House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 6, 2026

Transcript

350 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:12:09

   All right, we're gonna go ahead and get started first, uh, and we'll open up in a word of prayer real quick. Go bow your heads with me. Lord Jesus, thank you for this day. Thank you for all your blessings. Thank you most of all for salvation and restoration of our relationship with the Father, Lord. We just thank you for the opportunity to be here, Lord. Thank you for allowing us to serve in these positions. Help us do what would be edifying and glorifying to your name, Lord. Help us to always be conscious of your will. We thank you and praise you for it.

2. 0:12:40

   Forgive us of our sins and shortcomings. In your name we pray, amen.

3. 0:12:44

   Amen.

4. 0:12:44

   All right. F- first up, we're gonna call House Bill 464, Representative Bell. I'm going to request everyone, since we have rules at 9:00 this morning, in order to give everybody a fair shot to go up to the third floor, just be very, very brief and succinct. Representative Bell, if you wanna come down in front there.

5. 0:13:10

   I have a-

6. 0:13:11

   If you'll hand anything to the aide there and come on down and tell us what you got. And this is your first time being in front of Judiciary Non-Civil?

7. 0:13:20

   Yes, sir.

8. 0:13:20

   All right.

9. 0:13:21

   Um-

10. 0:13:22

    Second.

11. 0:13:23

    Well, second, maybe third time. I'm here to present House, here to present House Bill 464, which was favorably passed out ... Just want to present House Bill 464, which was favorably passed out of committee, um, last year. Uh, this bill provides enhanced protections for victims of violent crimes so that they seek, uh, justice and goodwill so that they would further not be perpetuated, and that we will see harm reduction in Georgia. Um, whether that's a victim of human trafficking or addiction, uh, we've seen that there's statistics that these people are less likely to call cops because they think they're gonna be arrested for other things.

12. 0:14:01

    And when a victim is afraid to come forward, crime is perpetuated, um, whether it's, um, sex trafficking, human trafficking, labor trafficking, or against someone who's just had a hard day and they're addicted and they need help. Uh, this is what this bill simply does. The committee made great amendments last year, and I'll ask that we favorably pass this this year, um, with the amendments of the committee. And thank you, sir.

13. 0:14:28

    Any questions from members of the committee? All right. Sign-up sheet.

14. 0:14:40

    Thank you so much, Representative.

15. 0:14:50

    Okay. Representative Bell, I see no questions from members of the committee. If you wanna just slide over there to the edge of the table.

16. 0:14:57

    Yes, sir.

17. 0:14:58

    Uh, let's see. Shruti, and make sure I get that pronou- that pronunciation correct.

18. 0:15:12

    Go ahead.

19. 0:15:13

    Good morning, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Shruti Lakshmanan, and I'm a policy advocate at the ACLU of Georgia. I'm here to testify in support of House Bill 464, which seeks to provide a limited immunity to victims of certain violent and sexual crimes. Under current Georgia law, survivors of sexual and violent crimes face an impossible reality. Seeking help from law enforcement could also result in their arrest. This discourages survivors from reporting their ex- experience, and as a result, many survivors do not receive proper medical attention or the support needed for recovery.

20. 0:15:48

    Many colleges already successfully use drug and alcohol immunity policies to encourage students to report crimes, demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach. Reporting rates for violent crimes are higher at schools with immunity policies, and more survivors seek medical care, participate in investigations, and receive needed services. Good Samaritan overdose immunity laws are also instructive. 48 states have adopted such laws, and research shows they are associated with a 15% r- reduction in overdose deaths without any increase in drug use.

21. 0:16:21

    This evidence demonstrates that criminal immunity provisions encourage reporting without encouraging unlawful behavior. Increased reporting would also enhance public safety. By encouraging earlier reporting, HB 464 would help to prevent repeat offenses, future harm, and additional victimization. Finally, several southern states, including Mississippi and Virginia, have already enacted similar immunity laws. HB 464 would therefore bring Georgia in line with its regional peers. For these reasons, we urge you to support House Bill 464.

22. 0:16:53

    Thank you.

23. 0:16:53

    Thank you.

24. 0:16:54

    And I yield for questions.

25. 0:16:55

    Thank you. See no questions. Thank you for being with us so bright and early this morning.

26. 0:17:08

    Okay, I think that's all I had signed up for 464. Anybody else come in that wanted to testify to it? All right. Okay, thank you. Representative Bell, we'll come back to you here shortly. Next up, have, uh, House Bill 1322, Representative Mike Cheokas, gentleman from Americas. Chairman Cheokas, uh, Mike.

27. 0:17:31

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think, uh, Chelsea did an excellent job yesterday.

28. 0:17:36

    Can you pull that microphone up closer to you?

29. 0:17:38

    Yeah. I think Chelsea did an excellent job yesterday in explaining the legislation. Um, and I'm going by some of her notes. And, uh, there, there is precedent in, in having a felon, I mean, a, um, rioting, a, a felony. Um, if, if inmates have a riot in a penal institution, it's created, it's considered a felony. Um, it does not infringe on protesting or First Amendment rights that would have, that you would have in a peaceful protest.

30. 0:18:14

    Those activities are still protected. Um-

31. 0:18:22

    There were some discussions about, uh, disorderly conduct. One of the pro-, uh, prongs the prosecutor could charge is acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person, whereby by... Yeah, whereby such person's place is a reasonable fear for the safety of such person's life, limb, and health. Uh, and I'll try to answer questions.

32. 0:18:49

    Okay.

33. 0:18:52

    I see no questions. All right, if you wanna slide over, Chairman.

34. 0:18:58

    Yes, sir.

35. 0:18:58

    We'll take testimony real quick.

36. 0:19:05

    I- I think we had some testimony yesterday. I see nobody else signed up. Um, Gakko, y'all-

37. 0:19:12

    Uh, we'll send them what we typed yesterday, sir.

38. 0:19:14

    Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Anybody else come in that wanna testify to this that didn't get a chance to sign up? Going once, going twice, gone. All right. I think we're in a posture of potential motion.

39. 0:19:31

    Motion to table.

