Title FELONY THEFT ADDED TO RACKETEERING

Document Sample
Title FELONY THEFT ADDED TO RACKETEERING Powered By Docstoc
					Consolidated Fiscal Note – 2009-10 Session                                             Fiscal Impact             Yes    No
                                                                                State                             X
Bill #: H0755-0         Complete Date: 03/02/09
                                                                                Local                                    X
Chief Author: SIMON, STEVE                                                      Fee/Departmental Earnings                X
Title: FELONY THEFT ADDED TO RACKETEERING                                       Tax Revenue                              X

          Agencies:      Public Safety Dept (02/27/09)                     Supreme Court (02/26/09)
                         Corrections Dept (03/02/09)                       Public Defense Board (02/26/09)
                         Sentencing Guidelines Comm (02/24/09)

This table reflects fiscal impact to state government. Local government impact is reflected in the narrative only.
                            Dollars (in thousands)       FY09         FY10            FY11           FY12            FY13
 Net Expenditures
      General Fund                                              0             12             36             58              71
         Corrections Dept                                       0             12             36             58              71
 Revenues
      -- No Impact --
 Net Cost <Savings>
      General Fund                                              0             12             36             58              71
         Corrections Dept                                       0             12             36             58              71
     Total Cost <Savings> to the State                          0             12             36             58              71

                                                        FY09           FY10           FY11           FY12            FY13
 Full Time Equivalents
      General Fund                                           0.00           0.20           0.50          0.80           0.90
         Corrections Dept                                    0.00           0.20           0.50          0.80           0.90
                                      Total FTE              0.00           0.20           0.50          0.80           0.90

Consolidated EBO Comments

I have reviewed this Fiscal Note for accuracy and content.

EBO Signature: JIM KING
Date: 03/02/09 Phone: 201-8033




H0755-0                                                                                                              Page 1 of 13
Fiscal Note – 2009-10 Session                                                          Fiscal Impact            Yes     No
                                                                                State                                   X
Bill #: H0755-0         Complete Date: 02/27/09
                                                                                Local                                   X
Chief Author: SIMON, STEVE                                                      Fee/Departmental Earnings               X
Title: FELONY THEFT ADDED TO RACKETEERING                                       Tax Revenue                             X

    Agency Name:         Public Safety Dept

This table reflects fiscal impact to state government. Local government impact is reflected in the narrative only.
                            Dollars (in thousands)       FY09         FY10            FY11           FY12            FY13
 Expenditures
      -- No Impact --
 Less Agency Can Absorb
      -- No Impact --
 Net Expenditures
      -- No Impact --
 Revenues
      -- No Impact --
 Net Cost <Savings>
      -- No Impact --
     Total Cost <Savings> to the State

                                                        FY09           FY10           FY11           FY12            FY13
 Full Time Equivalents
      -- No Impact --
                                      Total FTE




H0755-0                                                                                                              Page 2 of 13
This bill version has no fiscal effect on our agency.

FN Coord Signature: FRANK AHRENS
Date: 02/26/09 Phone: 201-7050

EBO Comments

I have reviewed this Fiscal Note for accuracy and content.

EBO Signature: KEITH BOGUT
Date: 02/27/09 Phone: 201-8034




H0755-0                                                      Page 3 of 13
Fiscal Note – 2009-10 Session                                                          Fiscal Impact            Yes     No
                                                                                State                                   X
Bill #: H0755-0         Complete Date: 02/26/09
                                                                                Local                                   X
Chief Author: SIMON, STEVE                                                      Fee/Departmental Earnings               X
Title: FELONY THEFT ADDED TO RACKETEERING                                       Tax Revenue                             X

    Agency Name:         Supreme Court

This table reflects fiscal impact to state government. Local government impact is reflected in the narrative only.
                            Dollars (in thousands)       FY09         FY10            FY11           FY12            FY13
 Expenditures
      -- No Impact --
 Less Agency Can Absorb
      -- No Impact --
 Net Expenditures
      -- No Impact --
 Revenues
      -- No Impact --
 Net Cost <Savings>
      -- No Impact --
     Total Cost <Savings> to the State

                                                        FY09           FY10           FY11           FY12            FY13
 Full Time Equivalents
      -- No Impact --
                                      Total FTE




H0755-0                                                                                                              Page 4 of 13
Bill Description
This bill adds identity theft (M.S. §609.527) to the list of prior offenses which enhance the penalty for theft. Thefts
are felonies with a statutory maximum of five years if the value of the property stolen is more than $1,000.
However, if the offender has a prior theft or related offense, the threshold for the felony penalty is $500. This bill
adds identity theft to the list of related prior offenses which elevate thefts of over $500 to felonies.

This bill also adds theft of moveable property (M.S. §609.52, subd.2(1)) to the list of criminal acts which can
qualify an offender for sentencing under the racketeering statutes if they engage in a pattern of criminal activity.

