Will Casey face probation?

[JBean]

But if he gave her time served (practically) for the lying charges isn't that a sentence?

IMO, it is. The only thing that I think is open for debate and correction by the court is whether they honor her probation as complete or determine it to be incomplete and that's it.

 

[JBean]

Is there something that we know of the precludes the court from running her lying sentence concurrently with her fraud sentence or are we just hoping that it cannot be done?

 

[krkrjx]

But if he gave her time served (practically) for the lying charges isn't that a sentence?

She did not get time served for the lying convictions. She was sentenced to one year on each of four charges, to be served consecutively. The fact that she had been in jail awaiting trial allows for her to be given credit for those days toward the lying sentence, but she was not sentenced to "time served."

She was sentenced to "time served" on the fraud charges by Judge Strickland.
He actually stated her sentence as "time served."

Tommy and Misty Croslin were sentenced to 15 and 25 years, respectively. They were given credit for the days they had spent in jail awaiting court appearances and sentencing. So, they went to prison having already served those days in the eyes of the law. However, no time was given them for good behavior even though by all accounts they too were model prisoners in county jail. And both were in protective custody in County, as Casey was.

Casey was awarded time off for good behavior for every day she spent in jail. The Croslins were not.

The law says inmates earn time off for good behavior and it is not optional. Meaning, Florida cannot deny the Croslins what it awarded Casey Anthony.

Not legally, anyway. And certainly not morally.

I don't like the Croslins and as far as I am concerned they can rot in prison. However, if Casey was given preferential treatment that the Croslins (and other Florida inmates) have not received, it was either an error or it was intentional preferential treatment. It's wrong in either case, and it must be amended so that everyone in the system is treated equally.

And finally, since it was asserted by the DOC that Casey had served probation while incarcerated awaiting trial, gain time should not apply to those days unless it is common practice for a person on probation in Florida to have their probation terminated early for good behavior.

MOO.

 

[JBean]

Miracleshappen is right on the money, IMO!

I do not have a problem with good time/gain time for Casey if she is entitled to it by law. However, she got good/gain time applied to the full 1043 days she was in jail. It should have been applied only to the 412 days that she was actually serving a sentence.

Time off for good behavior and gain time do not apply to a person in jail awaiting trial or awaiting sentencing.

snipped for emphasis.

Not so.

■ Positive incentives. Sentenced in-
mates in Florida earn 5 days of gain
time (reduction in sentence) every
month if they follow the rules, and
pretrial inmates have 5 days a month
credited to any jail sentence they are
given if convicted. However, inmates
in program facilities earn an additional
6 days of gain time every month, for a
total of 11 days. While inmates can also
earn the additional 6 days as trusties in
the main facility, many find the work
boring

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/166820.pdf

 

[krkrjx]

Is there something that we know of the precludes the court from running her lying sentence concurrently with her fraud sentence or are we just hoping that it cannot be done?

There is nothing that precludes the court from running sentences concurrently. It is done all the time, and in all states. Sometimes the court chooses to run sentences consecutively, and the judge has every right to make that choice. Judge Perry did, in fact, make the choice to have the lying to LE sentences run consecutively for Casey. He never said consecutive to the fraud sentences, nor did he say concurrent to the fraud sentences. It was run concurrently; whether or not that was Judge Perry's intention we really do not know.

The question many of us have is: How can sentences run concurrently when one sentence has already been served? Had Casey still been serving time on the fraud charges at the time of the lying sentences, there would not be this question.

Yes, the current question before the court is only the issue of probation. However, Judge Perry did mention credit for time served at last Friday's hearing so it appears he has at least pondered this.

 

[Whisperer]

Judge Perry is burning up the legal cases trying to save face. Has he ever gave a defendent a sentence w/o looking up cases? There was a whole week at least that he knew this was coming. I am sure judges have had bigger problems. He needs to make a ruling, regardless of being worried about appeal. This is ridiculous! I say she gets the one year of regular probation. I have been wrong about every single prediction I have made in this case and eating crow has been a staple for me.

 

[Whisperer]

Not so.

