|
|
INTRODUCTION TO SENTENCING STANDARDS
Arkansas
has joined a growing number of states and the federal
government in adopting sentencing standards. Sentencing
standards vary widely in purpose and application. The
Arkansas standards defined in Acts 532 and 550 of 1993
serve the purposes of equity in sentencing, i.e. similar
sentences for similar offenders with similar criminal
histories and proportionality in sentencing by creating
a balanced correctional system which reserves the most
serious sanctions for the most serious offenders.
How the standards work.
The
sentencing standards structure adopted in Arkansas
is a voluntary procedure for use by those directly
involved in sentencing - judges, prosecutors and
defense attorneys. The Arkansas Sentencing Standards
Grid has been adopted by the Arkansas Sentencing
Commission pursuant to legislative authority and
the Administrative Procedures Act. It is applicable
to crimes which occur on or after January 1, 1994.
A presumptive sentence for a typical case is determined
on a grid with two dimensions: offense seriousness
and offender history.
Offense seriousness is determined by reference to a table
adopted by the Commission which lists all felony crimes
in one of ten levels of seriousness. Offender history
is determined by reference to the statute, A.C.A. 16-90-803
which allocates points for different levels of felonies,
misdemeanors, certain juvenile adjudications and custody
status at the time that a crime was committed.
Arkansas Code Annotated §16-90-803(b)(1)(C) states
that “the most frequently occurring offenses
within each seriousness level are listed on the vertical
axis of the sentencing standards grid.” Because
there is not sufficient space in the sentencing standards
grid cells, individual pages representing each seriousness
level of the standards grid have been included in this
website. Each page contains a list of the most frequently
occurring offenses within that particular seriousness
level. Please note that this list does not always represent
a complete list of offenses for that seriousness level,
only the most frequently occurring offenses. A complete
list of offenses, with their applicable effective dates,
may be found in the Seriousness
Rankings section of
this manual. Each page also contains the grid form
with the presumptive sentence, minimum time to be served
prior to transfer eligibility, and the presumptive
range. The statutory range for classifications of offenses
occurring with each seriousness level is also included
on the individual grid pages.
Please note that Act 186 of 2005 removed the five
percent (5%) range above or below the presumptive sentence.
The presumptive range listed on the individual grid
pages is applicable to those offenses committed prior
to July 1, 2005, (the effective date for the Act).
Determining the presumptive sentence for a particular
offense is a starting point for the process. The presumptive
sentence is not intended to be the sentence in a particular
case unless in the judgment of the prosecutor and the
defense attorney and/or the judge, the offense represents
a typical case based upon their experience and knowledge.
If the case is non-typical, the procedure is defined
for departing from the presumption. The full statutory range of punishment is available for all cases.
Departure criteria and procedures are defined in the
Code and the only requirement imposed for a departure
from the presumptive sentence is that written reasons
be provided by the parties to the court when there
is an “agreed departure” from the presumptive
sentence. The court shall attach the written reasons
to the judgment and forward them to the Commission.
A Departure Form is provided by the Commission which
lists statutory aggravating factors and mitigating
factors and a space for other reasons. Departure criteria
are not limited to those listed in the legislation.
Act
1179 of 2001, codified at A.C.A. 16-90-803 (a)(1)(B),
clarifies that sentencing guidelines do not apply to
probation revocation proceedings. This legislation
was enacted in response to the Arkansas Supreme Court's
decision in Martin v. State, 337
Ark, 451, 989 SW2d 908 (1999), finding that
the guidelines did apply. Thus, departure reports
are not required in revocation proceedings.
|
