CODE OF CRIM. PROCEDURE REVISIONS H.B. 5135 (S-3): FLOOR ANALYSIS




House Bill 5135 (Substitute S-3 as reported)
Sponsor: Representative William Van Regenmorter
House Committee: Judiciary
Senate Committee: Judiciary

CONTENT
The bill would amend the Code of Criminal Procedure to do all of the following:

-- Refer to "interactive video technology" rather than "closed circuit television" in provisions allowing a court to conduct initial criminal arraignments and set bail by audio and video communication, and delete a provision disallowing this technology if the defendant requests physical presence before the court.
-- Revise provisions regarding the number of peremptory challenges of potential jurors allowed for the defense and prosecution in criminal cases, and allow a court to grant one or more of the parties an increased number of peremptory challenges upon a motion and good cause shown.
-- Allow, rather than require, a court to pay for a psychiatric evaluation in a case involving an insanity plea by an indigent defendant.
-- Allow a court to order an offender to pay the cost of compelling his or her appearance before the court.
-- In the case of an enhanced sentence for a habitual offender, prohibit the court from setting a maximum sentence that was less than the maximum term for a first conviction.
-- Include a copy of a court register of actions among the evidence that may be used to establish the existence of prior convictions when the prosecutor seeks to enhance the sentence for a habitual offender.
-- Add a sentencing guidelines designation for a criminal sexual psychopath leaving the State without permission, which would be a Class F felony against the public safety.
-- Revise certain directions for scoring sentencing guidelines.


The bill also would repeal a section of the Code that prohibits the appointment of appellate counsel for review of a defendant's conviction or sentence when the defendant pleaded guilty, guilty but mentally ill, or no contest, except under certain circumstances (MCL 770.3a). (The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 2005 case of Halbert v Michigan, ruled that provision in violation of the U.S. Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses.)


MCL 767.37a et al. Legislative Analyst: Patrick Affholter

FISCAL IMPACT
The bill would have no fiscal impact on State or local government.


Date Completed: 12-4-06 Fiscal Analyst: Lindsay Hollander Stephanie Yu


floor\hb5135 Analysis available @ http://www.michiganlegislature.org
 This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.

Analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent. hb5135/0506