I'm still baffled about a couple of matters. One is Judge Strickland sentenced CA to time served + 1 yr. probation (With the stipulation that would apply ONLY if she was convicted of murder or the lesser included offenses) for the check chgs. Re: Amy H.
Ok then we have 4 seperate counts of lying to LE which was to run consecutively. So that's where she served 1047 or however many days. Now that was her sentence for lying to LE.
Is it possible HHJP didn't catch the stipulation Judge Strickland put in there?
I realize they have good time and gain time in Fla. but she served less than 4 yrs. which was a seperate sentence for lying to LE. Actually she served less than 3 !! She was out on bail thanks to LP, who she spit on too. But how does this girl walk with all of these chgs?
He couldn't have taken into consideration that the time served was strictly for check chgs. I believe she still needs to serve her 4 yrs. for the lies!!
I say she goes back to Jail :maddening:
Perhaps I'm not understanding, that's why I'm asking and confused a bit. If this IT hasn't gotten a sweetheart deal, I don't know of anyone else who has.
Since when is probation served in jail? It's all simply not right. :banghead:
Here's what happened in plain English:
Casey pleads guilty to the check charges.
At that time, she is being held on bail.
Casey is not given a sentence which starts running on the date of the plea.Instead, she gets time served.
This means, she is not serving any sentence after the date of the check fraud plea. She is only in jail on a held-on-bail status.
In other words,
By having a sentence of time served imposed on the check charges,
that allows her to be considered as held on bail again.
The clock starts ticking so that any day now spent incarcerated, as she awaits the murder trial, counts toward any future sentence.
Therefore, what happens is, the time spent behind bars, as she awaits the murder and lying trial, is counted toward any future sentence she might get.
(Because she is not doing time for any other previous conviction, the "bail clock" is ticking).
Every day behind bars will thus count toward any potential future sentence.
The meaner way to do it, (not that I ever did this :angel
would have been to impose a sentence for the check charges which started running from the date of the fraud plea.
But Casey got 400 and something days (which was already served ---held on bail) and a year's probation.
Anyway, per the meaner way:
By having Casey serving that actual sentence as she awaited the murder/lying trial, it would have stopped the "on bail clock" from ticking so that any sentence imposed at the conclusion of the murder trial would not have been reduced by credit for time served...since technically she would have been serving the check fraud sentence as opposed to being held on bail for the murder charges.
And as you'd expect, if she is not held on bail, there won't be availability of credit for time served.
I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that public sentiment would like to go back in time and do it all in accordance with what I call "the meaner way."
If you could even do that for a first offender.
Bottom line:
If a defendant is serving a sentence for a conviction, the fact that the defendant is serving time will make the issue of bail moot;
Since the defendant is already incarcerated, the status of the defendant is going to be as an inmate who is awaiting a trial while serving a sentence.
The days behind bars at that point count only towards the sentence being served. The serving of the sentence cannot generate credit for time served
for a conviction that hasn't happened unless the defendant is on a held/bail status.
Serving the sentence would supercede any "held/bail" issues and the tick-tocking-credit-clock would be dead.
So, when time passes on an imposed sentence, The time only counts toward the actual sentence being served.
There is NO "bail-ticking-clock."
You do not get credit for time served upon a later conviction which might occur during the serving of that sentence. This is simply because you would not be held on bail. In fact the defendant would be in jail serving a sentence....no more, no less.
I am speaking only from experience here...I have no statutes to cite. But I can tell you that this an an area that can become confusing even for attorneys if they do not deal with these types of issues on a daily basis.
Hope that makes some sense.:seeya:
MH
sharing an opinion