■ Positive incentives. Sentenced in-
mates in Florida earn 5 days of gain
time (reduction in sentence) every
month if they follow the rules, and
pretrial inmates have 5 days a month
credited to any jail sentence they are
given if convicted. However, inmates
in program facilities earn an additional
6 days of gain time every month, for a
total of 11 days. While inmates can also
earn the additional 6 days as trusties in
the main facility, many find the work
boring

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/166820.pdf

Why should they work when their earning time playing around? I know Robert Downy jr worked the entire time....but I would never expect the @#$#@# to work.

I have heard from people that work in FL prisons, and they run even more liberal than California????!!!

So she got 33% time off. Being in protective custody earns you time off...amazing. All inmates want this but few are special enough to get it.

 

[krkrjx]

Well, I'm done with this for good now. Casey has slipped through many cracks and it is pointless to think even for a minute that she will not continue to do so. Even if it is not what the court would prefer, she will slip through on a technicality.

 

[RR0004]

Well, I'm done with this for good now. Casey has slipped through many cracks and it is pointless to think even for a minute that she will not continue to do so. Even if it is not what the court would prefer, she will slip through on a technicality.

Have hope, krkrjx.

 

[JBean]

There is nothing that precludes the court from running sentences concurrently. It is done all the time, and in all states. Sometimes the court chooses to run sentences consecutively, and the judge has every right to make that choice. Judge Perry did, in fact, make the choice to have the lying to LE sentences run consecutively for Casey. He never said consecutive to the fraud sentences, nor did he say concurrent to the fraud sentences. It was run concurrently; whether or not that was Judge Perry's intention we really do not know.

The question many of us have is: How can sentences run concurrently when one sentence has already been served? Had Casey still been serving time on the fraud charges at the time of the lying sentences, there would not be this question.

Yes, the current question before the court is only the issue of probation. However, Judge Perry did mention credit for time served at last Friday's hearing so it appears he has at least pondered this.

Perry only would have mentioned the fraud sentence if he was not including it in the time served credit. If he wanted the sentence to run outside of the fraud time all he had to do was make it so. From the moment he sentenced her the talking heads said he cut her a break by allowing the fraud jail time to be credited to time served. This was no surprise or secret and this was a deliberate action,imo.

IMO, the only thing that is open to deliberation is whether or not he should honor the probation as complete and if so, will that change the time served credit at all. The only reason I think that is even an issue is because it is, in effect, complete. If probation was still ongoing I think it would be a no brainer-he would reinstate Strickland's original intent, she would be on supervised probation and that would be that. But only because she has in essence "completed" it he is in a quandry.

I would ask if it is customary to receive credit for time served if the time served includes probation, but that is a tough question to answer because serving probation while incarcerated is in itself not customary.

So to me there are 3 parts for Judge Perry to consider.

1. Was the probation completed?
2. If it was, would she still get credit for the time served while on probation? If she does get credit then case closed. if she doesn't get credit then she will have to go back to jail to complete her sentence.EZ.
3. If it wasn't completed, then her sentence for the lying charges is closed and over, but she still would have to complete the formal probation for the fraud charges.

Obviously the pivotal point is the probation, hence the hearing and the research.
JMHO of course.

 

[rotterdam]

Perry only would have mentioned the fraud sentence if he was not including it in the time served credit. If he wanted the sentence to run outside of the fraud time all he had to do was make it so. From the moment he sentenced her the talking heads said he cut her a break by allowing the fraud jail time to be credited to time served. This was no surprise or secret and this was a deliberate action,imo.

IMO, the only thing that is open to deliberation is whether or not he should honor the probation as complete and if so, will that change the time served credit at all. The only reason I think that is even an issue is because it is, in effect, complete. If probation was still ongoing I think it would be a no brainer-he would reinstate Strickland's original intent, she would be on supervised probation and that would be that. But only because she has in essence "completed" it he is in a quandry.

I would ask if it is customary to receive credit for time served if the time served includes probation, but that is a tough question to answer because serving probation while incarcerated is in itself not customary.

So to me there are 3 parts for Judge Perry to consider.