The effective date is August 1, 2009 and it applies to offenses committed on or after that date.


Assumptions

Inclusion of Identity Theft in Prior Offenses used to Enhance

MSGC monitoring data indicate that there were 863 offenders sentenced for thefts under $5,000 in 2007.
Minnesota Offense Codes (MOC) indicate that 385 (44.6%) of them were sentenced for offenses with a value
between $501 and $1,000 and had a specified related prior offense that enhanced the theft offense to a felony.

It is not known how many offenders currently sentenced for gross misdemeanor theft offenses have a prior
identity theft in their criminal history. The number of offenders sentenced for felony-level identity thefts has grown
every year since the crime was created (from 12 in 2001 to 72 in 2007). Data from the State Court
Administrator’s Office (SCAO) indicates that 13 offenders were sentenced for gross misdemeanor identity theft in
2007 and 15 were sentenced in 2008. Therefore, there is a relatively small pool of people with identity theft
convictions who could have a future gross misdemeanor theft offense enhanced because of the prior conviction.
Data from SCAO also indicates that there were 965 offenders sentenced for a gross misdemeanor level-theft in
2007. Given the size of the current pool of offenders with convictions for identity theft, it is unlikely that more than
1-2% of the offenders sentenced for gross misdemeanor theft will have their offenses enhanced to felonies.
Therefore, it is estimated that adoption of this provision will result in an increase in the number of offenders
sentenced for felony theft of no more than 20 offenders a year


Inclusion of Theft in Racketeering

It is assumed that the number of offenders sentenced for this expansion of racketeering will be quite small.
MSGC monitoring data indicate that in the five years from 2003 to 2007, 15 offenders were sentenced under the
racketeering statutes. Since only an average of 3 racketeering cases a year have been sentenced, it is assumed
that few additional offenders will be sentenced as a result of this expansion of the offense.


Expenditure and/or Revenue Formula

This bill is unlikely to have a significant impact on the workload of the court.

Long-Term Fiscal Considerations



Local Government Costs



References/Sources



FN Coord Signature: JUDY REHAK
Date: 02/26/09 Phone: 297-7800


H0755-0                                                                                                    Page 5 of 13
EBO Comments

I have reviewed this Fiscal Note for accuracy and content.

EBO Signature: JIM KING
Date: 02/26/09 Phone: 201-8033




H0755-0                                                      Page 6 of 13
Fiscal Note – 2009-10 Session                                                          Fiscal Impact            Yes     No
                                                                                State                                   X
Bill #: H0755-0         Complete Date: 02/26/09
                                                                                Local                                   X
Chief Author: SIMON, STEVE                                                      Fee/Departmental Earnings               X
Title: FELONY THEFT ADDED TO RACKETEERING                                       Tax Revenue                             X

    Agency Name:         Public Defense Board

This table reflects fiscal impact to state government. Local government impact is reflected in the narrative only.
                            Dollars (in thousands)       FY09         FY10            FY11           FY12            FY13
 Expenditures
      -- No Impact --
 Less Agency Can Absorb
      -- No Impact --
 Net Expenditures
      -- No Impact --
 Revenues
      -- No Impact --
 Net Cost <Savings>
      -- No Impact --
     Total Cost <Savings> to the State

                                                        FY09           FY10           FY11           FY12            FY13
 Full Time Equivalents
      -- No Impact --
                                      Total FTE




H0755-0                                                                                                              Page 7 of 13
While the provisions of this bill do not have a major impact on the public defense system, it does present the already
overburdened criminal justice and public defender systems with additional cases and time commitments. Any time there is
an increase in penalties or expansion of criminal law the result will be more cases, more contested cases, and more appeals.


FN Coord Signature: KEVIN KAJER
Date: 02/26/09 Phone: 349-2565

EBO Comments

I have reviewed this Fiscal Note for accuracy and content.

EBO Signature: JIM KING
Date: 02/26/09 Phone: 201-8033




H0755-0                                                                                                          Page 8 of 13
Fiscal Note – 2009-10 Session                                                          Fiscal Impact             Yes    No
                                                                                State                             X
Bill #: H0755-0         Complete Date: 03/02/09
                                                                                Local                                    X
Chief Author: SIMON, STEVE                                                      Fee/Departmental Earnings                X
Title: FELONY THEFT ADDED TO RACKETEERING                                       Tax Revenue                              X

    Agency Name:         Corrections Dept

This table reflects fiscal impact to state government. Local government impact is reflected in the narrative only.
                            Dollars (in thousands)       FY09         FY10            FY11           FY12            FY13
 Expenditures
      General Fund                                              0             12             36             58              71
 Less Agency Can Absorb
      -- No Impact --
 Net Expenditures
      General Fund                                              0             12             36             58              71
 Revenues
      -- No Impact --
 Net Cost <Savings>
      General Fund                                              0             12             36             58              71
     Total Cost <Savings> to the State                          0             12             36             58              71

