Upon reviewing the case of People v. Smith 437 Mich. 293 (1991), we find that the defendant Ricky Smith; an adult at the time of the commission of the offenses in question, was a habitual juvenile offender; possessing a juvenile record which included twelve juvenile entries including seven prior felonies, three misdemeanors, was charged, pleaded guilty, and convicted of breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny and being a habitual offender. As a result of the admission of guilt by Smith, he was sentenced to 3 ½ to 10 years, however, the sentence was vacated after it was determined that Smith was a habitual offender, where the current offense constituted his 4th offense. (Justlaw) Therefore, as a result of the juvenile offenses being taken into consideration for sentencing, Smith received a sentence of 6 to 30 years as a habitual offender. Smith’s argument comes from the admission of his juvenile criminal record which was referenced in the presentencing investigative report, citing that pursuant to former MCR 5.913 which indicates that “the juvenile record of a former offender was expunged at the age of twenty-seven”,(justlaw) and as such, should …show more content…
In reviewing People v Price, 172 Mich App386, 300-400; 431 NW2d829 (1988), the court found that the panel ruled that the juvenile record was automatically expunged and therefore could not be considered for the purpose of sentencing (justlaw). Conversely, the court found in People v Jones, 173 Mich App 341, 343; 433 NW2d 829 (1988), a second panel concluded that the expunged criminal history of juveniles was admissible in the presentence report as well as the consideration during
Ricky Franklin Smith was convicted based on his guilty plea of breaking and entering and his fourth offense of being a habitual offender. During his sentencing hearing, the court referred to his juvenile court records and enhanced his final sentence. Smith appealed his sentencing in the Court of Appeals arguing that he was entitled to resentencing because his juvenile criminal records had been automatically expunged pursuant to former MCR 5.913 (People v. Smith, 2017). The Court of Appeals reviewed People v. Price which had ruled that a juvenile record automatically expunged pursuant to MCR 5.913 could not be used during the presentence investigation. They also reviewed People v. Jones where the panel concluded that an expunged juvenile
The two cases that assisted the Supreme Court in making their decision People v Price from 1988. This case was almost identical to the People v Smith case in which the defendant pled guilty to breaking and entering and larceny and was convicted (People v Price, 1988). However, the defendant asked for resentencing due to the fact his juvenile record should have been expunged and not been a factor in sentencing. The defendant was basing this information on the following Michigan ruling of MCR 5.925 (E): The court may retain a child's juvenile court delinquency records other
Therefore, Ricky Smith was sentenced to serve his time concurrently with the other sentence that he had encountered. However, in the case of People v. McFarlin, 389 Mich 557; 208 NW2d 504 (1973), it was suggested that a judge has the right to consider an adult offender's juvenile record, whereas the Probate Code suggests the probate *299 court cannot use a juvenile record as proper evidence against a child in any case in any civil, criminal, or other cause except under a Juveniles and Juvenile Division Chapter of the Probate Code(People v. Smith, 2017). Shortly after in 1978, the Court adopted JCR 13, in which provided automatic expungement juvenile offender records, providing within seven years afterward there is not a felony conviction(People v. Smith, 2017). The Panel of a different court has encountered this situation before, for instance in the People v. Price, 172 Mich App 396, 399-400; 431 NW2d 524 (1988) found that an automat expunge pursuant to MCR 5.913 will not use a juvenile record in court sentencing whereas, in the case of People v. Jones, 173 Mich App 341; 433 NW2d 829 (1988) suggests that a expunged juvenile record could be a factor in sentencing and included in the
Most states implement expunged laws; at the age of twenty-seven juveniles can have their record expunged. The purpose of the law is to allow juveniles become adults without having a criminal record. In the case of Docket No. 105833 People v. Smith, 448 NW2d 794, Michigan Supreme Court (1989), during the presentence investigation into Ricky Franklin Smith he was indicted on charges as an adolescent. Smith plead guilty to breaking and entering; the career criminal past decisions resulted in his incarceration.