40. 0:19:32

    All right.

41. 0:19:32

    Second.

42. 0:19:32

    I got a motion to table and a second. All those in favor of mo- uh, motion to table bill, say I.

43. 0:19:39

    I.

44. 0:19:40

    All those opposed, same sign.

45. 0:19:43

    No.

46. 0:19:45

    All right. Raise hands. All those in favor.

47. 0:19:50

    All right. All those opposed to the motion to table. Looks like a tie vote. I'll break the tie. Motion to table fails. All right. Any other motions from members of the committee?

48. 0:20:04

    Move to pass.

49. 0:20:04

    All right, got a move to pass.

50. 0:20:06

    Second.

51. 0:20:07

    Second. All those in favor... Or excuse me, any amendment? Seeing none. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1322, LC 492665, say I.

52. 0:20:23

    I.

53. 0:20:23

    All those opposed, same sign.

54. 0:20:26

    No.

55. 0:20:26

    All right. Chair votes I. You own the rules. Get me a form, I'll sign it.

56. 0:20:30

    Thank you.

57. 0:20:32

    All right. Next up we have, uh, Representative Danny Mathis, House Bill 1395. And I know you presented one day this week already, so if you wanna just go over the brief highlights.

58. 0:20:47

    Okay.

59. 0:20:48

    And thanks for being here so early this morning.

60. 0:20:50

    Thank you for having me here early this morning. Thank you. This is, uh, House Bill 1395, HC 394950. It's just a, a component with the DUI alcohol and drug use risk reduction programs, and what we're asking is it to be conducted in person, not online. And the reason for that is my opinion that, uh, it shouldn't be convenient for folks, and these, uh, interactions face to face will help folks, uh, understand the severity of what has happened.

61. 0:21:25

    I know there were penalties. I know they take, had their license taken away, but this is another part of that, uh, rehabilitation. Uh, we've all had situations where we had terrible things happen with folks that have had, uh, encounters with DUI, uh, situations. Won't get into that. I know the Mothers Against drunk drivers is for this. Had a judge tell me this is an extension of some of the penalties that they have. So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I'll open to any questions, answer any questions.

62. 0:21:58

    Number six. Is that r- ... Oh.

63. 0:22:00

    End of motion.

64. 0:22:01

    Okay. All right. Okay. Anybody else signed up to speak to this that didn't speak the other day?

65. 0:22:11

    I spoke the other day.

66. 0:22:12

    Do you have anything to add?

67. 0:22:14

    Well, I do just quickly.

68. 0:22:15

    Okay, come on down, sir.

69. 0:22:22

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Barry Shrank. Been here before. Uh, wanna tell you that I do support this bill, and for the last year or more, there have been well-researched reports that our school-age students are substantially behind academically because of their exposure to online or Zoom instruction due to COVID. So just picture a DUI offender who doesn't wanna be in a risk reduction class, who may be addicted or close to it, and who is mandated to take this course.

70. 0:23:01

    He or she is now at home or in a car or a restaurant sitting behind a monitor or an iPhone and perhaps drinking a beer or smoking a funny cigarette. This situation occurs on a regular basis according to the online instructors that I have spoken with. Now add onto the equation that there are as many as 40 offenders on a Zoom call teaching this class. In the classroom, the instructor maintains proper decorum, including enforcing the rule that the class starts at a certain time, and that's when the door to the classroom is locked.

71. 0:23:40

    It is rare for a classroom student to violate the rules. We have a gold star in-person program, and because COVID is over, we should return to in-person classes only. Public safety and public health demand it. Also, I thought Bob Dallas would be here today. Most people know who he is. Represents MADD, a longtime board member of MADD, and I've talked to their national people. They support this bill, Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

72. 0:24:13

    That's all I have.

73. 0:24:16

    Okay. See no questions. Thank you, Barry.

74. 0:24:18

    You're welcome.

75. 0:24:21

    All right Any further discussion from members of the committee?

76. 0:24:29

    Representative Fincher.

77. 0:24:30

    Just that I would agree. I w- I started my career as a probation parole officer. I've worked in, uh, courts as a assistant district attorney, prosecuted some of these cases, and the dignity of being in present, um, makes the, makes them pay better attention. I'm a big supporter of accountability courts. Accountability courts are face-to-face, and I think it's, it makes it, uh, it makes it sit. There's, there's a better chance. I don't think I could look myself in the mirror knowing that I made it easy for somebody, easier to, as you s- as the last witness said, just sit there and tinker with all of what I'm doing and do an online course, that you just don't get the gravamen of it, and I'm in support of this.

78. 0:25:21

    Okay. A- any further discussion from members of the committee? All right. I'll entertain a motion if there is one.

79. 0:25:29

    Move do pass.

80. 0:25:30

    All right, can move do pass.

81. 0:25:32

    Second.

82. 0:25:33

    All right, move do pass is second. Any amendments? Seeing none. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1395 LC 39, 49, 50 say, "Aye."

83. 0:25:46

    Aye.

84. 0:25:46

    All those opposed, same sign.

85. 0:25:48

    No.

86. 0:25:49

    All right, bill fails. All right. We're gonna go on to House Bill 1175. Representative Neal, you can present from right there. Which number? Four?

87. 0:26:01

    Five.

88. 0:26:03

    Go ahead.

89. 0:26:05

    Okay. Let me get my ...

90. 0:26:12

    There we go. Okay, thank you to the chair, thank you to this committee for letting me bring this back. Um, after a robust discussion, um, last, uh, last time we met on this, uh, there have been a number of changes that were made, uh, between PAC and GACDL. Um, and this is a more condensed version. We, we actually condensed it, uh, made it a little tighter than it was before. Uh, but essentially, the overall goal is still the same. Uh, persons that steal what we consider to be an essential item, uh, food or toiletry good or merchandise that is necessary and fundamental for a person's daily survival, uh, and basic wellbeing, they will be, uh, have the option when sentenced, uh, to get the option of being a- aligned with a food pantry, um, being aligned with, um, community service, or being aligned with a nonprofit to take care of that need.