                                                        FY09           FY10           FY11           FY12            FY13
 Full Time Equivalents
      General Fund                                           0.00           0.20           0.50          0.80           0.90
                                      Total FTE              0.00           0.20           0.50          0.80           0.90




H0755-0                                                                                                              Page 9 of 13
Bill Description
The proposed legislation will add identity theft (M.S. 609.527) to the list of prior offenses that enhance the penalty
for theft. The bill also adds theft of moveable property (M.S. 609.52, subd.2(1)) to the list of criminal acts which
can qualify an offender for sentencing under the racketeering statutes if they engage in a pattern of criminal
activity.

Assumptions
   • The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (MSGC) estimates the number of offenders
      sentenced for felony theft will increase by no more than 20 offenders per year. If 10% of those
      offenders receive executed prison sentences, the projected bed impact is 2 beds.
   • The MSGC estimates that no more than 2 additional offenders per year will be sentenced for
      racketeering and only 1 offender every other year will receive an executed prison sentence. The
      projected bed impact is 2 beds.
   • Allowing time for implementation, the combined projected year-by-year impact for the felonies will
      be 1 bed in FY10, 3 beds in FY11 and FY12, and 4 beds in FY13 and each subsequent year.
   • The MSGC estimates the increase in felony probation caseloads will be 18 offenders each year.
   • There will be minimal impact on supervision caseloads statewide, however the accumulative
      effect could be significant as new offenses or penalty enhancements are enacted.
   • Prison bed costs are based on a marginal cost per diem for each fiscal year. The annual per
      diems are as follows: FY10 $52.02, FY11 $52.57, FY12 $52.93, and FY13 $53.30. This includes
      marginal costs for all facility, private and public bed rental, health care and support costs.
   • In order to estimate the annual cost the number of prison beds needed is phased in on a quarterly basis.
      Multiplying the number of beds each quarter by the subsequent annual per diem determines the estimate
      for the annual costs of prison beds.
   • Prison bed FTE impact for the increase in the offender population assumes 80 percent of the ongoing bed
      impact is personnel-related and the average salary is $60,000 per year including benefits.
   • This bill is effective August 1, 2010, and applies to offense committed on or after that date.

Expenditure and/or Revenue Formula (dollars in thousands)
Costs for Prison Beds
 Fiscal Year                             2010          2011               2012           2013
 Number of Prison Beds                     1             3                  3              4
 Cost of Prison Beds (in thousands)       12            36                 58             71
 FTE                                      0.2           0.5                0.8            0.9

Long- Term Fiscal Considerations
Costs will increase to $78,000 in FY14 and will continue into subsequent years.

Local Government Costs
The fiscal impact on local correctional resources is expected to be minimal, however the 18 felony probation
sentences each year will require additional jail beds.

References/Sources
Department of Corrections Staff
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission


Agency Contact Name: CHRIS DODGE (651) 361-7264
FN Coord Signature: KRIS BLAZEK
Date: 03/02/09 Phone: 361-7259

EBO Comments

I have reviewed this Fiscal Note for accuracy and content.

EBO Signature: JIM KING
Date: 03/02/09 Phone: 201-8033



H0755-0                                                                                                  Page 10 of 13
Fiscal Note – 2009-10 Session                                                          Fiscal Impact            Yes      No
                                                                                State                                    X
Bill #: H0755-0         Complete Date: 02/24/09
                                                                                Local                                    X
Chief Author: SIMON, STEVE                                                      Fee/Departmental Earnings                X
Title: FELONY THEFT ADDED TO RACKETEERING                                       Tax Revenue                              X

    Agency Name:         Sentencing Guidelines Comm

This table reflects fiscal impact to state government. Local government impact is reflected in the narrative only.
                            Dollars (in thousands)       FY09         FY10            FY11           FY12            FY13
 Expenditures
      -- No Impact --
 Less Agency Can Absorb
      -- No Impact --
 Net Expenditures
      -- No Impact --
 Revenues
      -- No Impact --
 Net Cost <Savings>
      -- No Impact --
     Total Cost <Savings> to the State

                                                        FY09           FY10           FY11           FY12            FY13
 Full Time Equivalents
      -- No Impact --
                                      Total FTE




H0755-0                                                                                                              Page 11 of 13
                                         Fiscal Note for HF755:
                                       Theft: Enhanced Penalties
                                 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission
                                              February 24, 2009

    Impact of 4 beds a year on state prison resources.
    Minimal impact on local correctional resources.

Bill Description

This bill adds identity theft (M.S. §609.527) to the list of prior offenses which enhance the penalty for theft. Thefts
are felonies with a statutory maximum of five years if the value of the property stolen is more than $1,000.
However, if the offender has a prior theft or related offense, the threshold for the felony penalty is $500. This bill
adds identity theft to the list of related prior offenses which elevate thefts of over $500 to felonies.

