by both of our speakers thus far.

Thank you. I just want whatever the chair wishes to do, I just think we're all on the same path so far. Thank you.

Alright. And thank you for being here very much, and I do apologize for mispronouncing your name. Alright. Mister Eric Edwards, Houston County Circuit District Attorney? Yes.

I got your name right. Correct?

You did. Thank you, madam chairwoman, and thank you committee members. Eric Edwards for the Houston Judicial circuit which covers, only Houston County in the middle of the state. I wanna thank you all for for giving us the time here to speak today. But, having heard the comments by my learned colleagues, mister Dubay and and mister Poor, I don't have anything really relevant to add beyond what they've already said.

So unless there's any questions specifically for me, I'll cede any of my time.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you. No questions for you at this point. I do see we do have mister Skandalaka sitting in the crowd.

You don't have to speak right now, but is this something you can nod? Yes or no? Is this something that the district attorneys are going to discuss further once we have some, further language in the bill?

Yes, madam chair. I'm positive they will.

Alright. Thank you so much, mister Scandalakis. Alright. Next, Maisie Lynn Gertin. Are you in the crowd?

Come on up. If you could give us your name and, what organization that you're with, please.

Certainly. I'm Mazie Lynn Gertin. I'm the executive director at the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. I know the hour is late, and we too have some we like the bill generally. We have some concerns about the bill.

We've also spoken with representative Lim today, and I would be glad to come to the table with everyone else and bring all of our concerns together to see where we can find some compromise rather than belabor you with those details today if we're able to work them out in the meantime. Alright.

I I certainly appreciate that. And I I appreciate your willingness and the district attorneys and our state's willingness to work together on this issue. Because I do believe this is a warranted issue that needs to be discussed. So I certainly appreciate that. Are there any questions for our speaker?

Alright. Thank you very much for being here today. Next up, Lucille Harrell. If you come up and give your name once again and who you work with.

This is where I start. Oh, next.

Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. Chairwoman, sorry. My name is Lucilla Harrell, Lucy. I am an attorney and the founding director of Atlanta Community Support Project. We work with criminalized people, basically increasing access, to the courts, legal and civic access for people post conviction who can't afford an attorney mostly.

These are the people we organize with. These are the families we work with, on the outside. And I'm here today, basically to to give our support for this bill. I think as somebody, you know, not just an attorney, but somebody who deeply understands the impact of this, I was incarcerated for nine years. That's what led me to law school in the first place.

I worked with a lot of people, particularly in 2015. I started, with the pilot program of Georgia's first in prison high school program. I was a tutor there and I I worked with children, children who were coming into the prison who were being put in solitary confinement when they weren't at the schoolhouse because that's how the state determined was the best way to keep them safe. And that's why they were wrapping their heads around really extraordinary sentences. So a couple of those folks are out, but most of them are not.

And so as much as this is a is a second chance for so many deserving people, we're talking about people who didn't have a first chance, quite frankly. So so this is just an opportunity for people, to come out and rebuild their lives. And I can just tell you for myself, having a felony conviction, overcoming those hurdles is it's almost impossible sometimes. And I can't imagine, how it would be for someone who is who was sentenced, with a seven deadly sin conviction. I was not.

So as hard as it was for me, I know that is much harder for these folks and especially folks who didn't live as adults before they before they went to prison. I don't wanna eat up a lot of y'all's time. A lot of things that I was gonna hit on have already been addressed, but there's a couple of points that that I wanna raise. First of all, you know, we have to think about public safety. And what public safety means is people getting what they need.

People don't commit crimes when they have what they need. And that is very, very important in our community. I know people were worried about people who have rape and murder convictions, but the thing is those people are the least least likely of all to ever be recriminalized. Recidivism rates as far back as 2013, the Department of Justice said, for lifers was five percent. Fast forward to some reports that, the Sentencing Project and other places cited in 2021, you're looking at three percent or less recidivism rates for these people, these specific people who have, who have seven deadly sins convictions.

So I just want people to think about that. What else did I wanna hit on? There was a there was an issue raised by mister Poore, about people having their records sealed when they when they get FOA treatment and that they might be able to go and get a job at a day care or something like that and it not come up. I just wanna say that, you know, that's not what we see happening in our community. Like, people don't come get out of prison and get the second chance to rebuild their life and then do something to recriminalize themselves.

That is just not typically what happens. I think that the accountability mechanism that's built into court ordered conditions should be honored. Like, this is no different than a TPO. You know, this is something that's put into a court record and we have to, we have to, yeah, think about the fact that those people would basically be recriminalizing themselves for living certain places or working certain places. So I just wanted to bring that up.

And then I think the last thing that I wanted to just really hammer down, and I think I think this was raised, by representative Oliver. It's like such a small number of people that we're talking about in the first place. And then on top of that, people have to have an attorney to go do this stuff after they come out. And then on top of that, even for addressing technical violations and and and things that, that this bill as it is written would allow through, there's still a discretionary framework for the judges. So, I mean, there's just to me, there's levels upon levels of things that people who are convicted of children will have to go through even to access this opportunity and advantage.

So, I don't think we're gonna see, like, a flood of the courts

Thank you, miss Harrell. You don't have any questions. We appreciate you being here today

Alright.

Sharing your experience.

Sure.

Mister Feldman. If you can tell us what organization you're with and your name, please.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee. I'm Blake Feldman, and I'm senior policy counsel at the southern center for human rights. Until we support this bill, I was prepared to discuss a couple of things. Great and committed to working with this bill. We're excited about it too.

But I do just want to mention our biggest concern and what we would like to see would be line one zero four. As mentioned, somebody would not like to say district attorney would not like to say, they were our first offender because I agreed to it. And I don't we don't think that a district attorney should have to say that either. We think that it should be left up to the courts. So on line one zero four, we would strike with ask you to strike with the consent of the prosecuting attorney.

I think that our system works its best when a very deliberative committee like this one, and a collaborative process on a bill is working together if this, general assembly decided that, people should this very small subset of people were kids or were treated like they were adults even though they weren't adults, that they should be entitled to making the argument to the court for why they should be able to get this status, that it's appropriate for them, their attorney, if the state disagrees or is neutral, to have that conversation, and we think that it should be left up to the judge. I do think that it's important. So in forty two eight six six right now, somebody who could have gotten first offenders actually, that's I really just wanted to let you all know that. I know that we're gonna work on this bill. I just wanted to, let I just wanna know that we like it.

We think that it could, benefit from some changes that might do, the opposite of what some of the, prosecutors have come before and said. Also, I just do I wanna say one more thing, though, regarding the technical violations. Already a judge, if somebody is violating the terms of their, first offender probation, that judge can essentially revoke the status, enter an adjudication of guilt, and sentence them as if they never had the status. So to the extent that there's any concern that someone is violating the terms of their first offender, probation or sentence, the judge can make a determination whether it's it's to the level of revoking that status. But thank you all so much.

Like I said, we're happy to work on this, moving forward.

Alright. Thank you so much, mister Feldman. We you do not have any questions at this point. Thank you, committee, for your willingness to hear the bill today, and I think, representative Lim, I think you've got some collaborative opportunities. And, we look forward to you bringing us a sub and and having further discussion on this.

So thank all of our participants today. Thank you, committee members. Thank you, bill sponsor. Thank you, sponsor. Thank you, mister Clavender, for being here and sharing your story, and, we are adjourned.

Yeah. So I think that's where it

came at.