2011.08.05 Hearing on Casey's probation

[Just K]

..as i understand it, the OCC/Jail does the calculation. ( and not the judge).

------this was released earlier, explaining the 4 day discrepancy on her release from jail date.

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28523075/detail.html
Memo Explains Casey's Release Date Calculation

------snipped------



..now that the whole issue of probabtion has been brought up again------i see NO reason why the calculation of time served can't be re-calculated AGAIN to see if an error was made as to her release date.

..if she was erroneously credited time for the lying sentence (that had already been used for the check sentence ) she should GO back in and do those additional days.

..if judgeS can amend an order b/c of a simple error-----judgeP can amend his as well.

IIRC, He has 60 Days to do so. That would be sometime in early September. With all the appeals and the case for reimbursement to the State for the search and the investigation into a "missing child", that poor HHJP will never get that horrible clan out of his hair.

They will appeal every case that is judged and "settled" even the ones they plead guilty to. They have no common decency...any of that crew. JMO, IMO IMHO!!!!!!

 

[Just K]

Here's the thing: She wasn't even in there three years so she should have even less credit for time served including any gain time, etc

It's all a boatload of *H!t. There should be true MINIMUMS for all crimes. There should never be what amounts to no time served on any sentence.

Jan 25, 2011 (if you call that the last day of her probation after her 412 days served on the 6 of 13 felony check fraud, uttering and Identity theft charges)

Now new time served would presumably begin on Jan 26th, 2010, correct?

Since that date, 1/26/2010, she spent ONLY 538 more days in jail.
If you divide that number by 30 and give her two days for each 30 that is
17.93
x2
_____________
35.86 days of gain time.

So, the way it calculates is:
538 days (time served after HHJS gave her credit for the first 412 days)
+ 36 (gain days @ 2 for every 30 days)
_______________________________
=573 days credit toward the Providing False Information to LE

IF HHJB wanted her to serve four years total on the latest charges @ 1460 Days minus projected new gain time @ 1 day per 30 (because she ought to be in Gen pop) = 48.6 gain days

So with:
1460 day sentence
-573 (time served since 1/26/2010 with gain days added in)
-49 projected additional gain days
_____________________
838 days left to serve on HHJB's Sentence!

That's 2.3 Years!!!!!!!!!!!!

And they are complaining about probation???

 

[krkrjx]

I have been trying to figure out why a ridiculous rule would be in effect in Florida that allows people to do probation while incarcerated and have come to this understanding:

It is only legal when the person in incarcerated but not serving time. Casey had done the time for the fraud charges and sat in jail for the next year on probation. But since Casey was not actually serving a sentence at the time she allegedly served one year of probation, I think the ruling might have to be that Casey has served her probation. Odd as that is, it appears to be the law in Florida.

The order of the court should be that Casey Anthony successfully completed probation while incarcerated. It should be further ordered that since probation time served while incarcerated cannot run concurrent with an imposed jail sentence, Ms. Anthony's initial credit for time served must be decreased by 365 days.

Such action by the court would uphold the DT's current position on Casey's probation, but it would put her back in jail for a year to complete her jail sentence on the convictions for lying to LE.

I am beginning to think this is how the judge may rule. It would not increase Casey's punishment in any way so it is not double jeopardy. It would close the book on the probation issue and the DT would likely not win an appeal on the recalculation of time served. And finally, it would put to rest any "safety" issues the DT might have with their client returning to Orlando.

 

[LambChop]

I have been trying to figure out why a ridiculous rule would be in effect in Florida that allows people to do probation while incarcerated and have come to this understanding:

It is only legal when the person in incarcerated but not serving time. Casey had done the time for the fraud charges and sat in jail for the next year on probation. But since Casey was not actually serving a sentence at the time she allegedly served one year of probation, I think the ruling might have to be that Casey has served her probation. Odd as that is, it appears to be the law in Florida.

The order of the court should be that Casey Anthony successfully completed probation while incarcerated. It should be further ordered that since probation time served while incarcerated cannot run concurrent with an imposed jail sentence, Ms. Anthony's initial credit for time served must be decreased by 365 days.

Such action by the court would uphold the DT's current position on Casey's probation, but it would put her back in jail for a year to complete her jail sentence on the check fraud charges.

I am beginning to think this is how the judge may rule. It would not increase Casey's punishment in any way so it is not double jeopardy. It would close the book on the probation issue and the DT would likely not win an appeal on the recalculation of time served. And finally, it would put to rest any "safety" issues the DT might have with their client returning to Orlando.

BBM: KC has already served time for the check fraud, she would be finishing out her sentencing on lying to LE. jmo

 

[jjenny]

If she served her time for check fraud, was let out, and then got sentenced for lying, then I presume they would not be calculating her time to serve for lying from the beginning of her serving time for check fraud.
So I wish state of Fl figured out once and for all what is it she has to serve for lying and I fail to see why they appear to be including her check fraud time as served time for the lying to police?