This bill also adds theft of moveable property (M.S. §609.52, subd.2(1)) to the list of criminal acts which can
qualify an offender for sentencing under the racketeering statutes if they engage in a pattern of criminal activity.

The effective date is August 1, 2009 and it applies to offenses committed on or after that date.


Assumptions and Impact on State and Local Correctional Resources

Inclusion of Identity Theft in Prior Offenses used to Enhance

This provision will increase the number of theft offenses sentenced as felonies because the offender has one of
the specified prior felony or gross misdemeanor theft-related offenses. MSGC monitoring data indicate that there
were 863 offenders sentenced for thefts under $5,000 in 2007. Minnesota Offense Codes (MOC) indicate that
385 (44.6%) of them were sentenced for offenses with a value between $501 and $1,000 and had a specified
related prior offense that enhanced the theft offense to a felony. The imprisonment rate for those offenders was
10.6% and the average pronounced prison sentence was 17.5 months (serve just under 12 months).

It is not known how many offenders currently sentenced for gross misdemeanor theft offenses have a prior
identity theft in their criminal history. The number of offenders sentenced for felony-level identity thefts has grown
every year since the crime was created (from 12 in 2001 to 72 in 2007). Data from the State Court
Administrator’s Office (SCAO) indicates that 13 offenders were sentenced for gross misdemeanor identity theft in
2007 and 15 were sentenced in 2008. Therefore, there is a relatively small pool of people with identity theft
convictions who could have a future gross misdemeanor theft offense enhanced because of the prior conviction.
Data from SCAO also indicates that there were 965 offenders sentenced for a gross misdemeanor level-theft in
2007. Given the size of the current pool of offenders with convictions for identity theft, it is unlikely that more than
1-2% of the offenders sentenced for gross misdemeanor theft will have their offenses enhanced to felonies.
Therefore, it is estimated that adoption of this provision will result in an increase in the number of offenders
sentenced for felony theft of no more than 20 offenders a year. If 10% of those offenders receive executed prison
sentences, the projected impact is two beds a year. Allowing some time for implementation, one bed would be
needed in FY2010 and 2 beds in FY2011 and every year after.


Inclusion of Theft in Racketeering

It is assumed that the number of offenders sentenced for this expansion of racketeering will be quite small.
MSGC monitoring data indicate that in the five years from 2003 to 2007, 15 offenders were sentenced under the
racketeering statutes. Since only an average of 3 racketeering cases a year have been sentenced, it is assumed
that few additional offenders will be sentenced as a result of this expansion of the offense.

Racketeering is an unranked offense, which means that the court assigns a severity level to the offense based on
the facts of the case. Assigned severity levels for the 15 cases sentenced in the last five years have been:
severity level 6 (7 of the 15 cases), 7 (1 case), 8 (4 cases) and 9 (3 cases). Since MSGC has no information on
what the underlying criminal acts were for the racketeering cases sentenced, it is not possible to predict exactly


H0755-0                                                                                                   Page 12 of 13
what severity level will be assigned. However, if theft is the underlying criminal act, it is assumed that a severity
level higher than 8 is unlikely to be assigned. Of the 15 offenders sentenced for racketeering, 6 (40%) received
executed prison sentences with an average duration of 104 months. Of the 12 cases assigned severity levels
lower than 9, three received executed prison sentences with an average duration of 43 months (serve 29). It is
assumed that no more than two additional offenders a year will be sentenced for racketeering and only one
offender every other year will receive an executed prison sentence. The projected prison bed impact for this
scenario is 2 prison beds starting with one bed in FY2011 and FY2012, and 2 beds in FY2013 and every year
after.

The combined projected prison bed impact is 4 beds a year for both provisions of this bill. One bed will be
needed in FY2010, three in FY2011 and FY2012, and 4 beds in FY2013 and every year after.

It is estimated that the increase in felony probation caseloads will be 18 offenders a year. Those will be offenders
sentenced for identity theft who will move from gross misdemeanor to felony-level probation supervision. It is
assumed that any offenders receiving a probation sentence for racketeering would have received a probation
sentence for theft and therefore, while they may remain on probation for a longer period of time, they will not
increase the number of people placed under supervision. Because there is no increase projected in the total
number of offenders receiving probation sentences, just some increase in the length of time 19 of them will serve
on probation, the projected impact on local correctional resources is minimal.



FN Coord Signature: ANNE WALL
Date: 02/24/09 Phone: 297-2092

EBO Comments

I have reviewed this Fiscal Note for accuracy and content.

EBO Signature: JIM KING
Date: 02/24/09 Phone: 201-8033




H0755-0                                                                                                Page 13 of 13