91. 0:27:06

    The goal for this bill is to make sure that they don't go back and steal those items from a store or what have you. Actually, um, there's a place, uh, a resource, um, that they can, um, utilize in lieu of doing that. And, um, does GACDL or, uh, want to address some of the issues that committee members had?

92. 0:27:26

    Okay. Any questions from members of the committee?

93. 0:27:35

    All right, I see none. Uh, as far as signed up to speak. Does PAC wanna weigh in?

94. 0:27:42

    I think we should do PAC.

95. 0:27:43

    Okay.

96. 0:27:43

    Okay.

97. 0:27:44

    All right. What about GACDL?

98. 0:27:47

    If you don't need to hear anything on ... If you don't need anything on the adjustments, we're fine. We don't s- We, we support what's coming out of this, uh, based on the conversations that we had.

99. 0:27:54

    Okay. Just real quick, tell us what the adjustments were.

100. 0:27:58

     Mm.

101. 0:28:24

     Good morning. I'm Amie Zealan Gurton from the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Um, so some of the, the ... If you ... I will just walk through quickly the adjustments that were made. Um, I'm going back to the original filed version just to sh- to tell you the differences there. So the essential item definition remains the same. What has changed is, for instance, um, the subject of the alleged theft not only needs to be an essential item, but the aggregate value has been reduced down from $100 to $50.

102. 0:28:59

     You'll see that there at line 16. Um, and it is the aggregate value of the item or items that are the subject of the theft. That remains the same.

103. 0:29:12

     Okay.

104. 0:29:13

     Um, the ... Sorry, sorry. I think there's another spot.

105. 0:29:32

     My apologies. I-

106. 0:29:33

     Line 22.

107. 0:29:33

     Yeah, sorry. That's what I was looking for.

108. 0:29:35

     It's okay.

109. 0:29:36

     Um,

110. 0:29:40

     so where it starts with n- no, um, up in line 21 that

111. 0:29:46

     no fine will be assessed, and the court may order that a sentence of confinement ... We've added the, um ... I'm sorry. I got my head into a different bill, and I'm ... I apologize that I'm st- stammering and stuttering here. Um, there is the additional, um, sentence of confinement that cannot exceed 10 days that was not in the original bill, so that there is that ability to incarcerate if necessary.

112. 0:30:17

     The rest of the language remains the same.

113. 0:30:23

     Okay.

114. 0:30:26

     All right. I'll come back to your motion. Just wanna make sure we get discussion. Anybody else signed up on this? All right.

115. 0:30:40

     And just to be clear, we're working off LC48-1763 is correct?

116. 0:30:44

     Yes.

117. 0:30:45

     Okay.

118. 0:30:58

     No. No, that's not right. 1770. That's not here.

119. 0:31:11

     Number 16. Chairman Gunter.

120. 0:31:13

     It's not the right one.

121. 0:31:15

     17. Yeah.

122. 0:31:18

     I got nothing to work either.

123. 0:31:22

     It's not the right one.

124. 0:31:24

     Okay.

125. 0:31:25

     Mm-hmm.

126. 0:31:26

     I think, um, this is more, uh, an opinion than a question, but, um, I, I understand that the author is trying to do a good thing for somebody that's kinda down and out, but this is terrible policy.

127. 0:31:41

     Mm-hmm.

128. 0:31:43

     I mean, this is... You're, you're setting it up so that businesses will go out of business or won't serve a community if they keep getting robbed, even if it's misdemeanor. I understand that, but, um, they'll s- they'll close their doors and le- and leave. And you talk about these grocery store, uh, deserts and stuff like that in the communities. You're gonna have much more of that if you pass this bill. That's my opinion.

129. 0:32:14

     Thanks, Chairman Gunter. Any further discussion from members of the committee? All right. Wanna make sure we get the right LC just for when we, uh-

130. 0:32:25

     One time, yeah. We have it

131. 0:32:26

     ... get the vote, so.

132. 0:32:27

     Chairman, uh, can I s- can we see what you're looking at?

133. 0:32:31

     Can we just take a look at it?

134. 0:32:31

     I would like to as well. So we're waiting.

135. 0:32:36

     It's all we got.

136. 0:32:37

     It's not the right one.

137. 0:32:37

     That is not the right one, Mr. Leader. All right. Claire, we'll come back to this one. Uh, just to keep things flowing so everybody can get a chance to get rules in, we'll call back up House Bill 464. Um, Representative Bell, you don't have to come back down. You can just stay there, but any discussion on House Bill 464?

138. 0:33:09

     No discussion.

139. 0:33:11

     All right.

140. 0:33:11

     Move to pass.

141. 0:33:11

     All right. Hear a motion to pass and second. Any amendments? Seeing none. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 464, LC48-1579S say, "Aye." Aye. All those opposed, same sign. No. All right. Bill fails.

142. 0:33:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

143. 0:33:37

     Okay. Representative Holcomb, come on down. House Bill 894. And just read out the LC number for us.

144. 0:33:48

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, LC48-1799S.

145. 0:33:55

     So this is the second, Georgia Second Look Act. We had a really good conversation, uh, in committee before, and as a reminder of what it does is it tries to fill people who are caught between the gap of, in 1994, the state moved forward with very significant, um, sentencing, uh, policies. And then in the 2010s, Governor Deal recalibrated a good bit with criminal justice reform, but there are some people who are caught in the gap.

146. 0:34:27

     And there's one specific person that I've learned of, um, which is a gentleman named Jesse Askew, and he, uh, he committed a crime with an armed robbery. And interestingly, there were no, uh, bullets i- in the gun. He used the gun as a tool of coercion to have individuals, it was a restaurant, go into, uh, the freezer, and then he robbed, um, the restaurant along with another individual. Certainly terrible behavior, certainly behavior that needed to be punished.

147. 0:35:00

     He had, prior to that, three, um, felonies, all of which were non-violent. One was, uh, a forged check, uh, one was a broken window. Um, and he was charged under one of the changes to our laws in 1994, and for an armed robbery with no violence and with nobody getting hurt, received a life without parole sentence. He has now done 28 years in prison. By way of comparison, his co-defendant received a sentence of 10 years.

