1. Virginia Sentencing Guidelines Preliminary FY2015 Report June 8, 2015

2. FY 2015 - Cases Coded and Keyed* 20142015Total JAN 847 FEB 355 MAR 85 APR 0 MAY 0 JUN 0 JUL2,142 AUG1,921 SEP1,940 OCT2,026 NOV1,620 DEC1,439 TOTAL11,0881,28912,377 2 *Keyed as of May 22, 2015 (Includes all forms received)

3. Preliminary FY2015 Report: General Compliance 3

4. Preliminary FY2015 Report Judicial Agreement with Guideline Recommendations General Compliance: The degree to which judges agree with the overall guidelines recommendation. 4 N=12,377

5. Preliminary FY2015 Report Judicial Agreement with Type of Recommended Disposition ACTUAL DISPOSITION Dispositional Compliance: The degree to which judges agree with the type of sanction recommended. 5 N=12,373 – Disposition missing in 4 cases

6. Preliminary FY2015 Report Judicial Agreement with Sentence Length Durational Compliance: The degree to which judges agree with the sentence length in cases in which defendants are recommended for jail/prison and receive at least one day incarceration. Median 8 months below midpoint 6 N=8,663 (Incarceration recommended with a disposition of incarceration (missing 131)

7. Preliminary FY2015 Report: Departure Reasons 7

8. Mitigation (n=1,801) Plea agreement425 (24%*) Sentenced to alternative 123 (7%*) Judicial discretion 112 (6%*) Cooperated with authorities101 (6%*) Court proceedings100 (6%*) No significant prior record 94 (5%*) Recommendation of CA 85 (5%*) Facts of the case 79 (4%*) n=194 (11%) missing a departure reason Aggravation (n=1,131) Plea agreement 285 (19%**) Flagrancy of offense/facts of case173 (11%**) Severity/type of prior record148 (10%**) Multiple counts involved in event 74 (5%**) Poor rehabilitation potential 65 (4%**) Type of Victim 54 (4%**) Recommendation of jury 50 (3%**) SG Recommendation too low 49 (3%**) Degree of planning 40 (3%**) n=163 (11%) missing a departure reason Preliminary FY2015 Report Most Frequently Cited Departure Reasons * Of mitigating cases requiring departure reason** Of aggravating cases requiring departure reasons 8

9. Preliminary FY2015 Report: Compliance by Circuit 9

10. Preliminary FY2015 Sorted By Circuit Most cases received: -Circuit 26 (Harrisonburg Area) -Circuit 12 (Chesterfield) -Circuit 2 (Virginia Beach) -Circuit 13 (Richmond) -Circuit 15 (Fredericksburg) 10

11. Preliminary FY2015 Sorted By Compliance Highest aggravation: -Circuit 22 (Danville Area) 16.9% Highest mitigation: -Circuit 13 (Richmond City) 27.4% 11

12. Preliminary FY2015 Report: Compliance by Offense Type 12

13. Preliminary FY2015 Report Compliance by Type of Offense 1,029 769 3,067 3,539 196 350 826 90 236 732 104 478 252 213 112 332 52 Fraud Drug-Oth Larceny Drug-I/II Burg-Oth Weapon Traffic Rape Misc_Oth Assault Obscenity Burg-Dwel Misc-PP Sex-Asl Murder Robbery Kidnap 13 FY2014: 81.2% 81.3% 82.4% 80.2% 72.8% 75.6% 80.3% 70.1% 75.8% 75.8% -- 66.7% 72.2% 67.1% 55.9% 64.5% 69.1%

14. Preliminary FY2015 Report: Nonviolent Risk Assessment Effective July 1, 2013 14

15. Nonviolent Risk Assessment Effective July 1, 2013 Replace the nonviolent offender risk assessment instrument, used in conjunction with the guidelines for fraud, larceny and drug offenses, with risk assessment instruments developed based on the results of the Commission’s recent study of felony recidivism. 15

16. Preliminary FY2015 Report Nonviolent Risk Assessment 16 Virginia Code § 17.1-803 5. Develop an offender risk assessment instrument for use in all felony cases, based on a study of Virginia felons, that will be predictive of the relative risk that a felon will become a threat to public safety. 6. Apply the risk assessment instrument to offenders convicted of any felony that is not specified in (i) subdivision 1, 2 or 3 of subsection A of § 17.1-805 or (ii) subsection C of § 17.1-805 under the discretionary sentencing guidelines, and shall determine, on the basis of such assessment and with due regard for public safety needs, the feasibility of achieving the goal of placing 25 percent of such offenders in one of the alternative sanctions listed in subdivision 4. If the Commission so determines that achieving the 25 percent or a higher percentage goal is feasible, it shall incorporate such goal into the discretionary sentencing guidelines, to become effective on January 1, 1996. If the Commission so determines that achieving the goal is not feasible, the Commission shall report that determination to the General Assembly, the Governor and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia on or before December 1, 1995, and shall make such recommendations as it deems appropriate. Effective July 1, 2004 Score 35  38