 

[krkrjx]

BBM: KC has already served time for the check fraud, she would be finishing out her sentencing on lying to LE. jmo

I know...that was an error. I fixed it as soon as I saw it.
:seeya:

 

[rotterdam]

..as i understand it, the OCC/Jail does the calculation. ( and not the judge).

------this was released earlier, explaining the 4 day discrepancy on her release from jail date.

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28523075/detail.html
Memo Explains Casey's Release Date Calculation

------snipped------



..now that the whole issue of probabtion has been brought up again------i see NO reason why the calculation of time served can't be re-calculated AGAIN to see if an error was made as to her release date.

..if she was erroneously credited time for the lying sentence (that had already been used for the check sentence ) she should GO back in and do those additional days.

..if judgeS can amend an order b/c of a simple error-----judgeP can amend his as well.

This is what I do not get. The Court (read JP) awarded her 1043 days of time served, That is the number DOC had to use as a starting point for their calculation of the 4 year sentence in actual days...
How the heck did JP come up with 1043 days. From Jan 2010 thru July 2011 does not even come close to that. Why was not 412 days(from a different judge for an entirely different offense) deducted from that 1043 days, which looks like the total amount KC was in jail since late 2008. Why did not the PT object to that number of 1043 days. If all convicts in Orlando get the same, two for the price of one, I rest my case..
It almost looks they played with the numbers to get KC out shortly after the NG verdict while she was still a hot commodity and without probation. Something is not passing the smell test. And I surely do not expect anything from that probation deal on Wednesday. Just all smoke and mirrors to pacify the public. JMO

 

[krkrjx]

If she served her time for check fraud, was let out, and then got sentenced for lying, then I presume they would not be calculating her time to serve for lying from the beginning of her serving time for check fraud.
So I wish state of Fl figured out once and for all what is it she has to serve for lying and I fail to see why they appear to be including her check fraud time as served time for the lying to police?

IMO, Judge Perry did not intend for the time for the check fraud convictions to be credited toward the lying to LE convictions. He enunciated the word "consecutively" very clearly, IIRC.

It was taken to mean the lying convictions would be consecutive sentence but since he never said "consecutive to the fraud sentence" it was assumed the two sentences would run concurrent.

But I don't see how it is even possible to do this. She had served that time already and "concurrent" means at the same time.

I believe the judge intended for Casey to have the maximum jail time; if not he would have sentenced the lying to LE convictions concurrently rather than consecutively, IMO.

He can still fix this. He can demand a recalculation of the time served and put Casey back in jail for those 412 days that she received credit for in error. But will he do it? I am doubtful. I think he is concerned now with doing anything that looks like he wants to punish Casey. IMO, and all that.

 

[rotterdam]

Here's the thing: She wasn't even in there three years so she should have even less credit for time served including any gain time, etc

It's all a boatload of *H!t. There should be true MINIMUMS for all crimes. There should never be what amounts to no time served on any sentence.

Jan 25, 2011 (if you call that the last day of her probation after her 412 days served on the 6 of 13 felony check fraud, uttering and Identity theft charges)

Now new time served would presumably begin on Jan 26th, 2010, correct?

Since that date, 1/26/2010, she spent ONLY 538 more days in jail.
If you divide that number by 30 and give her two days for each 30 that is
17.93
x2
_____________
35.86 days of gain time.

So, the way it calculates is:
538 days (time served after HHJS gave her credit for the first 412 days)
+ 36 (gain days @ 2 for every 30 days)
_______________________________
=573 days credit toward the Providing False Information to LE

IF HHJB wanted her to serve four years total on the latest charges @ 1460 Days minus projected new gain time @ 1 day per 30 (because she ought to be in Gen pop) = 48.6 gain days

So with:
1460 day sentence
-573 (time served since 1/26/2010 with gain days added in)
-49 projected additional gain days
_____________________
838 days left to serve on HHJB's Sentence!

That's 2.3 Years!!!!!!!!!!!!

And they are complaining about probation???

Do your same calculation again but with a starting point of 1043 days because that is what the Court(JP ) awarded KC as time served. And that is what the DOC had to use for their calculation.

 

[krkrjx]

Do your same calculation again but with a starting point of 1043 days because that is what the Court(JP ) awarded KC as time served. And that is what the DOC had to use for their calculation.

...and then subtract the 365 days of her alleged probation.

 

[Just K]

I have done the numbers every way possible and NEVER come up with the 1043 number.

just counting
412 (up til 1/25/2010)
+538 (from 1/26/2010 til 7/17/2011)
________
950/30 days x2 for gain
=63 gain days

950
+ 63
______
1013

Even at that
1460 for lying
-1013
______
447 then divide that by 30
-14.9 projected gain days (or 28 if you give two for one)
____________
that would still leave 432 or 404 days, at the least, owed.

