How counties will handle requests to reconsider felony convictions

People convicted of some felonies will soon be able to legally petition for a reconsideration of their sentence or conviction. Starting Jan. 1, the new Oregon law requires county district attorneys to have implemented their own policies for convicted felons wishing to petition. We’ll hear from John Hummel, Deschutes County district attorney, and Christopher Parosa, chief deputy district attorney at Lane County, about how they both plan on carrying out the policy in the new year.

This transcript was created by a computer and edited by a volunteer.

Dave Miller: Starting next month, people who have been convicted of crimes in Oregon will have a new way to get their sentences reduced. Senate Bill 819 takes effect on January 1st. It will allow people who have been convicted of felony offenses to petition for sentence reductions if, and this is a big if, the local district attorney agrees. That obviously leaves a lot of discretion to DAs. We wanted to hear how two of them are planning to deal with this new law. So I’m joined now by John Hummel, Deschutes County district attorney, and Christopher Parosa, chief deputy district attorney in the Lane County’s DA office. Christopher Parosa, can you give us a sense for the kinds of sentencing modifications that are possible under Senate Bill 819?

Christopher Parosa: Under the Senate Bill, any conviction that isn’t subject to the potential for expungement is ultimately allowed to have consideration for a sentence reduction under the statute. So, each office in each county is going to have to develop their own policy to ultimately determine what types of cases that they choose to consider for sentencing review. And I think the various counties are in the process of doing that at this time.

Dave Miller: John Hummel, we’re not just talking about expunging someone’s criminal record, right? I mean, they might actually be let out of prison early.

John Hummel: Any modification that the district attorney and a judge considers appropriate. That can include throwing someone’s conviction out completely, it could include lowering a prison sentence [and] letting someone out of prison early, it could include lowering a fine; anything that the judge and the district attorney think justice requires. So, the legislature has given wide latitude to DHS and judges.

Dave Miller: Christopher Parosa, broadly, what’s a system that’s been set up in Lane County to consider these petitions?

Christopher Parosa: It should be known right away that the state of Washington actually had a very similar law in place well ahead of Oregon adopting Senate Bill 819. What we did as an office, and me in particular, was look to what some of the District Attorney’s offices around the state of Washington ultimately did. [We] looked at their policies and then we cobbled together the best ideas that we found from the various policies around the state of Washington. We drafted criteria for discretionary resentencing, placed it into a policy that you can find on our website, the Lane County District Attorney’s website. It starts with the understanding that the finality of sentences has long been and is a long standing and fundamental principle of criminal law. That said, we recognize that community standards for sentencing change over time and therefore we are willing to look at the various applications that come from incarcerated individuals to review their sentence to determine whether or not we think they are still just under modern community standards. We’ve laid out a policy that we think addresses that, understanding that we’re not likely to address resentencing on violent felony sentences unless there is some extraordinary circumstance that includes newly identified evidence that calls into question the integrity of the underlying conviction to begin with.

Dave Miller: Who is going to actually be doing these reviews?

Christopher Parosa: Our policy addresses that specifically. As the applications come in, the chief deputy will be in charge of doing initial screening to make sure that the applicant has submitted the information that we require to be a part of these packets for consideration and to ensure that we’re doing the best thing we can for the community and to protect community safety. I’ll scan those [and] the underlying convictions to see whether or not they meet the criteria for us to review them. I will get input from the prosecuting attorney who handled the case, if they’re still in our office at that time. And we will reach out to the victims associated in the case and try and solicit some feedback from them. I should [also] say with regard to these cases, if the prosecuting attorney and the chief deputy make the decision that this is a case worthy of potential reconsideration, we will approach the elected district attorney Patricia Perlow, to see if she agrees with our analysis.

Dave Miller: John Hummel, in Deschutes County, how are you going to be deciding whose petitions to put forward as joint petitions, meaning you and the person who was convicted of the felony?