1. Was the probation completed?
2. If it was, would she still get credit for the time served while on probation? If she does get credit then case closed. if she doesn't get credit then she will have to go back to jail to complete her sentence.EZ.
3. If it wasn't completed, then her sentence for the lying charges is closed and over, but she still would have to complete the formal probation for the fraud charges.

Obviously the pivotal point is the probation, hence the hearing and the research.
JMHO of course.

I dunno, with one hand he gave her the tough rather harsh max for each lying conviction, with the other hand , he gave her a break on the days credited for time served.
I just think , he did not want to give her probation for the lying sentence, hence the max, due to obvious problems with her safety in Orlando, but at the same time thought that the max on each count was kind of severe. He made up for that by giving her a nice chunk of time served. Maybe , it was a wise decision after all doing it that way. Because of that, I really do not expect him to do anything monumental about the fraud probation.

 

[askfornina]

Perry only would have mentioned the fraud sentence if he was not including it in the time served credit. If he wanted the sentence to run outside of the fraud time all he had to do was make it so. From the moment he sentenced her the talking heads said he cut her a break by allowing the fraud jail time to be credited to time served. This was no surprise or secret and this was a deliberate action,imo.

IMO, the only thing that is open to deliberation is whether or not he should honor the probation as complete and if so, will that change the time served credit at all. The only reason I think that is even an issue is because it is, in effect, complete. If probation was still ongoing I think it would be a no brainer-he would reinstate Strickland's original intent, she would be on supervised probation and that would be that. But only because she has in essence "completed" it he is in a quandry.

I would ask if it is customary to receive credit for time served if the time served includes probation, but that is a tough question to answer because serving probation while incarcerated is in itself not customary.

So to me there are 3 parts for Judge Perry to consider.

1. Was the probation completed?
2. If it was, would she still get credit for the time served while on probation? If she does get credit then case closed. if she doesn't get credit then she will have to go back to jail to complete her sentence.EZ.
3. If it wasn't completed, then her sentence for the lying charges is closed and over, but she still would have to complete the formal probation for the fraud charges.

Obviously the pivotal point is the probation, hence the hearing and the research.
JMHO of course.

i think this is right on the money imo. i wonder if HHJP is frustrated by this or if he appreciates the challenge. i would imagine a bit of both.

 

[JBean]

She did not get time served for the lying convictions. She was sentenced to one year on each of four charges, to be served consecutively. The fact that she had been in jail awaiting trial allows for her to be given credit for those days toward the lying sentence, but she was not sentenced to "time served."

She was sentenced to "time served" on the fraud charges by Judge Strickland.
He actually stated her sentence as "time served."

Tommy and Misty Croslin were sentenced to 15 and 25 years, respectively. They were given credit for the days they had spent in jail awaiting court appearances and sentencing. So, they went to prison having already served those days in the eyes of the law. However, no time was given them for good behavior even though by all accounts they too were model prisoners in county jail. And both were in protective custody in County, as Casey was.

Casey was awarded time off for good behavior for every day she spent in jail. The Croslins were not.

The law says inmates earn time off for good behavior and it is not optional. Meaning, Florida cannot deny the Croslins what it awarded Casey Anthony.

Not legally, anyway. And certainly not morally.

I don't like the Croslins and as far as I am concerned they can rot in prison. However, if Casey was given preferential treatment that the Croslins (and other Florida inmates) have not received, it was either an error or it was intentional preferential treatment. It's wrong in either case, and it must be amended so that everyone in the system is treated equally.

And finally, since it was asserted by the DOC that Casey had served probation while incarcerated awaiting trial, gain time should not apply to those days unless it is common practice for a person on probation in Florida to have their probation terminated early for good behavior.

MOO.

She did get credit for time served, it just wasn't enough to fulfill her obligation.

I don't know anything about the Croslins. If you can link to their sentence and charges perhaps an explanation lies there. I would ask if they were sentenced to the minimum or maximum? What were their charges? Were there mandatory minimum sentences involved? These things can affect eligibility for gain time in FL. Based on their sentences, I am guessing they were not convicted of lying to LE so this may be a case of comparing apples to oranges.