 

[rotterdam]

This may have already been discussed but it is confusing to me. It was issued on January 25, 2011 but it references an attachment which was updated March, 2011 . How is that possible? The letter pre-dates the enclosure by 2 months.

http://www.issues.cc/uploads/24881575464.jpg

I think that date of March 2011 is in reference to an update of "restoration of civil rights blah blah blah"(using Baez lingo) etc.

 

[Just K]

Whatever the case they counted the 412 days plus some.

 

[krkrjx]

I have done the numbers every way possible and NEVER come up with the 1043 number.

just counting
412 (up til 1/25/2010)
+538 (from 1/26/2010 til 7/17/2011)
________
950/30 days x2 for gain
=63 gain days

950
+ 63
______
1013

Even at that
1460 for lying
-1013
______
447 then divide that by 30
-14.9 projected gain days (or 28 if you give two for one)
____________
that would still leave 432 or 404 days, at the least, owed.

I thought the number was 1016 total days in jail. But I could be wrong as the DOC said one number then corrected it to a different number. It was only a few days difference though, IIRC.

Either way, if she has really done her probation while incarcerated that 365 days cannot be given as credit toward any jail sentence.

 

[Well Done 99]

Judge Perry ........ can still fix this. He can demand a recalculation of the time served and put Casey back in jail for those 412 days that she receiveid credit for in error. But will he do it? I am doubtful. I think he is concerned now with doing anything that looks like he wants to punish Casey.

+respectfully snipped+
I believe you are correct. HHJP is an honorable and just man. Whilst we hear that he has rightly brought down the "full force" on felons in the past, it is hard to imagine that his intention will be to do anything vindictive here.

 

[rotterdam]

I have done the numbers every way possible and NEVER come up with the 1043 number.

just counting
412 (up til 1/25/2010)
+538 (from 1/26/2010 til 7/17/2011)
________
950/30 days x2 for gain
=63 gain days

950
+ 63
______
1013

Even at that
1460 for lying
-1013
______
447 then divide that by 30
-14.9 projected gain days (or 28 if you give two for one)
____________
that would still leave 432 or 404 days, at the least, owed.

Here is my interpretation
1460-(48x5 statuary gain time=240)-1043- (constructive gain time around 170?)= 7 days

Constructive gain time 1043 divided by 30 (times 5)= 173 close enough!!!

 

[krkrjx]

+respectfully snipped+
I believe you are correct. HHJP is an honorable and just man. Whilst we hear that he has rightly brought down the "full force" on felons in the past, it is hard to imagine that his intention will be to do anything vindictive here.

I agree, although I do not think it would be vindictive for a judge to correct an error. The fact that it would probably be perceived that way, however, is an issue this judge wants to avoid, IMO.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

+respectfully snipped+
I believe you are correct. HHJP is an honorable and just man. Whilst we hear that he has rightly brought down the "full force" on felons in the past, it is hard to imagine that his intention will be to do anything vindictive here.

He's gotten all the important things wrong, why should this be any different?

 

[RR0004]

..as i understand it, the OCC/Jail does the calculation. ( and not the judge).

------this was released earlier, explaining the 4 day discrepancy on her release from jail date.

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28523075/detail.html
Memo Explains Casey's Release Date Calculation

------snipped------



..now that the whole issue of probabtion has been brought up again------i see NO reason why the calculation of time served can't be re-calculated AGAIN to see if an error was made as to her release date.

..if she was erroneously credited time for the lying sentence (that had already been used for the check sentence ) she should GO back in and do those additional days.

..if judgeS can amend an order b/c of a simple error-----judgeP can amend his as well.

If there is an error, it can be corrected. I recently read an article about just such a case...can't remember where...RH?

 

[rotterdam]

Here is my interpretation
1460-(48x5 statuary gain time=240)-1043- (constructive gain time around 170?)= 7 days

Constructive gain time 1043 divided by 30( times 5)= 173 close enough!!!

So, Casey was granted 240 days, off of her sentence, for statutory (regular) gain time and another 240 days off, for constructive gain time ? I did look up OC policy on gain time, as I was curious, and found the following...

STATUTORY GAIN TIME:

Statutory gain time will be automatically credited at the rate of five (5) days for every thirty (30) days of an inmate’s sentence. Statutory gain time will not be granted for incarceration periods of less than thirty (30) days.

CONSTRUCTIVE GAIN TIME:

Inmates who are unable to work or participate in programs but who constructively use their time may be given constructive gain time. A maximum of five (5) days for every thirty (30) consecutive days housed in confinement for reasons other than disciplinary is allowed.

http://www.orangecountyfl.net/Porta...orrections/docs/InmateHandbookEnglish0609.pdf

I guess Casey used her time constructively, while in Protective Custody ?

Tks searchfortruth for that tidbit. Now we know pretty well how it was calculated. See above.