John Hummel: Well, it starts with an understanding of the job of a prosecutor and Dave, it’s to achieve justice yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Never should a prosecutor close our file and consider our work completed. So, we’re going to be working hard on these cases. I’ve created a committee to help me make this decision. The committee is comprised of a victim of a crime of violence, a person who has served time in prison, a criminal defense attorney, and a deputy district attorney in my office. They will review every petition that comes into the office and then they’ll make a recommendation to me. I’ll consider their recommendation. But at the end of the day, it’s my job as the elected district attorney to decide what I think justice requires. And then if I decide there’s no valid basis for continuing that sentence for that conviction, I’ll file it in court. And then ultimately, of course, it’s up to the circuit court judge to make the decision.

Dave Miller: You’ve said that you’re not going to exclude people who have committed violent crimes, like homicide or sexual assault, from consideration. If I understand correctly from what we just heard from Christopher Parosa, that puts you at odds with Lane County, and I think with other counties as well. How did you make that decision to not, at the beginning, exclude certain categories of crimes?

John Hummel: As I sit here today, I cannot come up with every fact, scenario, and every case that’s ever come through the Deschutes County court since the county was founded over 100 years ago. No doubt the vast majority of crimes of violence I would look at and say that was a worthy conviction and a worthy sentence and there’s no need to undo it. But also, no doubt there are some cases out there where I would look back at a case and I would say continuing that conviction or continuing that sentence would not serve justice. So why should I shut the door on those cases? One reason you do it is because of the workload, right? And I respect that. But doing justice is not going to be limited by the workload. We’ll look at every case that comes in, we’ll consider every case on the merits, and we’ll move forward with petitions where we think continuing the sentence would be unjust.

Dave Miller: Christopher Parosa, in Lane County’s criteria for applying this law, it says that these petitions will only be granted in rare and extraordinary cases. Can you imagine an example of a case that might meet those criteria?

Christopher Parosa: There could be cases wherein when we reviewed the cases on the merit, we determined that there is factual evidence that we think may mitigate the circumstance beyond what we think is appropriate under modern sentencing. Certainly, we will give consideration to each and every one of those cases. We too intend to fully examine each of the petitions that come in and look into the case and the conviction, the facts of each of the cases before we make a decision on each case. We’re just prefacing our review on the fact that those who have committed violent crimes in the past and are serving sentences for those violent crimes are very unlikely to get their sentences reduced under our policy.

Dave Miller: John Hummel, The Herald and News had an article about this recently [that] had some quotes from you. It also had quotes from DAs in neighboring and more conservative Jefferson and Crook counties. One said this law is not on his radar. The other said he expects he’ll only use it in limited and exceptional circumstances, so language sort of like Lane County’s. Is it fair to say that we’re talking about a tool that may not even be used this much or at least might be looked into but not fully put into practice that much, or, if it is going to be used, to be used by more progressive district attorneys?

John Hummel: I learned long ago not to speak for other elected officials, so I respect my 35 colleagues. I’ll talk about what I’m going to do. Here’s the first petition I’m going to file on January 1st in partnership with the Criminal Justice Reform Clinic at Lewis and Clark Law School: I’m filing a case on behalf of Caitlin. Caitlin was 21 years old when she was convicted of selling drugs. She was ordered to complete 30 days of drug treatment and served time in jail. She chose to do 90 days of treatment. She lived in transitional and sober housing in the Oxford House for nine months after. She’s since completed her associate degree in sociology. She’s enrolled in her bachelor’s degree program in social work. She wants to go forward and get her master’s degree and her PhD and serve as a social worker. A felony conviction on her record is going to impact her professional licensing. I asked myself, “what justice is there in stopping Caitlin from bettering her life?” Once I answered [that] there is no justice in doing that then of course I’m putting that case into court and I’m going to be proud to do so.

Dave Miller: So, using that logic, couldn’t many people who have criminal records and who have turned their lives around argue the exact same thing?

John Hummel: Yes, and I expect they will. And if their story checks out, as Caitlin’s story checks out, I’ll be putting those cases into court and asking a judge to do the right thing.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show, or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook or Twitter, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.