148. 0:35:34

     So what this bill does is one would still have to serve a very significant period of time. You'd still have to serve 20 full years, but after 20 years, there would be a number of factors that a judge could evaluate to potentially, uh, modify the sentence. And listening to feedback from the committee, we made two substantive changes that I will highlight. One is we removed the rebuttable presumption at 55, so that is gone, and then on line 140, um, it also has an express statement that the judge could also order supervision upon release.

149. 0:36:09

     My sense is, is that very few people will be able to take advantage of this, because if there is opposition from either the prosecutors or the victims or their families, that would be very difficult. So it'd likely be, uh, the scenarios where everybody agrees that this should be changed and modified. And the last thing that I'll say is that there is a cost to all this. Uh, it is expensive to incarcerate individuals. We have to build more prisons, because we don't have individuals leaving, uh, until death.

150. 0:36:39

     And, uh- This would provide a little bit of a safety valve and also an incentive for those that are within the Department of Corrections, um, to behave better, because that would be a factor that would be considered as well, is their behavior within the Department of Corrections. So, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any questions if there are any.

151. 0:36:59

     Number seven, Representative Kendrick.

152. 0:37:01

     No. Oh, sorry.

153. 0:37:03

     All right. See no questions from members of the committee. Representative Holcomb, if you want to slide over. Uh, first up, I'm gonna call Robert Smith with PAC.

154. 0:37:23

     Good morning. Robert Smith from the PAC. Um, you heard from some of the DAs last time. Um, I want to also acknowledge that Representative Holcomb is a champion, and we've worked with him on in the past, and it's difficult sometimes to speak against the wisdom of his bills. I do wanna point out two things to you. Name of the case is Askew versus the State. It was decided in tw- 2002. I don't have an exact cite of the, um... But in this case, the Supreme Court of Georgia heard the argument.

155. 0:37:56

     It heard the argument that this was an improper sentence, and they found that it was a proper sentence because Mr. Mr. Askew was found guilty of armed robbery, three counts of kidnapping, and three counts of aggravated assault. He and a co-con- he and a co-defendant took over $4,000 from a Bur- Morrison's cafeteria and locked the employees in a freezer. In doing it, they used a firearm. They moved the people around. He had, you know, has been stated he had four prior felony convictions, and you as a body have told us that if we file a recidivist notice and make the court aware no- know this information, there is no choice but when you are convicted of armed robbery, when you are convicted of kidnapping, you must, the defendant must be sentenced to a life without parole sentence.

156. 0:38:41

     So rather than creating this new process, change the penalty. Change the, change the recidivist pro- portion. The other thing I'm, another concern is that if you go into our Constitution, specifically, um, Article f- four, p- uh, Section 2, Paragraph 2 on the Parole Board, it gives the Parole Board the power to grant reprieves, pardons and paroles to commute penalties. So my other concern is that if you create this very well-intentioned piece of legislation, we could be looking at a constitutional challenge at some point, because you're granting a trial court the authority to commute a sentence rather than giving it to the Parole Board.

157. 0:39:26

     Because this would not be, this is not the other instances that we got through criminal justice reform where there was a consensual piece where the state bought into it. This would be the defendant filing it on his own and asking for consideration. So those are my two big concerns. You heard other things from the DAs that spoke that night, so I'm just kind of, you know, encapsulating everything that was said and just pointing out the position you're gonna be putting us in because on one hand you're telling us to make sure we file our service notice and make sure the trial court's aware of criminal histories, but on the other hand, "Hey, when you, when, uh, given the opportunity, make sure we let people who are facing life and life without parole the opportunity to be able to serve."

158. 0:40:09

     So there's a concern under this, s- even as amended with a substitute, that this could jeopardize the recidivist statute here in the state?

159. 0:40:20

     I personally believe it's in conflict with.

160. 0:40:23

     Okay.

161. 0:40:24

     Because as was stated by one of the DAs, when you tell a, the, the victims pre- in this case, Mr. Askew's case, were told that the defend- and heard a judge sentence the defendant to, that he was going, that the defendant would be going to prison for the rest of his life, those victims, those people that were locked in the freezer that night in Morrison's, have until this day believed that Mr. Askew was never going to be in a position to harm them again. If this bill's passed and Mr. Askew's given the, given this re- relief, he would be able to, he could essentially be allowed to walk freely again.

162. 0:41:01

     I understand there's a probation piece, and we can put conditions on it, but understand the difference. Looking at a victim and explaining to a victim that this is the sentence, this is the finality of the sentence, "Oh, no, wait a minute. Wait a minute. We're gonna now not make it final." And I also to the, I do- I don't know if the current DA, Eric Everett, has been approached to see if he would be willing to consent under our current law to be able to have the sentence re- re-enact, re, um, reconsidered. So those are the points.

163. 0:41:30

     Had a question over here, number seven.

164. 0:41:32

     No. That was it.

165. 0:41:32

     Oh. All right. See no further questions.

166. 0:41:35

     Thank you.

167. 0:41:36

     Uh, Michael, if you wanna come down.

168. 0:41:39

     Okay. Thanks, Parker.

169. 0:41:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, share with this microphone. Um, and thank you to the committee for hearing this today. Um, happy crossover day. Um, uh, as we said, uh, last week, we support this bill and we support it as amended. Um, this bill would just clarify the process of a type of re-sentencing and reconsideration that already happens in lots of cases. We've worked on dozens with district attorneys around the state. Um, I am reluctant, um, to focus too much on one individual, um, a- as the impetus behind this bill because we represent others who could potentially benefit.

170. 0:42:23

     At the same time, I think Jesse Askew's case, um, does emphasize the need for some type of clear process. Um, this is, um, a, an extraordinary case where the former elected district attorney who prosecuted him now is the lead champion for him to be re-sentenced. The, the people who were in the store- At the time of the robbery, the victims also support his re-sentencing. In the last 30 years, he's earned OSHA certifications, he, um, hasn't had a disciplinary for any type of violent conduct, has not been in trouble for over a decade.

