Which offenses would be affected by HB863 as introduced, and how would sentencing statutes in the Code of Virginia change?
Executive summary
HB863, introduced by Delegate Rae Cousins, is a sweeping statutory rewrite that targets mandatory minimum confinement terms across numerous sections of the Code of Virginia and would remove specified minimum jail or prison floors so judges can sentence within existing statutory ranges instead of being bound to fixed minimum terms [1] [2]. Proponents describe the bill as restoring judicial discretion; critics — including former state officials and law‑enforcement voices — say it would eliminate mandatory minimums for many violent and repeat offenses and could reduce uniformity and predictability in sentencing [3] [4] [5].
1. What HB863 does to sentencing law — the mechanics
The bill’s core mechanism is editorial: it strikes statutory language that currently requires courts to impose specific minimum periods of confinement, thereby converting many “mandatory minimum” provisions into discretionary ones and allowing judges to impose any term within the statute’s permissible sentencing range rather than a legislatively imposed floor [1] [2]. Multiple bill‑tracking services and the sponsor’s materials frame the effect as elimination of mandatory minimum sentences for “certain offenses,” which functionally gives trial judges greater latitude to tailor punishment to case‑specific facts [1] [6] [2].
2. Which offenses are explicitly described as affected in reporting
Public summaries and media reporting list a broad set of offense types that HB863 would touch, including certain drug offenses such as manufacturing or distributing heroin or cocaine, firearm possession after a felony, driving under the influence (DUI) offenses with enhanced penalties (including DUI manslaughter in some reports), assault and battery against protected individuals, violations of protective orders, and assorted felony repeat‑offense enhancements [1] [3] [6] [7]. Several outlets and commentators also say the bill reaches violent crimes cited in existing mandatory‑minimum statutes — examples mentioned in reporting include manslaughter, rape, assaulting a law enforcement officer, and possession or distribution of child pornography — though the specific statutory citations for every named offense are not reproduced in the available summaries [4] [7] [5].
3. How the Code of Virginia’s sentencing statutes would change in practice
Where a Code section now reads that a court “shall” impose confinement of not less than a specified term, HB863 removes that “shall” floor and leaves the sentencing range intact, so the practical change is that judicial sentencing would rely on statutory maximums and existing guideline structures rather than fixed minimums [1] [2]. That means sentencing discretion would defer to judges and to the Virginia Sentencing Guidelines and commission processes, rather than to automatic mandatory floors; supporters say this reduces one‑size‑fits‑all outcomes, while opponents warn it may reduce uniformity and the deterrent effect of legislatively mandated minimums [3] [8].
4. Political and public‑safety debate around the specific offenses
Advocates — including Justice Forward and the bill sponsor — argue HB863 is a “common‑sense” reform to repeal most mandatory minimums and to address disproportionate or medically complicated cases, explicitly naming firearm possession, UFA (use of a firearm in the commission of a felony), and child‑sex crime minimums among targets of broader reform efforts [9] [1]. Opponents, quoted in outlets such as Fox News and law‑enforcement commentary, frame the bill as eliminating minimums for serious violent felonies — rape, manslaughter, assaulting officers, and child pornography offenses — and warn of risks to victims and consistency in sentencing [4] [5]. Reporting reflects these competing framings without a complete statutory inventory in a single public summary [3] [7].
5. What’s missing and how to verify the full list
Public summaries and trackers consistently state the bill “eliminates mandatory minimums for certain offenses” and give representative examples, but a definitive, clause‑by‑clause list of every affected Code section is not reproduced in the media excerpts provided here; the official bill text on the Virginia Legislative Information System is the authoritative source but its web interface requires JavaScript to render in the versions referenced [10] [1]. To confirm every specific offense and statutory change, consulting the introduced bill text on LIS or the consolidated bill XML that shows the del/ins edits is necessary [1] [10].