No, that is not what that means.

A judge can only sentence according to state law or federal law if it is a federal prosecution. She only pronounces the sentence according to statute.

How he serves the seven years is up to the DOC. Sometimes the DOC is also guided by state law, but other than sentencing your son, the judge has no power on HOW he must serve the sentence.

A judge cannot sentence a defendant with the stipulation that he will serve ALL his sentence day-for-day. Usually the legislators make laws that determine the length of the sentences and how much good time, "gain time" an inmate will receive.

For example, in Oklahoma, at one time an inmate on level 4 would receive 74 days for every 30 days served. That was changed in the late 1990's when the legislature passed laws that required an inmate to serve 85% of his time for certain offenses.

But, no, a judge cannot tell the DOC that your son must serve the entire seven years.

The "hard labor" is just a silly moniker, a remnant of days long ago when there was a chain gang mentality in this country. The judge cannot stipulate that your son will be assigned to breaking rocks or doing something else considered hard labor.

He will serve his time like all the other inmates.

If good time is allotted according to state law, then yes, your son will be afforded all the good time he deserves and he will be released before seven years.

Your friend is just wrong.

rewdiazepam

Rew in states where there is Truth-in-Sentencing what is given is given and served, period. What heartbroken is talking about sounds like a state statutes and their sentencing guidelines that a judge and DOC must follow.

If the supervision was revoked and the judge sentenced him to serve the remaining 7 years (if that is what he had left on his entire sentence to begin with. Otherwise it sounds like they re-sentenced him which would seem to me in my WI experiences as grounds for an appeal as the sentencing court has the final say here. But if the state has their process of doing things set up differently, it is entirely possible that it is the norm and it is feeling bleak right now.

Thanks Rew and Wisconsin. I am going to have to check into this. Wisconsin he never had to serve until she revoked him. I will check into this though. If so, that sucks! :-(

The term "hard labor" is a term dating back many decades and was applied to hardened criminals who were sentenced to work in manual labor prisons for example, on chain gains and working rock piles. In those days a judge could sentence a person to "hard labor" as added punishment for a crime committed.

The answer to your question really depends upon the specific laws involved for that state or in the case it was a federal crime. Federal prisons are run differently than state prisons.

The term "hard labor" does not apply to the length of sentence but in what type of prison the person will be housed. Unless the judge has discretionary authority under the sentencing laws involved, or where the sentencing laws would specifically state the person is to be sentenced to hard labor, then it would be an abuse of discretion for the judge to issue such an order and could therefore be grounds for an appeal.

Now, if the judge said "hard time" it might constitute having to serve the 7 years without possibility of being paroled or receiving a conditional release from prison. This is different from the term "hard labor" for that term means exactly what it says -- hard labor. And it could very well be within the judges legal authority, or statutory sentencing obligation, to sentence the person to serve the full 7 years.

I know many years ago my Brother was given 7 years in prison, yet, received a suspended imposition of sentence. The judge told my Brother that if he messed up on his probation he was going to sentence him to serve the full 7 years without parole. In the end, my Brother did screw up and the judge did sentence him to 7 years, but he was parole after 5 years for his DUI.

Thanks Legal. I just hate not understanding all of this and I am a legal secretary. I just don't do criminal law. I need to get the transcript of that hearing so that I can show my attorney. Or my criminal attorney I had for my son. We had a different attorney at the hearing that his father got thinking it would be good, but it was what she wanted anyway. There was another attorney that I had at one time and he told me that she told him that she did not like him (my son). Hmmm I thought it to be very unprofessional and the way she acted in the court room the day of the hearing, she was very unprofessional to say the least. Ok, I need to stop. Every time I think how she handled things, it just really gets me angry!!!

I get angry when I think how hub's PD handled his case and how she threw him under the bus, so I know how you fell brokenhearted.

I too, feel your pain, HB. The female DA my family came up against was heartless and cruel as well. She had a "bag of tricks" that was bottomless. Her biggest one was saved for trial, tailored for the press.

Of course, if her state has Truth in Sentencing, then the DOC is mandated by law regarding the sentence. If state law says that your son will have to serve, say 85%, then he will serve 85%. and that will override any DOC policy.

The judge cannot change the law and he or she cannot dictate to the DOC how to handle its inmates. That is usually done through the legislature. The judges sentence people and then they are turned over the the DOC, in the case of a state conviction.

The judge cannot tell the DOC the amount of gain time to give to an inmate. Judges just do not sentence defendants and dictate to the DOC how much of the sentence will be served. He has seven years to serve, but I have never seen or heard of a judge telling the DOC that they do not want this defendant to have any good time credits awarded---and that they want the defendant to serve every day of his sentence.

I have spoken to Heartbroken several times, and I know her fear is that the female Judge who had treated her son so poorly will try to fix it so that he will have to serve the seven years day-for-day. But the judge has no discretion to do that.

Unless Louisiana law is different than most states, once he was sentenced to seven years, the judge has no authority to tell the DOC how much actual time her son should do.

rewdiazepam

Rew, thanks for saying this 'cause this has been my fear as well.

Thanks but let me tell you about Louisiana. The polticians are so crooked, its not even funny! Its all about the money here. I am learning more and more about my state and honestly, I used to love being here but this state is corrupt as corrupt could ever be. Its all about the money and where my son is at right now they are making big money on those people from what my son told me and i have confirmed! Im just so angry because law was supposed to be good but now its a career for the politicians to make money off of our loved ones and not justice. We dont have justice anymore.

Heartbroken,

If your son has to serve 85% of the time sentenced, it is not because of the judge, but because of the state laws. The legislature sets the sentencing guidelines; the judge must abide by those guidelines.

The judge sentenced your son to seven years, but he did not tell the DOC how those years must be served. It is possible that your son could get some good time credits, depending on his particular crime, and some good time by taking some programs. And he could make parole before he ever serves seven years.

Yes, Louisiana has a very corrupt prison system. Louisiana = Bible Belt. But all states are harsh when it comes to sex offenders.

Hope this helps clear things up.

rewdiazepam