171. 0:42:59

     He works on the medical emergency response team at the prison, and the, and he doesn't, he's not eligible for any type of parole board commutation because of his offense. So actually, the Georgia Parole Board contacted my office and said, "Can you look into this case and see if there's something you can do to try to work with him?" Um, so we are trying to do that. We are trying to work with the current district attorney, Mr. Edwards, on that. Um, but at the same time, this process could potentially clarify things, um, a- and ensure that people like Jesse, who- who commit a terrible mistake when they're young, he was in his early 20s, um, but who, over the last 30 years, have demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to rehabilitation and self-improvement, have a chance to have a judge at least look at that sentence and decide whether or not he's eligible for- for reconsideration.

172. 0:43:49

     Um, I welcome any questions, um, but I- I appreciate the committee's time.

173. 0:43:53

     See no questions. Thank you, Michael.

174. 0:43:55

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

175. 0:43:56

     Oh, wait.

176. 0:43:56

     Oh.

177. 0:43:56

     Oh, hold on. I misspoke. Vice Chairman Hong.

178. 0:43:58

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, can you address the- the concerns that PAC had that-

179. 0:44:04

     Uh, re- regarding the, um, parole board and potential constitutional challenge, we don't share those concerns. We've worked on these cases with, um, with district attorneys around the state, rural, urban, um, north, south, east, west, and, um, and in, in a case like Mr. Askeus, who's not eligible for any type of commutation, there's- there's certainly no risk of- of, um, of intruding on their, um, on their constitutional power to grant, uh, commutations. Um, courts often have, uh, if the legislature grants a- a court the authority to reconsider a sentence, much like they do immediately in the year or so after the conviction becomes final, um, that- that's something that's within the court's jurisdiction to do without any constitutional challenges.

180. 0:44:50

     What about the concerns as far as the victims?

181. 0:44:54

     Um, under the, under the, um, terms of this bill, the victims have a right to participate. Um, and, um, and certainly other aspects of Georgia law require that they be notified of any change and- and brought in, and I- I think Mr. McGinley said that to the extent practical, uh, practicable, they would be brought in any type of proceeding like this. Um, and that's how it's worked so far.

182. 0:45:17

     Okay. See no other questions. Thank you.

183. 0:45:19

     Thank you.

184. 0:45:20

     All right. Uh, Jaina with the Georgia Catholic Conference, come on down.

185. 0:45:32

     Good morning. Uh, thank you for giving me the time to speak on this bill. Um, I'm Jaina Hofacker, Executive Director of the Georgia Catholic Conference, uh, and we are happy to support this bill. Uh, for a long time, the Catholic Church has advocated for a more restorative system that seeks to balance accountability, um, with an openness to personal transformation and redemption. Um, as Pope Francis said a couple of years before he died, "It is right that people who have done wrong should pay for their mistake, but it is equally right that those who have done wrong should be able to redeem themselves from their mistake.

186. 0:46:05

     Any sentence must always have a window of hope." So we're- we are happy to support this window of hope in Georgia's law, however few people it may apply to. So, thank you, and any questions?

187. 0:46:17

     Well, what does the current pope think?

188. 0:46:19

     Uh, the current... Pope Leo hasn't spoken about this specifically, but he's kind of been locked up with Pope Francis.

189. 0:46:27

     All right.

190. 0:46:27

     I have friends of friends.

191. 0:46:30

     Thank you for being with us.

192. 0:46:31

     Thank you.

193. 0:46:32

     All right. If my eyes are not deceiving me, I think that's all that we had signed up here. Okay.

194. 0:46:39

     Mr. Chairman, can I respond?

195. 0:46:40

     Oh, yeah, yeah. Come on. Come on.

196. 0:46:43

     Thank you. Um, just a- a few things is usually I'm on the same side as PAC- PAC, and I certainly appreciate a tête-à-tête, uh, um, against the anvil of reason. But, um, let- let- let me just respond to a couple of things. One, I absolutely think this is constitutional. Um, it does not say exclusive authority, and the- the genesis of that was paroles were, like, deals for cash with former governors. And so they took it out of the governor's office, put a parole board to try to address that.

197. 0:47:14

     So within the executive branch, the only entity that can do these things is the state parole board, but that doesn't mean that the judiciary does not also have its own authority to address sentences. Secondly, um, one of the suggestions was that the current DA can potentially take a look at the sentence and make an adjustment. That's exactly what we're trying to do, is to provide the legal architecture to allow that to happen. And so within that statement, there is support for what we're trying to do.

198. 0:47:48

     And then to echo, um, what was also said, is that the district attorney who prosecuted this case, and it's really, I think, as a former prosecutor, significant to listen to that, of he put his work into this, he tried the case, and it is his cause. A- a- and should we look at it bigger than Jesse? 100%, but this is just a case to make it real. And so I would, uh, strongly encourage, um, favorable support, and happy to answer any questions.

199. 0:48:25

     See no questions. All right, members, any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none. Move. All right, I got a motion to pass. Second. A second. Uh, any amendments? Seeing none. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 894, LC 48 1799S, say I.

200. 0:48:47

     I.

201. 0:48:47

     All those opposed? No.

202. 0:48:48

     No.

203. 0:48:50

     All right, let me see a show of hands. Uh, all those in favor raise your hand.

204. 0:48:56

     It died.

205. 0:48:57

     All right, you can put your hands down. All those opposed?

206. 0:49:03

     All right, chair votes no.

207. 0:49:05

     Okay. Thank you.

208. 0:49:06

     All right. We're gonna go back to House Bill 1175. I believe we have the-

209. 0:49:15

     Correct

210. 0:49:15

     ... uh, correct LC number now, so I think we're in a discussion phase.

211. 0:49:22

     We are.

212. 0:49:23

     Uh-

213. 0:49:24

     Can I say something?

214. 0:49:24

     Go ahead.

215. 0:49:25

     Uh, thank you. Um, I'm not sure if you're in the committee, uh, subcommittee or not, but, um, so one of the main goals for this is because of the value of the items was so low in a lot of these cases, um, when people are, you know, put in jail for them, um, the value of that item starts to not compare, you know, with the daily amount it costs to be in jail, between all the processes you go through of paying the staff and all the processing in general. And we just thought it w- it would be better served when it comes to the tax dollars, um, to find ulterior or alternate options for these people.

