U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Judicial and Executive Discretion in the Sentencing Process - Analysis of State Felony Code Provisions

NCJ Number
82310
Author(s)
C S Cooper; D Kelley; S Larson
Date Published
1981
Length
221 pages
Annotation
This report presents a State-by-State analysis of statutory provisions relating to felony sentencing, emphasizing the degree of judicial and executive discretion exercised in each State's sentencing system.
Abstract
Project staff gathered information by reviewing sentencing literature and States' sentencing statutes. The report analyzes six aspects of State sentencing systems: (1) sentencing classifications and penalties established by legislation, (2) the range of allowable judicial sentencing discretion and the degree of justification required, (3) sentence review provisions, (4) parole decisionmaking authority, (5) good-time and other sentence reduction provisions, and (6) provisions for special classes of defendants or offenses. The report classifies States as determinate if courts were allowed to impose fixed sentences to be served in full, minus applicable good-time reductions. In States classified as indeterminate, the courts could impose a minimum or minimum-maximum term, with the release date determined by the parole authority. In the States described as partially indeterminate, the court could set only a maximum term, with the actual incarceration period determined by the parole authority. Most State sentencing systems fell within the partially indeterminate category. Although specific provisions varied, 33 of the 51 jurisdictions had statutory sentencing provisions permitting courts to impose a term of years which becomes the maximum incarceration period, with the release date determined by the parole authority at some point before the end of this maximum period. The remaining 18 States were evenly divided between determinate and indeterminate patterns. In 31 jurisdictions, offense groupings ranged from 3 to 10 offense classes, each with appropriate sentence terms. In the other jurisdictions, statutorily prescribed penalties were provided individually for each criminal offense. Six jurisdictions allowed sentence enhancement for prior offenders; forty-six jurisdictions provided for enhancement for the use or possession of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony. These provisions permit far less discretion than those applying to habitual offenders. The report analyzes each State's statutory provisions for felony sentencing and sentence enhancements for habitual offending and for use of deadly weapons. Other charts and narrative descriptions summarize each State's provisions regarding parole eligibility and sentence reduction, the range of allowable judicial discretion regarding sentence imposition, sentence review, and parole decisionmaking authority. Sixteen references are listed. (Author summary modified)