17. Preliminary FY2015 Report Nonviolent Risk Assessment Risk assessment applies in drug, fraud, & larceny cases Offender must meet eligibility criteria −Recommended for incarceration −No current or prior violent felony conviction −Did not distribute an ounce or more of cocaine −Not convicted of crime requiring mandatory minimum term of incarceration Purpose: To recommend alternative sanctions for offenders who are statistically less likely to recidivate Type of alternative at discretion of judge 17

18. Drug/Schedule I/II or Drug Other Fraud and Larceny 18

19. Preliminary FY2015 Report Nonviolent Offenders Eligible for Risk Assessment by Type of Offense 8,404 Drug, Fraud & Larceny Cases - 4,770 Excluded: Ineligible, Errors, 1994 Missing 3,634 Analyzed Larceny 38.5% Fraud 12.6% DrugOther 9.5% 19

20. Preliminary FY2015 Nonviolent Offenders Eligible for Risk Assessment Fraud Larceny All Risk Cases8% 9% 10% Drug8% 20% 8% 28% 66% 77% 58% 6% 4% 6% 3,634 1,400 459 1,775 OffenseMitigation Compliance Aggravation Number of Cases AlternativeTraditional 86% 85% 86% 20 N=3,634

21. Recommended and Received an Alternative20.2%n= 733 Recommended and Incarcerated29.3%n= 1,064 Not Recommended and Received Alternative14.0%n= 514 Not Recommended and Incarcerated36.4%n= 1,323 Preliminary FY2015 Nonviolent Offenders Eligible for Risk Assessment 21 N=3,634 Of offenders recommended for alternative sanctions, the proportion who received an alternative 41% 41% Of offenders recommended for alternative sanctions, the proportion who received an alternative 41% 41%

22. Sentencing Revocation Reports & Probation Violation Guidelines (FY2015) 22

23. Sentencing Revocation Report is completed for all cases involving felony violations of: Probation Post-release terms administered by the court Good behavior Suspended sentence Community-based programs 23

24. 24

25. Sentencing Revocation Reports Received by Judicial Circuit FY2015 (Preliminary) Highest Number Received Circuit 26 - Harrisonburg Area (n=686) Circuit 29 - Buchanan Area (n=538) Circuit 1 - Chesapeake (n=501) Circuit 22 - Danville (n=482) Circuit 4 - Norfolk (N=411) CircuitAreaNumber 1Chesapeake501 2Virginia Beach361 3Portsmouth178 4Norfolk411 5Suffolk Area312 6Sussex Area49 7Newport News210 8Hampton193 9Williamsburg Area244 10South Boston Area178 11Petersburg Area71 12Chesterfield Area163 13Richmond City255 14Henrico233 15Fredericksburg Area347 16Charlottesville Area182 17Arlington53 18Alexandria82 19Fairfax305 20Loudoun Area167 21Martinsville Area119 22Danville Area482 23Roanoke Area280 24Lynchburg Area307 25Staunton Area288 26Harrisonburg Area686 27Radford Area331 28Bristol Area233 29Buchanan Area538 30Lee Area110 31Prince William Area181 Total 8,050 * Includes all forms received, including those found not in violation or missing information 25

26. Sentencing Revocation Reports Received for Technical and New Law Violations* FY1998 - FY2015 (Preliminary) *Note: FY15 includes cases received by March 9, 2015 for cases found in violation with no missing conditions (Data from January - June 2015 are incomplete) 50.64% 49.36% 26

27. Sentencing Revocation Reports Received for Technical and New Law Violations* Calendar Year 2008 - 2014 *Note: CY14 includes cases received by March 9, 2015 for cases found in violation with no missing conditions 50.7% 49.3% 27 FY 2015 - Preliminary Working with DOC Similar Conditions Violated Increase Numbers: Frederick, Chesapeake, Newport News, Virginia Beach Increase Numbers from 50 judges New Judges