216. 0:49:59

     Um, this, I also consulted with a number of chief judges, um, in this state. Um, and I've been trying to time this out. They were trying to get their court calendars together so they can come and testify. All of them have walked through this bill with me line by line. Um, and then also too- ... adding Pack and Gaffner kinda a- advising, um, on some of the other, um, aspects, uh, to tighten it up, was done as well. And then on top of that, when it comes to the stores that you mentioned, uh, they wanted some type of confinement, so that's why we added back in the 10 days, um, 'cause I did consult with the grocery stores, I did consult with the convenience stores, and I wanted to make sure that when I came into this committee, it was tight as possible.

217. 0:50:38

     Chairman Gunter.

218. 0:50:39

     Okay. So they get a free meal when they go in there and make the initial theft, and then they get 10 more days of housing and food when they get arrested and sentenced. That's kinda what I'm seeing with this. Um, I understand what you're saying. One other thing that bothers me about this is, uh, last year a bill got tacked onto my bill that basically legalized it for law enforcement to walk into a place and steal as well. So-

219. 0:51:07

     They didn't like this?

220. 0:51:08

     Yeah, yeah. Sure did. So, um, you know, we're going in the wrong direction here, folks. And that's the, that's the problem I'm having with all this.

221. 0:51:19

     Maize Lynn, was there-

222. 0:51:21

     Great

223. 0:51:22

     ... some te- I think Maize Lynn wanted to clarify on some fixes.

224. 0:51:26

     Thank you, Chairman. I really appreciate the opportunity to look like I actually know something about this job that I do. Um, the technical changes that were made to the bill were to tighten up the citation process. It now points to the proper p- portion of the code where the use of a citation to bring charges against someone is already there. The, the prior version had a new scheme laid out, so we tightened that by reporting to what's already there. And then we also pointed to the section in the code where judges are allowed to, um, substitute community service for, um, basically the payment of your fees by, by service.

225. 0:52:01

     So those are just technical changes that we made. Obviously, the policy is up to you.

226. 0:52:06

     I, I, I'm asking a question.

227. 0:52:07

     Rep- Representative.

228. 0:52:09

     Yes.

229. 0:52:10

     We are very pressed for time and-

230. 0:52:12

     And we were helping with the technical matters. This is not a bill that, um, either, um, the state or the defense... I mean, we like it, but it's not something that, um, I have a lot of information about the policy on.

231. 0:52:22

     Representative Fincher, just be quick if you can.

232. 0:52:24

     I, j- just, uh, what would keep a judge from doing this anyway if a judge were so inclined? Wh- why couldn't a judge just sentence this way? Uh, I mean, what would keep them from doing it? A good judge who understands the situation should be able to do this, uh, give this kind of sentence. There's nothing in, uh, the law that I can see that would require them to do anything other than, you know, something that's compassionate.

233. 0:52:50

     I think that's a fair point, Representative Fincher. I think that they could.

234. 0:52:53

     Thank you.

235. 0:52:55

     Uh, Vice Chairman Hong.

236. 0:52:56

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, I know you mentioned that you've spoken and, um, with chief judges who were in favor of this, but they just were not able to be here today. Who were those chief judges?

237. 0:53:07

     Um, so one of them was, um, uh, Gary Jackson. Another one is, uh, Andre Day, uh, Bey, B-E-Y. Um, and then let me get my third one for you. Hold on.

238. 0:53:25

     Um,

239. 0:53:30

     uh, Jackson. Gary. And then the third one was, um ...

240. 0:53:52

     We have bad choices.

241. 0:53:54

     All right. I'm gonna have to move on if you can't find it.

242. 0:53:56

     I'm sorry.

243. 0:53:57

     Uh-

244. 0:53:57

     I'm gonna get the name for her.

245. 0:53:58

     All right.

246. 0:53:58

     She was super nice.

247. 0:53:59

     Just follow up afterwards. Okay.

248. 0:54:00

     Chris Ward.

249. 0:54:01

     Chris Ward.

250. 0:54:01

     Chris Ward was the third judge.

251. 0:54:02

     They kept calling and calling but I couldn't get ahold of them.

252. 0:54:05

     Thank you.

253. 0:54:06

     All right. Any other further discussion from the committee? All right. Uh, thank you, Representative Neal.

254. 0:54:13

     Thank you.

255. 0:54:13

     Thank you to everyone who testified. All right. Made a posture if there's motion. To pass. I got a motion to pass. I'll second. All those in favor of the passage of, uh, House Bill 1175, Substitute LC 1770S, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. No. All right. Bill fails.

256. 0:54:41

     Jeez. All right. I'm gonna go real quick. Uh, Representative Derrick Jackson.

257. 0:54:50

     And Representative, if you'll be as quick as you can.

258. 0:54:53

     Yes, sir. I will. Good morning, uh, Mr. Chairman, and, uh- And, uh, committee, um, I'm Derrick Jackson. I'm rep- and I am coming from LC481683. Uh, real quick, I know the timing, uh, is, is critical this morning, and so the, the, this eight-page bill is summed up in line 17 through 26. It's to help standardize what decriminalization and legalization is.

259. 0:55:24

     Uh, we do not have a, a clear definition when it comes to cannabis, and so this bill, this eight-page bill, um, when you look at it, we are, we're defining what legalization and, and decriminalization is and what it is not. That's number one. Number two, um, because we have 536 cities and 159 counties, um, a, a, a lot of our municipalities are looking for guidance from the state. And so this right here is saying, well, what decriminalization is, is two ounces and less.

260. 0:55:58

     Um, some municipalities have an ounce or 1.5, uh, and so I'm suggesting that we, uh, take the lead as, um, state representatives and state senators to, um, standardize this fragmented, uh, situation for all 536 cities and all 159 counties. There's a economic, uh, component to this as well for those who love to look at supply and demand side of things, Mr. Chairman. Uh, there's a economic piece in there that you will find in there.

