Case Brief Case Information The United States Supreme Court decided Missouri v. Galin E. Frye on March 21, 2012. Case Facts In August of 2007, defendant Galin E. Frye was charged with driving with a revoked license; he had already been convicted three times for the same offense and Missouri charged him with a class D felony, which carries a maximum prison term of four years. 132 S. Ct. at 1404. The prosecutors sent two plea deal offer options to Frye’s attorney, one of which would recommend a three year sentence if there was a guilty plea to the felony charge, without any recommendation for probation but with a recommendation that he serve ten days in jail as "shock" time; the other was if Frye plead guilty to a misdemeanor that a 90 day …show more content…
132 S. Ct. at 1404. At the hearing, Frye waived his right to a preliminary hearing on the charge stemming from the August 2007 arrest and pleaded not guilty at a succeeding arraignment, but then changed the plea to guilty. 132 S. Ct. at 1404. Since there was no principal plea agreement, the state trial court took his guilty plea and the prosecutor recommended a three-year sentence, made no recommendation about probation, and requested ten days “shock” time in jail; the judge sentenced Frye to three years in prison. 132 S. Ct. at 1404-1405. Frye filed for post-conviction relief in state court claiming that the failure of his attorney to notify him of the prosecution's plea offers denied him the effective assistance of counsel; at an evidentiary hearing Frye testified he would have pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor if he had been made aware about the plea deal offers. 132 S. Ct. at 1405. The court denied the relief, but the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and held that Frye met the need for showing a Sixth Amendment violation under Strickland v. Washington because there was no evidence to show Frye had been alerted of the offers and he pleaded to a felony instead of
The jury has never reviewed this exculpatory evidence, that proves Benson Simmons innocence of the aggravated rape charge. Finally, Simmons was granted with his first parole hearing in twenty years. However, during the parole hearing
In 2012, the case of Miller v. Alabama was presented in front of the Supreme Court detailing the crimes that took place in 2003 by Evan Miller. In July 2003, Miller, who was only fourteen years old at the time, with companion Colby Smith killed neighbor Cole Cannon by beating him with his own baseball bat and burning down the trailer Mr. Cannon lived in, while he was still inside. In 2004, Miller was to be tried as an adult for his crimes for capital murder. In 2006, he was found guilty and charges with aggravated murder and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment without any parole.
Case Brief Case title: Santobello V. New York, 404 U.S 257 (1971) Facts: Santobello was indicted with two felonies and plead guilty to a lesser offense after negotiating with the prosecutor. The offense that he did plead guilty had a maximum sentence to only a year in jail, which was less than the original two felonies, and the prosecutor at the time said he wouldn’t recommend anything to the judge. However, a different prosecutor took over the case and did end up recommending the maximum sentence. The defendant’s, Santobello’s, attorney objected and told the judge of the deal that the former prosecutor made a deal to not recommend sentencing, but the judge said that no one influenced him and that the he believed the maximum one year sentence was appropriate based on Santobello’s criminal record.
Assignment One 1. In the case of Missouri v. Seibert, the court examines the death of Mrs. Seibert’s son, Johnathon who was mentally handicapped and neglected by his mother. When she noticed her son had died in his bed, she knew he was to be covered in bed sores, and she believed the police would see the neglect. She created a plan with her other two sons and their friends to light the home on fire. This would cover up the neglect, since his body would be burned, and they also left Donald Rector, a mentally ill teenager, in the home to make it seem as if Johnathon was being cared for at that time.
Albert W. Florence, the petitioner in this case, was initially arrested in 1998 and charged with use of a deadly weapon and obstruction of justice (Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, Opinion, I). He pled guilty to two lesser counts and was ordered to make monthly payments to cover his fine. However, as stated in the Opinion of the Court, he did not keep up with his payments, and a warrant was issued for his arrest in 2003. Florence paid the rest of his fine only days later. However, when he and his wife were pulled over in Burlington County, New Jersey, in 2005, the state trooper’s computer system still had Florence’s warrant, so he arrested and transported him to Burlington County Detention Center.