28. Sentencing Revocation Reports Received Dispositions for Technical and New Law Violations FY2015 (Preliminary) Actual Disposition Received ProbationJail = 1yr. TECHNICAL VIOLATOR 850 (22%)1,992 (51%)1,032 (27%) NEW LAW VIOLATOR 740 (20%)1,682 (45%) 1,338 (35%) TOTAL * 1,590 (21%)3,674 (48%)2,370 (31%) * n=7,634 Sentencing information was missing for 188 cases 28

29. Sentencing Revocation Reports Received New Law Violations by Type of New Crime FY2015 (Preliminary) Cases = 3,861 29

30. Missing41610.7 C53.1 C919.5 F12.1 F215.4 F323.6 F429.8 F53368.7 F657114.8 F968217.7 I913.3 M1138835.9 M2441.1 M36.2 M41433.7 M9942.4 S9772.0 Total3,861100 Sentencing Revocation Reports Received New Law Violations by Type of New Crime FY2015 (Preliminary) Felonies Misdemeanors Traffic Infractions Type Not Clear 30 Seriousness Index No. Percentage

31. Sentencing Revocation Reports Received by Type of Violation and Sanction Received FY2015 (Preliminary) Probation Jail Prison Median 6 mos. Median 5 mos. Median 1.5 yrs. Median 1.6 yrs. Median 2.0 yrs. n=3,874 Technical, n=1,688 New Misdemeanor, 1,631 New Felony, 441 Missing 31

32. Sentencing Revocation Reports 8,050 Technical Violations 3,961 Included in Probation Violation Guidelines Compliance Analysis 3,462 Not Included in Probation Violation Guidelines Compliance Analysis * 499 New Crime Violations 3,861 * Cases are not included in compliance analysis if the guidelines do not apply (the case involves a parole-eligible offense, first offender violation, misdemeanor original offense, or the offender was not on supervised probation), if the guidelines forms were incomplete, or if outdated forms were prepared. Sentencing Revocation Reports Received FY2015 (Preliminary) Violator Type Unknown 110 Found Not in Violation 118 32

33. Probation Violation Guidelines Cases – “Technicals” by Type of Original Offense FY2015 (Preliminary) N = 3,462 33

34. Types of Violations Cited in Probation Violation Guidelines Cases – “Technicals” FY2015 (Preliminary) Percentages do not total 100% because there may be multiple violations cited for each defendant Financial 41% Substance abuse treatment 28% Alternative programs 9% Sex offender restrictions 9% N = 3,462 34

35. FY2008-2016 WorksheetFY2006-FY2007 Worksheet New factors were added Existing factors were adjusted Point values were increased 35

36. N = 3,140 Probation Violation Guidelines – “Technicals” Compliance by Fiscal Year FY2005 – FY2015 (Preliminary) N = 4,905N = 4,474N = 4,659N = 4,763N = 4,223N = 5,024N = 5,920N = 4,486N = 4,482 36 *Note: FY15 includes cases received by March 9, 2015 for cases found in violation with no missing conditions N = 3,462

37. RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION ACTUAL DISPOSITION Probation Jail up to 12 Months Prison 1 Year or More Probation 45.2%42.7%12.2% Jail up to 12 Months 16.5%69.4%14.1% Prison 1 Year or More 15.5%31.0%53.5% Probation Violation Guidelines Dispositional Compliance : Recommended Disposition by Actual Disposition FY2015 (Preliminary) Median Jail Sentence 6 months Median Prison Sentence 1 yr. 8 mo. N = 3,462 37

38. Preliminary FY2015 Sorted By Circuit Most cases received: -Circuit 26 (Harrisonburg Area) -Circuit 22 (Danville Area) -Circuit 29 (Buchanan Area) -Circuit 1 (Chesapeake) 38 n=3,462

39. Preliminary FY2015 Sorted By Circuit 39 n=3,462 Highest aggravation: -Circuit 25 (Buchanan Area) 44.9% Highest mitigation: -Circuit 18 (Alexandria City) 55.0%

40. Probation Violation Guidelines Most Frequently Cited Departure Reasons - (Percent of Cases) FY2015 (Preliminary) Mitigation (23.2%) Most frequently cited: No Reason (39.9%) Alternative Sentence (8.6%) Plea Agreement (4.8%) Probation Procedural Issue (4.5%) Facts of the Case (4.1%) Aggravation (22.9%) Most frequently cited: No Reason (37.0%) Failed to Follow Instructions (8.5%) Subsequent Violation (7.7%) Absconded (5.3%) Substance Abuse Issues (4.5%) 40