“The question presented is whether the inclusion in the presentence investigation report of the expunged juvenile record of defendant Ricky Franklin Smith requires, under MCR 5.913 , now MCR 5.925 (E), that he be resentenced” (People v. Smith, 1991). The nature of the action is misconduct and delinquency of Smith as a minor and adult. Smith used his right to appeal his sentence in an attempt to avoid a criminal conviction of incarceration. An argument was presented to the Court of Appeals requesting that the decision in his case be looked at again because the
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, appellant, James Davis (“Davis”), was convicted of one count of robbery with a dangerous weapon, three counts of use of a handgun in a felony or crime of violence, three counts of first-degree assault, and one count of first-degree burglary. For his offenses, Davis was sentenced to a total of thirty years’ incarceration. Davis appealed his conviction and the computation of his sentences. We affirmed the judgments in an unreported opinion. Davis v. State, No. 2509, Sep. Term 2003 (Md. Ct.
With all courts combined (competent and not competent), the 18-month felony recidivism rate was 21 percent, compared with 25 percent for the control group. This translates to a 16 percent statistically significant reduction in felony recidivism among the programs youths in all courts relative to those who did not receive treatment. The findings provide implications for the importance of fidelity during the administration of the program; as results indicate that courts that implement the program in a competent manner provide more effective reductions in recidivism than courts that do not. (WISIPP,
In 1967, the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Gault validated that juveniles fall under the United States Constitution, and therefore have a right to a competency test (Romaine, Kemp, & DeMatteo, 2010). It is in applying the Dusky Standard to juvenile cases that the statute becomes unclear – it is much more uncertain whether Dusky applies equally to juvenile court, and if Dusky standards should be different for juvenile defendants in criminal court (Sanborn, 2009). Twenty states consistently process defendants in juvenile court without a clear standard for CST, while eighteen have implemented detailed standards on CST in juvenile court (Sanborn,
This is due to the state law providing for the sealing of juvenile records when a person has reached 20 years of age (Miss. Code, 1972). Although the records are supposed to be sealed, state law does apply for 20 exceptions to this requirement, including the records being used by the judges of the circuit courts. The circuit court judges may request a presentence investigation on any person who is convicted of a felony. This investigation is to include a complete criminal history of the offender, to include juvenile adjudications, and is to be used by the judge to determine an appropriate sentence (Miss. Code,
Annotated bibliography Childress, S. (2016, June 2). More States Consider Raising the Age for Juvenile Crime. Retrieved from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/more-states-consider-raising-the-age-for-juvenile-crime/ More states are considering to raising the age for juvenile crimes before being tried as adult because young offender's mental capacity. The idea is to cut the cost of incarcerate young offender in adult prison and ensure offenders to receive proper education and specialized care to change their behavior. Putting children in adult prison does not deter crime.
When teen felons choose to act without thinking, they are putting other people’s lives at risk. They need to be charged as adults because the victims of the crimes will not be given the justice they deserve when they have to worry about that criminal harming them again. Although some people think that sending a juvenile through adult court gives them no hope, they should have given this a little thought before committing the crime. Teens need to think about the consequences and how their actions affect others before they act. When choosing between putting a violent adolescent in prison and taking the chance of letting them commit that crime again, it is most suitable to let the teen be tried as an adult and to place them in prison.
The juvenile justice system has made numerous of ethical issues when managing juvenile offenders. The issue with the juvenile justice system is the laws and rules that govern it. It has led to years of controversial debate over the ethical dilemmas of the juvenile corrections system, and how they work with youth offenders. The number of minors entering the juvenile justice system is increasing every month. The reasons why the juvenile justice system faces ethical dilemmas is important and needs to be addressed: (1) a vast proportion of juveniles are being tried and prosecuted as adults; (2) the psychological maturation of the juvenile to fully comprehend the justice system; and (3) the factors that contribute to minorities being adjudicated in the juvenile justice system are more likely than White offenders.
Juvenile Justice Issues In today’s society the youth generation seems to be facing some problems that there is no solution for. Juveniles are participating in many wrongdoing activities that they are not being held accountable for. I see many gray areas when it comes to the juveniles justice system and I strongly believe there should be changes made in order to help these juveniles be deterred from such behavior so they do not continue down a path that can affect the rest of their lives.
Can you imagine waking up behind closed walls and bars? Waking up to see your inmate who is a 45-year-old bank robber and you are a 14-year-old minor who made a big mistake. This is why minors who have committed crimes should not be treated the same as adults. Some reasons are because the consequences given to minors in adult court would impact a minor’s life in a negative way. If a minor is tried through a juvenile court, they have a greater chance of rehabilitation.
(1988). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice and Law (3rd ed.). United States of America: West Publishing Company. Wright, W. &.