disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That's only if the right to appeal is waived.
No. You cannot appeal a plea.
That's only if the right to appeal is waived.
Sure, let me just watch an hour and a half of propaganda agitating on his behalf and get back to you.
I don't know that I believe that this is as uncommon as you're making it out to be. First, I believe it would be inappropriate for a judge to completely cede his sentencing authority to the psyche evaluation/probation team, who is generally as big a group of **** ups as you can find. What I bet happened is that he said he would let the 90 days play out and then take their recommendation under consideration.
And again, even if this is something that has never happened before on this planet, the proper thing to do is to let the process play out and then file the proper appeals.
I know for a fact that #2 is not even remotely unprecedented - I watched a judge do it. Both sides came to an agreement, they signed a plea, all indications were that it was acceptable to the judge, and then during the process of allocution, the judge felt that the defendant was either not remorseful or was failing to accept responsibility and thus sentenced him to a longer term.
There's a very good reason why all plea agreements include language in bold reminding the defendant that the judge has authority to disregard the agreement.
Every plea deal I've ever seen included language waiving the right to appeal only if the judge eventually sentenced the defendant to a term of less than X months. I very much doubt the defense attorneys here included a total waiver of all rights to appeal. If they did, then if the judges actions were truly egregious, he could have sought appeal on those grounds, and if not, well, that's what you get for signing a total waiver.
No. You cannot appeal a plea.
Only if the right to appeal is waived.
Besides, you say yourself that judicial misconduct can be appealed.
Would this not be judicial misconduct? If not, then it's hard to see what you're arguing about here. Did the judge do something wrong, or not?
There is no debate. You are simply wrong. Sorry. I've been an attorney in Los Angeles for 20 years. You cannot "appeal a plea".
The only thing you can do is bring a motion to withdraw the plea which is almost never successful.
No. You cannot appeal a plea.
The parties agree that the appropriate sentence in this case is a term of imprisonment of XXXX years, a fine of XXXX, a term of supervised release of XXXX, a special assessment of , and restitution of XXXX. This sentence is within the guideline range/is a departure from the guideline range for the following reasons: XXXX. If the district court imposes this sentence, the defendant and the United States Attorney waive their respective rights to appeal the sentence under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742.
Again, this is not true.
Sample plea agreement:
The defendant retains his right to appeal should the judge impose a sentence higher than the guidelines range.
It's funny how everyone on the Internet is a lawyer when it's convenient.
Let's leave that issue aside, though, and go on to the second point I made.
If there's no misconduct, then Polanski had no justification to run. So why argue on his behalf here?
What you have posted is from the Federal Court. They operate quite differently than State Courts operate. They are much more formal. There is no avenue for appealing a plea in California State Courts.
Diagnostic Study:
I understand if the judge wants a diagnostic study to assist in deciding my
case, the judge may refer my case to a facility of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation, where I can be confined up to 90 days for
such study. (P.C. §1203.03.)
BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with one count of corporal injury on a cohabitant, and it was alleged that he had a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.5, defendant entered into a plea bargain that specified no prison time. The trial court accepted the negotiated plea and struck the prior. The court refused to sentence defendant without a probation report.
At sentencing before a different judge, the court had “grave concerns about going along with the plea bargain.” court would accept the plea bargain with a one-year sentence, “a Johnson year. It would be a Johnson waiver for all purposes.” The waiver was accepted and the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years, suspended execution of sentence, and placed defendant on probation.
Among the conditions of probation were a one-year jail term and an order not to annoy, harass, or threaten or commit acts of violence or abuse against
the victim.
1/2 accurate, 1/2 not. True. Polanski fled and so we will never know for certain. However, the Judge did more than "suggest". He flat out told the DA and the defense attorney that he did not intend to follow the diagnostic finding and indicated that he believed a lengthy prison sentence was in order.
Additionally, he is a fugitive from justice, which makes him no different than an escaped convict.
Agreed. I cannot blame him for running, though.For me it is the most important aspect. This kind of escape from his responsibility should not lead to success.
So you're saying that there are no written pleas in CA state court? That even if the attorneys wanted to get something in writing from the DA, they couldn't?
Several points:
http://www.amadorcourt.org/localforms/FelonyWaiverPleaForm.pdf
Here's an example of a plea form from a CA state court. In the plea form, there is this:
It sounds like that's exactly what was used here, and that language makes it explicitly clear that the diagnostic study is only used to assist the judge in making a decision. He is completely free to choose to ignore their recommendation should he so decide.
Finally, a quick google turned up a case where almost the exact same thing happened.
Here, the prosecutor and defendant agreed to a plea deal with no jail time. The judge accepted the plea, but ordered a probation report. The sentencing went before a different judge, and that judge refused to let him get off without time in prison. The guy got a year in jail.
That case also discusses the a way in which defendants can appeal sentences handed down pursuant to plea agreements, which is by obtaining a certificate of probable cause.
Of course he should be punished if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that he committed it. Drugging and raping 13 year olds is not something that should be tolerated, no matter how gifted, rich or famous the perpetrator is.
First. let me start by saying that I have absolutely zero tolerance for child molesters. IMHO it is an abhorrant act that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Put me on the bench, and I'll send 99,999 out of 100,000 child molesters to prison.
With that being said -- If there was anyone on this planet that I'd even begin to consider leniency for, it would be Roman Polanski. Not because he's a noted Hollywood film director, not because he's rich, famous, European, or any other reason, except one...
I cannot begin to even imagine the agony, the mental torture, of having your beautiful, pregnant wife and three of her friends brutally murdered. I cannot imagine living my life knowing that my lovely deceased wife was forevermore linked with one of the most notorious psychopathic murderers in American history.
I do imagine, however, that having that happen to me would - for lack of a better term - screw my head up something fierce!
And for that reason, and that reason alone, I'd consider leniency for Roman Polanski.
America has lived without Roman Polanski for over 30+ years. Exile him from the United States, and let him never return.
IMHO - That would be justice served.
You think that receiving no penalty (he doesn't exactly want to come back) is a fair punishment for forcibly raping a child simply because some bad **** happened to him in the past?
I'd bet that the majority of rapists and murderers had a parent who beat or sexually abused them starting when they were kids or had a family member who was murdered. Hell, I bet there are probably a few thousand people in prison who saw a loved one raped or killed right before their eyes. Should they all have gotten off with a slap on the wrist as well?
No, what I'm saying is that there are different levels of punishment for every crime, and that one of the fundamental concepts of justice is that the punishment should not only be appropriate for the crime that was committed, but should also be appropriate for the criminal.
These aforementioned murderers and rapists you speak of, I wonder... how many of them had their mother killed in Auschwitz? How many of them had their deceased loved ones not only forever linked with America's most notorious murderer, but also had to sit idly by and watch that same murderer become a pop culture figure that is brazenly glorified in some circles? How many of them live with the knowledge that the crime scene photographs of their wife's murder are available on the Internet, available to anyone, anywhere, anytime? (I kid you not about that last comment - Click Here and see what I mean.) WARNING: BRUTALLY GRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPH!!
As I said previously - if there's any one person in the world that I could show a little sympathy and compassion toward for what they'd done to an underage child... it would be Roman Polanski.