Ewing had been convicted of both burglary and robbery approximately seven years before the crime that gave rise to this appeal. When he stole the golf clubs, he was still on parole following his release from prison related to those two felony convictions. Following his conviction in this case, the trial judge declined to exercise discretion and convict Ewing of a misdemeanor only, as he was allowed but not required to do under California law. After determining that Ewing should be punished for a felony offense, the trial judge applied California’s “three strikes" law, where a criminal defendant must be sentenced indeterminate life sentence, which in this case was twenty-five years to life. Ewing claimed that the sentence was disproportionate
Case Analysis In the court case, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 US. 357 (1998), the defendant was not allowed to obtain any weapons while on parole. In 1983, Scott pleaded ‘nolo contendere’, which means that he doesn’t wish to contend or agree to the guilty charge, to third degree murder. He was sentenced ten to twenty years to prison.
The District of Columbia courts needs to waive and remit before he is able to be tried. At this time there was a motion filed to have him receive the case waived. The judge filed for a ‘full investigation’, which lead to Kent’s case being waived from the juvenile courts. He was then tried in the District Court. The jury found Kent guilty of six counts of housebreaking and robbery.
Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005), n.d.). Upon review, the court took into consideration the recent finding of the Supreme Court in the case of Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.S. 304 (2002), where they found it cruel and unusual punishment to execute the mentally challenged. As a result, the Court agreed with Simmons, setting aside the death sentence for that of life in prison without the possibility of release stating “although Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361, rejected the proposition that the Constitution bars capital punishment for juvenile offenders younger than 18, a national consensus has developed against the execution of those offenders since Stanford” (Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005), n.d.). Thus, in overturning the Supreme Court’s ruling the Missouri Supreme Court took the stance that national opinion had changed and based on the passing of numerous laws and the consensus of many Americans, the imposition of the death penalty on minors was
In 1991 the Supreme Court of Michigan held a hearing of the People v Smith. The problem with this case was that Ricky Franklin Smith, the defendant, appealed to convince the court that he ought to be re-sentenced due to the consideration of the pre-sentence report of his investigation on his juvenile record that was expunged. “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” (Justia US Law, 2017). In Michigan the Court of Appeals concurred with the defendant and saw a need to re-sentence Smith once more. The Supreme Court, nonetheless, heard the case and turn around the
Federal prosecutors in the case against Jared Fogle have asked a judge to sentence the former Subway spokesperson to twelve years and seven months in prison reports the Associated Press. In August, Fogle pleaded guilty in an Indiana court to one count each of distribution and receipt of child pornography and traveling to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. The former carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, while the latter has a maximum of 30, but prosecutors agreed to a shorter sentence in a plea agreement. Fogle 's attorneys are asking for a 5-year prison term, telling the court that he is 'profoundly sorry ' for his actions.
The criminal just system failed Marlina Medrano in so many ways. When Medrano contacted the police about be assaulted by Thomas Hartless and he left with a handgun, in my opinion an arrest warrant should have been put out for him due to the facts that (1) he threatened to kill her (2) it wasn’t the first time he threatened her, and (3) he left with a handgun which was a felony due to his prior felony conviction. My thoughts are the criminal justice system failed to protect Medrano as the police knew of all of this and didn’t issue a warrant until 11 days later. When Hartless went to court for this, he pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance.
In the case of Solem V. Helm, the person convicted had a history of non-violent felonies. When convicted of another non-violent felony the judge used their discretion to enhance the crime to a class one felony. The length of imprisonment for the initial felony charged was a maximum of 5 years. With the new sanctions imposed on him, the class one felony maximum imprisonment was 25 years to life. Helm ultimately pled guilty and received a sentence of life without parole.
Furthermore, Conforte was arrested on multiple counts of
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote this : “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.” The court set aside his conviction. After a second trial, Miranda 's confession from the previous trial were thrown out. However he was convicted again and was sentenced up to thirty years in federal prison. Once he was released on probation, a violent fight broke out at a local Phoenix, Arizona bar which left a lethal knife wound which killed him.