The
purpose of this measure is to determine how well the court communicates the
terms and conditions of criminal sentences. Sentences deprive individuals of
liberty. Consequently, courts should not contribute to incorrect
applications of punishment. Courts should state sentences clearly and
precisely enough in orders that correctional officials, probation officers,
and others know how to administer them. This measure requires the random
selection of 50 criminal cases in which the defendant was found guilty (the
measure, with few adjustments, is also suitable for application to juvenile
delinquency or offender cases). Specific information about the details of
the judgment and sentence that are key indicators of clarity of the
court’s orders can be recorded on data collection forms and analyzed
quantitatively.
Planning/Preparation.
From a pool of criminal cases disposed within a recent 6- to 12-month period
in which the defendant was found guilty, at least 50 cases are selected at
random. To select the cases, the total number of cases on the list must
first be determined. For example, the court may have disposed of 1,220
criminal cases in a 6-month period in which the defendant pled guilty or was
found guilty after a trial. This total number of cases is then divided by
50, the total number of cases desired in the sample. In the example, this
results in 24.4 (round to 24). Next, a number between 1 and 10 is randomly
selected and used to identify the initial case for inclusion in the sample.
For example, if the random start number is 6, the first case selected is the
sixth case on the list. Thereafter, every 24th case is selected. In the
example, case numbers 6, 30, 54, 78, and so forth on the list would be
selected until the sample comprises 50 cases.
The
source of the data for this measure will be the documents wherein the
findings of the court and the judgment and sentence are set forth.
Data
Collection.
Based on an examination of the findings from judgment and sentencing
documents, a data collection sheet for each case is used to record
information concerning the following issues: (1) Is it clear from the
findings what each charge was and how each was disposed? (2) Is a distinct
sentence articulated for each charge for which the defendant was convicted?
(3) Is it clear whether sentences are to run consecutively or concurrently?
(4) If financial conditions are imposed, is there an unambiguous payment
schedule? (5) If there is a finding of joint and several responsibility
among multiple defendants, is it clear from the order what will count as
noncompliance? For a sample of a data collection sheet see Form
3.4.1, Illustrative Data Collection Form/Clarity of Judgment and
Sentence.
Data
Analysis and Report Preparation. Because
criminal sanctions deprive offenders of their liberty, trial courts must
achieve the highest level of clarity in stating the terms of sentences to
those correctional and probation officials who must administer them and to
other judges who may in a subsequent probation revocation hearing be
required to determine whether noncompliance has occurred. There are at least
three interrelated indicators of performance in this regard. First, no less
than 99 percent of all findings should state each of the charges. Second, no
less than 99 percent of all judgments should state each of the offenses at
conviction. Third, no less than 99 percent of all judgments should indicate
whether convictions of multiple offenses should run concurrently or
consecutively. Moreover, completeness and clarity in specification of these
conditions is essential for court personnel to monitor and enforce financial
conditions of orders and disburse funds collected on behalf of victims or
the State consistent with the court’s intent. Where court orders do
involve these conditions, high standards of clarity also should be
maintained, although incomplete or ambiguous orders relating to such
specific terms may be of lesser consequence than those related to the basic
charge, adjudication, and sentencing facts.
