Okay thanks very much for your answer which
ullhair: of course made some sense to be...
Yabbutt ( a strange animal known to inhabit the houses of more stubborn folks) I understand the rush for a stay of execution in a death sentence.
But this request for a stay is for a measly run of the mill check fraud sentence and this probation represents the charges that were adjudicated in stead of serving jail time. :waitasec:
So are you saying an appeals court would -
rush- to make a decision on the stay as fast as they would for an execution stay? Geez, don't these guys have anything better to do with their time - like fold the stay request up into a paper plane and fly it around the room a few times or something?
Nope.
Use of the word "execution" here is in the context of the execution of a sentence. i.e. imposition of whatever the court has ordered.
It doesn't mean the execution of a prisoner. (not sure that is what you mean).
I'm saying time standards usually change or get ramped up only when death cases are involved. If there's a different set of rules it will be for death cases.
Probation was ordered because as a matter of law it had to be ordered.
This mandate kicked in because there was no adjudication. Adjudication was withheld.
The threat posed by the probation is that it can lend itself to a Violation of Probation.
That's when it becomes non-measley because if probation is revoked and violation found, max sentence can be imposed.
That's the part of the proceedings that lends itself to the lecture from the bench :boohoo: :boohoo:about how the defendant should have taken probation more seriously because a break was given but since you think it is all a big joke I am about to show you how funny this is.
At that point the defendant is sentenced to jail and ordered into custody.
(aforementioned Kombayah).
That lecture, or some version thereof, is used very often in Court, as it should be.
Even if the Appellate Court jointly enrolls in an oregami class and successfully executes a paper rendition of Swan lake,:rubberducky: using the pleadings of defense counsel to accomplish this feat, they are still bound by the law.
Right now, the only law I can find says that the stay is automatic.
On a brighter note, that reminds me.
You know, sometimes the courts to want to rule one way but the law pushes them in another direction. They need a hook, they really want a hook to hang their judicial hats on, in order to rule a certain way.
If there is a hook in this case I think it will be the intentional conduct of defense counsel in "looking the other way" :couch:while having full knowledge that a Court order was being ignored, so as to benefit the defendant.
That's what will bite them in the end.
Just sharing an opinion:seeya:
MH :wolf:
of probation.
f:skip: Probation :rings::skip:
