Urge selection of Rickenbacker as KC-46 Pegasus operating base.

136th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Haraz Ghanbari and 1 co-sponsor

Directs the legislative auditor to study the fiscal costs and implications of creating and operating a sentencing review panel for non-unanimous jury verdicts.

Adopted

Summary — H.R. 243 (Introduced Jan 9, 2025)

(Note: the source materials provided include multiple unrelated “H.R. 243” texts from different jurisdictions. This summary focuses on the bill description at the top of the materials: a resolution directing the legislative auditor to study the fiscal impact of creating and operating a sentencing review panel for non‑unanimous jury verdicts.)

Main purpose

Authorize and direct the legislative auditor to conduct a fiscal study on establishing and operating a sentencing review panel that would review convictions or sentences arising from non‑unanimous jury verdicts. The study is intended to identify the likely costs and fiscal implications of creating such a panel.

Key provisions (as described)

Directs the legislative auditor to evaluate fiscal impacts associated with establishing and operating a sentencing review panel for cases with non‑unanimous jury verdicts.

The study would be expected to analyze:

Start‑up and recurring operating costs (staffing, facilities, administrative support).
Caseload estimates and workload projections (number of eligible cases).
Potential impacts on trial courts, appellate courts, and correctional populations (e.g., resentencing, new trials, releases).
Budgetary implications for state and local government (court costs, public defender and prosecutor resources, corrections).
Any statutory or procedural changes needed to implement a panel and associated fiscal consequences.

The bill text references an “EN NO IMPACT” note, suggesting a fiscal note or determination was provided; however, the actual study is to assess impacts comprehensively.

Who would be affected

State legislature and executive budget offices (information for appropriations and policy decisions).

Judicial branch (trial and appellate courts) — potential changes in case processing and workload.

Department of Corrections and county jails — potential fiscal and population impacts if resentencing or new proceedings alter incarceration.

Public defenders, prosecutors, and court administrators — additional workload and resource needs.

Taxpayers — through possible changes in state/local expenditures.

Procedural status and timeline

Introduced: January 9, 2025.

Committee referral(s): Listed as referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Judiciary for consideration (per the record provided).

Subsequent actions in the provided record show the measure was adopted, reported enrolled, and on June 11, 2025, taken by the Clerk and presented to the Secretary of State; other entries show adoption and enrollment on dates through early June 2025. (The record appears to mix items from several similarly numbered resolutions; consult the official legislative clerk or bill tracking site for authoritative status and dates.)

The bill itself does not include a detailed deadline for the auditor’s report in the provided excerpt; the auditor’s report timing will determine when fiscal findings become available.

Notes and caveats

The supplied document bundle contains multiple unrelated resolutions also labeled H.R. 243 (e.g., congratulatory and condolence resolutions). The specific statutory language ordering the auditor’s study was not fully included in the materials provided here.

For the exact study scope, deadlines, and the legislative fiscal note, consult the official bill text and the legislative auditor’s office or the state legislature’s bill tracking webpage.