Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
In a seriously devastating blow to individuals convicted or pleading guilty to a crime, the SCOTUS ruling is very dangerous to those convicted or pleading guilty to a sex crime, as SCOTUS unanimously quashed their rights under the Sixth Amendment..
As a result, the SCOTUS ruling in Betterman v. Montana, leaves a person, especially anyone convicted or who pleads guilty to a sex crime, open and vulnerable to being held in jail INDEFINITELY before being sentenced unless they can prove they have a due process right under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to a timely or speedy sentencing hearing. However, this may be harder than one might think because the case of Betterman v. Montana explicitly and implicitly refused to address the question of whether a due process right.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/19/betterman_v_montana_no_speedy_trial_right_for_sentencing_hearings.html
As a result, the SCOTUS ruling in Betterman v. Montana, leaves a person, especially anyone convicted or who pleads guilty to a sex crime, open and vulnerable to being held in jail INDEFINITELY before being sentenced unless they can prove they have a due process right under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to a timely or speedy sentencing hearing. However, this may be harder than one might think because the case of Betterman v. Montana explicitly and implicitly refused to address the question of whether a due process right.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/19/betterman_v_montana_no_speedy_trial_right_for_sentencing_hearings.html
Person A takes a plea bargain on a felony sex offense [or any other misdemeanor or felony crime], and tells the Judge they are guilty of the crime. The Judge accepts the plea of guilty, which transfers the case into a sentencing phase. The person is returned to jail and is forced to stay there for 10 years [just an example of the time frame] before ever being brought to court to be sentenced for the crime.
Now let's say that the crime itself carries a maximum of a 5 year prison sentence. The Judge sentences the convicted person to the 5 year prison term and holds that the 10 years in jail do not apply as time serve because there is no due process procedural right under the 5th or 14th Amendments for a timely or speedy sentencing hearing, so the 5 year prison sentence is separate from the 10 years just spent in jail waiting to be sentenced to prison for 5 years.
Think this won't happen? I do not have such confidence.
The fact that most of the eight panel of SCOTUS were "open to" the idea that a due process procedural right exists for a timely or speedy sentencing hear, but then refused to rule on this due process question, is irresponsible and unconscionable to those who will fall prey and be victimized by their respective state because of the SCOTUS refusal to rule on the whole issue.
As a result of the SCOTUS ruling, states now have incentive to enact laws that strip a person convicted of or pleading guilty to a crime, of having any due process procedural right to a timely or speedy sentencing hearing. Moreover, to enact a law that strips a person of a right to have the time spent in jail waiting to be sentenced, being applied as time served to any sentence that is imposed against them at a later date.
This is an excellent opportunity and pathway for state's to use the judicial system as the means to keep a person locked up for as long as the state wants for, which those convicted or pleading guilty to a sex crime are the prime targets this would be applied.
Any person trapped in this web will forced to bare the burden of having to spend years to prove they had a due process procedural right to a timely or speedy sentencing hearing. Problem is, if the person is let out of jail or prison before their case is ruled upon by the court, then the court will simply dismiss their case as being moot. In doing this, the court does not have to deal with the issue and state's can keep incarcerating people intermediately whom the state wants locked away for as long as possible, but who do not otherwise qualify for civil commitment or extensive prison terms.
I haven't seen any cases where the judge didn't use time served in jail as part of the sentencing equation for prison, but I don't know enough about the law to say that with any certainty.