I don't see KC as getting preferential treatment as it relates to her sentencing at all. Judge Perry imposed the maximum sentences to be served consecutively.Running the time parallel to her fraud sentence is probably done all day long I would guess, but have no link to back that up as anything but my opinion.

ETA: Did a quick google and from what I can tell, Misty was not eligible for gain time and that is why it was not awarded. This is not a reasonable comparison to KC's situation; hope this helps:
I discovered Misty Croslin was convicted of drug trafficking which is subject to minimum mandatory sentencing.

>>Inmates serving life sentences or certain minimum mandatory sentences are not eligible for gain time (during the portion of time these mandatory sentences are in effect).<<

>>Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Florida is a tough state. The government has instituted a number of mandatory minimum sentences that apply to various crimes. It doesn't matter if you are a first-time offender. If you are accused of one of the followiing crimes, you are facing a mandatory minimum sentence.
snip

As well, many trafficking offenses have severe mandatory minimum sentences. Crimes such as trafficking in cocaine, oxycodone, methamphetamine, and marijuana (including grow houses) carry stiff mandatory prison terms. For more detailed information on drug crime mandatory minimums, especially when dealing with oxycodone <<

http://www.ericmathenylaw.com/Criminal-Defense-Blog/2010/April/Mandatory-Minimum-Sentences.aspx

 

[RR0004]

I wonder if JP knows it's Caylee's birthday today. A gift would be nice.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I wonder if JP knows it's Caylee's birthday today. A gift would be nice.

:waitasec: JP ? probably not ... but I bet he knows "his jury's birthdays" ... :innocent:

Yep ... a "gift" would be nice, a "gift" like ruling that "probation" was NOT served ... as well as the "check fraud sentence" was served "concurrently" with the credit that he gave her for the "lying to LE sentence" which was supposed to be "4 years consecutively" -- and NOT served with the 412 days for the check fraud ...

Ah ... it would be nice if Judge Perry had the GUTS to re-calculate those days ... and "admit" there were errors ... and CFCA would have to go back to jail ...

:innocent: One can only dream this will happen ...

MOO MOO MOO ...

 

[cityslick]

Stories like this are the reason he's not going to give her probation, at least not the sort where you have to report where your living all the time.

[ame="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44071908#44071908"]msnbc.com Video Player[/ame]

 

[sacrablue]

Whatever this bunch comes up with will not surprise me. All I know is a man that shot a bird will spend more time in jail compared to a child murderer. Kind of sad isn't Judge Perry?

 

[kaRN]

Judge Perry is burning up the legal cases trying to save face. Has he ever gave a defendent a sentence w/o looking up cases? There was a whole week at least that he knew this was coming. I am sure judges have had bigger problems. He needs to make a ruling, regardless of being worried about appeal. This is ridiculous! I say she gets the one year of regular probation. I have been wrong about every single prediction I have made in this case and eating crow has been a staple for me.

I'm working on a cookbook for we crow eaters. Have any recipes to share?? I'm still eating JVDS crow so don't feel bad. I even have MJ leftover crow to eat actually.
All cookbook proceeds going to TES. There will be lots of pictures along with the written instructions so that jurors who can't read or comprehend instructions thereby forcing us to eat crow, can enjoy the crow along with us. Crow a L'orange de Florida will be the cover dish.

 

[kaRN]

Whatever this bunch comes up with will not surprise me. All I know is a man that shot a bird will spend more time in jail compared to a child murderer. Kind of sad isn't Judge Perry?

MC is getting a good decade longer for selling RX pills to junkies than she would have gotten for murdering her baby in Canada. Wait at 18, we probably would have only given her probation...what am I thinking.
We have a legal system. What we're missing is justice.

 

[Fluffy Puppy]

IMO, it is. The only thing that I think is open for debate and correction by the court is whether they honor her probation as complete or determine it to be incomplete and that's it.

I don't think he gave her "time served" for the lying charges, he gave her four years, so I think that if he credits her probation for thee previous felonies, he can revisit the calculation for the four-year lying sentence. He didn't consider the previous felony sentence at all when that was calculated.

And maybe put her BACK IN JAIL or at least probation for the lying charges. imo, and a little wishful thinking.