261. 0:56:31

     And then last but not least, uh, this is gonna help keep families across Georgia whole, so that way folks are not losing their job. And so you'll see that I'm trying to move the conversation from, uh, this product, uh, being more criminal to more civil. And so, uh, with that, I, I open up to any questions, and hopefully, Mr. Chairman, that was, uh, abbreviated as much as possible. Thank you, sir. Very abbreviated, and the committee does thank you for that brevity.

262. 0:57:03

     Okay. Seeing no questions from members of the committee, if you want to just slide over to the side there, Representative. We had a few signed up for this. I apologize. You can thank those that, uh, went before you and took too long, but, uh, I have to give you a minute to testify. So, um, let's see here.

263. 0:57:31

     Trent Richardson.

264. 0:57:46

     Thank you, Chairman and the members of the committee. My name is Trent Richardson with Front Line Policy Council. I'm speaking in opposition to HB 1248. While the bill frames this as an economic opportunity, legalization comes with serious public health and safety concerns which only end up costing the state more. States that have legalized recreational marijuana have seen increases in impaired driving incidents, emergency room visits, and youth exposure to high-potency cannabis products. Creating an entirely new commercial cannabis industry in Georgia would also bring significant regulatory challenges and would place additional strain on our law enforcement and public health systems.

265. 0:58:22

     Le- legalization normalizes drug use in ways that negatively impact families and communities, particularly our children. We should prioritize policies that strengthen families, protect children, and promote long-term health and safety rather than expanding access to recreational drugs such as this. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to oppose HB 1248. Thank you. All right. Good job. Came in under a minute. Thank you. Seeing no questions from members of the committee, uh, Aviva, come on down.

266. 0:58:56

     Hi, Chairman and committee. Thanks for the intro song. Um, this i- I urge you to think about what a night in jail is like if you've never experienced it, and if you think anyone deserves this trauma for smoking a cigarette or drinking alcohol or smoking cannabis, then you will vote no on this bill. But if you think it's worth it to not traumatize our people and keep them healthy mentally, we just spent 300 million or something on mental health.

267. 0:59:30

     We can prevent mental health issues by not traumatizing them and re-traumatizing them, and that's what this bill will help by just keeping people out of jail. It's still illegal. It does not illegal- it does not legalize it like the previous, uh, speaker said. It's just helping our people not be traumatized. 300,000 people are coming here for FIFA. We don't want to traumatize them either. Some of them are from other countries that are legal, and most of our states are legal. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you.

268. 1:00:00

     All right.

269. 1:00:06

     Like I saw, I had signed up. Uh, Chair McCrow. Um, yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that, um, lines 103 creates a new code section, 1612 203, that looks like it makes it legal for anybody 21 and older to possess up to two ounces of cannabis and up to 10 grams of cannabis concentrates- ... and cultivate up to three mature cannabis plants for personal use in an enclosed space. So it, it reads to me like we are, in fact, legalizing possession of recreational marijuana under two ounces, so just wanted to point that out.

270. 1:00:42

     Thank you, sir. Any other further discussion from members of the committee? All right. Yolanda was signed up. Did you, did you see my name on the list? I signed up. Oh, I'm sorry. Come on down.

271. 1:01:06

     I'll be brief. Um, Yolanda Bennett with the Georgia Medical Cannabis Society. I speak in support of this legislation right here. This legislation does not legalize cannabis. What this does is take away the, um, prison time. And as we know, the Fulton County Commissioner just bailed out again the three, three inmates that they were able to bail out because of the overcrowding in jail. This does not legalize cannabis. This takes away going to jail.

272. 1:01:38

     And as far as the plants, having plants, no, that's not legalizing that. Cannabis is medicine. Cannabis is my medicine. And due to medical cannabis not expanding here in Georgia as of yet, it's been over 11 years, and we haven't moved the, moved the, moved the needle. I need my meds. And so this bill right here, here will allow me to get my meds. If you go back to the Mona Taft Act, 1980, Alice O'Reilly, she came here to go...

273. 1:02:13

     Okay, I'm finished, but yeah, thank you. Have a good one. Any questions?

274. 1:02:18

     Questions? Thank you.

275. 1:02:20

     All right.

276. 1:02:22

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

277. 1:02:24

     We got five minutes.

278. 1:02:26

     Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman. I, I, I just wanna... Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. So there's a difference between legalization and possession, right? And so in our society, you can possess opioids. In our society, you can possess alcohol. And I'm sure when alcohol prohibition was going through the same process between moonshine and alcohol, can citizens possess moonshine and alcohol? And so I, I, I, I get the gentleman's point about legalization.

279. 1:02:59

     That's the reason why I spelled out legalization. But due to brevity, I just wanted to make sure that we're highlighting that I'm, I'm... This, this bill is not gonna allow for citizens to traffic, uh, marijuana and cannabis. This is saying that if you have less than two ounces, you can possess this product if you're over the age of 21. Thank you.

280. 1:03:23

     Thank you.

281. 1:03:24

     Thank you, Representative. All right, I think we're in the, uh, posture of a motion, if there is one.

282. 1:03:34

     All

283. 1:03:37

     right. Hearing once, going twice.

284. 1:03:41

     What's the question?

285. 1:03:42

     Whether there's a motion.

286. 1:03:44

     Oh.

287. 1:03:46

     Motion to pass.

288. 1:03:47

     All right, got a motion to pass.

289. 1:03:49

     Second.

290. 1:03:50

     Second. All right. Any amendments? Seeing none. All right. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1248, LC48-1683, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. No. All right. Uh, bill fails.

291. 1:04:10

     You don't have the numbers. You don't have the numbers.

292. 1:04:11

     All right. Next, we are gonna go and pull back up House Bill 804. We've already had testimony on this. I know there are people signed up, but we have to give members a chance to get the rules. Uh, Representative Holly, uh-

293. 1:04:27

     I'm completely fine with no testimony on it. However, surprisingly, uh, the substitute for this was not included in everyone's packet, so I have one here, and I'll be able to pass it around hoping folks will be able to look at it.

294. 1:04:41

     Okay. All right. Well, while we're doing that, I'm gonna have to make sure that we keep rolling. I'm gonna call back up House Bill 496. Representative Clark, uh-

295. 1:04:52

     Thank you

296. 1:04:52

     ... you can, I'll give you a final word. Just be quick.

297. 1:04:55

     Um, I'll be, uh, very quick. Um, House Bill 496, LC481800S. Um, we've talked about this bill a number of times. Uh, you all know what it does. Um, this is a bill that would make, um, the s- um, smell of cannabis not be able to be, um, uh, used for probable cause if that is the only thing that is being used for probable cause. But it can be a part of a totality of circumstances.

298. 1:05:28

     I just wanna address, um, the, um, concern from the last, um, committee me- committee hearing, and say that I am happy to strike request to search from line 16, if that is the pleasure of the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

299. 1:05:44

     Thank you, Representative. All right, number seven, Representative Kendrick.

300. 1:05:47

     Oh, uh-

301. 1:05:48

     Can you state the LC number?

302. 1:05:50

     LC, um, L- LC48... Um, sorry, let me write it. 481800S.

303. 1:05:58

     Okay. No, everybody got that. Okay. All right. Any further discussion from members of the committee? Seeing none.

304. 1:06:07

     Motion to pass.

305. 1:06:08

     All right, got a move to pass.

306. 1:06:10

     Second.

307. 1:06:11

     Has... Hold on a second. But-

308. 1:06:15

     Sorry.

309. 1:06:16

     Was there a second?

310. 1:06:17

     Second.

311. 1:06:18

     All right, second. All right. Move to pass and a second on House Bill 496, LC48-1800S. Representative Panitch, amendment?

312. 1:06:25

     I move to strike or request to search on line 16.

313. 1:06:29

     Seconded.

314. 1:06:31

     I can move and second on the Panitch amendment.

315. 1:06:34

     M- Move and second on the Panitch amendment. Any discussions? Seeing none, all those in favor of the Panitch amendment, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. All right, Panitch amendment's on. Okay.

316. 1:06:48

     Amendment.

317. 1:06:48

     Any further amendments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the passage of House Bill 496, LC48-1800S with the Panitch amendment, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. No. All right. The, the no, nos have it. Uh, bill fails. All right. I'm gonna call back up- Thank you. I'll call back up House Bill 804. Members, do you have the substitute that was just handed out?

318. 1:07:21

     And I believe the LC number is LC 48-18-18S.

319. 1:07:26

     Yes sir, that is it.

320. 1:07:27

     Okay. And what were those changes, just real fast?

321. 1:07:31

     Very shortly, uh, the, um, the bill that you received yesterday, all it did was acknowledge, um, presidentially where the pardon has been granted, and so, uh, to at least suggest to Georgia that it might be time. Uh, fortunately, we were able to work it out. Um, I've not only, um, fortunately had, uh, uh, our legislative counsel expert, uh, Holly Parr, um, but also reached out to, uh, uh, Brian Steinman, who is a former legislative counsel, and, uh, Wade Askew, uh, and they both, uh, have, uh, approved this language, um, which again now, instead of going in the federal statute, gun, uh, comes over, uh, under Title 42, which deals specifically with, uh, pardons and paroles.

322. 1:08:19

     Uh, and on, in this case here, um, a person seeking, uh, to be relieved of that, um, conviction on their record of simple possession of marijuana, they would petition the board. The board would, um, still have to make a decision upon whether or not to grant it. Um, it would not be automatic. Again, they would still have to petition, and, uh, in doing so, hopefully get that, um, off their record and, and be able to go off and live a very fruitful life as a productive citizen.

323. 1:08:49

     Okay. Chairman Gunter.

324. 1:08:53

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, the way this reads, the board shall grant. I don't think we can direct the Board of Pardons and Paroles what to do, so I don't think this is constitutional.

325. 1:09:04

     Okay. Would it, would you be okay with the, uh, change the shall to a may?

326. 1:09:10

     Uh, uh, uh, same effect. I don't think it changes anything from shall to may.

327. 1:09:16

     Okay. Number 11.

328. 1:09:17

     They can do it now. If I say may, they can do that now.

329. 1:09:21

     Not particularly for this offense.

330. 1:09:23

     Okay. All right. Any further discussion from members of the committee? Okay. Um, all right. We are already past 9:00, so we're gonna have to see what position the committee wants to put this bill in. Any, uh... Do I hear any move by anyone on the substitute for House Bill 804 LC 48-18-18S?

331. 1:09:50

     Motion to pass.

332. 1:09:51

     All right, we got a move to pass. Second. And a second. All right. Uh, amendment, Representative Holly.

333. 1:09:56

     Uh, amendment to, uh, change, uh, on line 11 the word from shall to may, um, because specifically the statute does not allow for them to actually pardon on this, on this actual offense. Um, it does allow for a list of felonies, but it does not include a simple possession of marijuana. But I understand this is a very highly politicized day.

334. 1:10:19

     Second.

335. 1:10:20

     Uh, thank you.

336. 1:10:21

     All right, got a move and a second on the Holly amendment. Uh, and just for clarification, I believe Judge Gunter's, uh, position was not political, it was a matter of constitutionality.

337. 1:10:33

     Yes, sir.

338. 1:10:34

     So-

339. 1:10:34

     I would expect that

340. 1:10:35

     ... uh, 'cause that, you know, facts is facts. All right. You heard the Holly amendment. There's a move and a second. All those in favor of the Holly amendment say aye.

341. 1:10:44

     Aye.

342. 1:10:44

     All those opposed, same sign. No.

343. 1:10:49

     No.

344. 1:10:49

     All right. Give me a show of hands, all those in favor. All right. All those opposed?

345. 1:10:55

     Just the amendment?

346. 1:10:56

     Uh, this amendment. Chair votes no. All right, amendment fails. All right. I got a move and a second on the substitute House Bill 804 LC 48-18-18S. All those in favor say aye.

347. 1:11:10

     Aye.

348. 1:11:11

     All those opposed, same sign. No. Chair votes no. All right, we are adjourned.

349. 1:11:18

     I don't feel like this should

350. 1:11:23

     be-