Will Casey face probation?

[strawberry]

OOOPs! Sorry I was just listening and they sounded alike. My mistake..:truce:

That's OK baby she kind of does sound like her. And I had to mute JVM, you were right about that.

 

[Talina]

But to me it also looks like the probation "being served" wasn't even part of the quotation for what she was serving.....nobody even seems to have brought it up...

I agree.

 

[krkrjx]

When the option, of Casey serving probation in jail, was brought up, (during the check fraud sentencing hearing) Judge Strickland told the state to submit a motion on the proposal. Problem is, no motion was ever produced by the state. This, at least, is the way I understand it.

That is true. However, I think context is important here.

HHJS was sentencing Casey to probation upon release from jail, but at that time no one really was expecting her to ever be released from custody again. But, by law she had to be given the probation because her plea deal on the check charges mandated probation. So, HHJS made the statement that SA could submit a motion if they could come up with any better way to phrase it. Apparently, the SA couldn't come up with a better way, so they filed no motions. This, at least, is the way I understand it.

 

[Talina]

BBM

Maybe it's wishful thinking however I internalized his statement meaning that they would NOT run concurrently! Why else would he have imposed the maximum sentence and make that statement? :waitasec:

He did say that the 4 years he sentenced her to would run consecutively, not concurrently. What he did not specifically say though is if any of her 4 years could run concurrently with her 412 days she got for the check fraud plea. He did say some sort of calculation would have be done to see what was used on her prior convictions but looks to me like he allowed or someone allowed those 412 days to run concurrently for both sentences (check fraud and lying convictions). Now, along with that, her probation ran concurrent with her lying convictions.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

IF HHJP is the judge during Friday's hearing, FCA won't be on probation. He'll let her slide on by , forgery, stealing, imo killing her child.....doesn't matter. :slap:

That and probably take a few minutes to thank the jury again for their awesome service. :banghead:

 

[strawberry]

:great: Her uncle said she wouldn't be welcome at his home!!

 

[Whisperer]

No. I am referring to calculating what days count as time served.

Wasn't her sentence given as time served as of Jan 2010?That would be about 455 days. (appr.)

Now Perry apparantly gave her credit again for that time served. If she had probation on the first charges that were up on Jan2010, why wouldn't her new sentence start on that date? Since she was on probation in Jan 2010, that means she (according to their warped minds) on probation from Jan 2010 to Jan 2011.

While on probation, she was earning time toward the four counts of lies plus she was getting 33% time earned. This is insane. I suspect DOC didn't want to bring up this fact because this was an error.... I aslo suspect Baez knew all along. He played the game. He had to know because I bet that letter was given to him. He must have laughed all the way back to Kissimee.

 

[Talina]

According to Diane Dimond and JVM she has served her probation

What Judge Strickland verbally said was not in the paperwork that was filed and signed by all concerned.....

Diane Dimond and JVM apparently are not aware that Florida law states that verbal sentencing takes precedence over written sentencing if there is a discrepancy. Also, probation is supposed to be "tolled" if the convict is being held on other charges. Read R. Hornsby's blog - he goes over this is nice detail about what the Florida law is regarding all of this.

 

[krkrjx]

He did say that the 4 years he sentenced her to would run consecutively, not concurrently. What he did not specifically say though is if any of her 4 years could run concurrently with her 412 days she got for the check fraud plea. He did say some sort of calculation would have be done to see what was used on her prior convictions but looks to me like he allowed or someone allowed those 412 days to run concurrently for both sentences (check fraud and lying convictions). Now, along with that, her probation ran concurrent with her lying convictions.

Correct, JP did not say consecutive to the fraud sentence. However, he also did not say concurrent to...and usually they say one or the other.

I think it was an oversight and the case/time served was confusing at best so when a calculation was made it was just assumed to be accurate. Not an excuse, IMO, but I think it is what happened. Someone did the math and no one double-checked it.

 

[krkrjx]

I am not sure the argument at hand now is about what should have happened. I think it is about should Casey be "penalized" now for someone else's error.

IMO it would not erroneously penalize her, but her attorneys will argue that it would.

I expect this will all come out in Casey's favor. Sadly.

 

[Whisperer]

In my mind, the four years for Lies should have started on Jan 2010....since she was on probation..and had served her time on fraud.

It wasn't calculated like that. If they want to talk doulble jeopardy.l.she got it in reverse. She got credit for lies all the time she serving fraud. She got credit for lies all the time she was on probation for another crime. This makes no sense. To top it off they knocked off 33% for the privelege of having a single cell.

 

[Nixie]

IF HHJP is the judge during Friday's hearing, FCA won't be on probation. He'll let her slide on by , forgery, stealing, imo killing her child.....doesn't matter. :slap:

HHJP gave her the maximum sentence he could give, it wasn't up to him if she was found guilty or not it was a jury trial. Judges have to follow the law, he couldn't do anything more then he did. What was he suppose to do? He can't over turn a jury verdict, He did his job and was very professional. A judge can't take sides or make sure someone is found guilty or innocent that would be illegal. I assume he will do what he can in this case too. He will give her the maximum he can under the law. He is probable trying to research what happened and what he can and can't do.

 

[krkrjx]

Wasn't her sentence given as time served as of Jan 2010?That would be about 455 days. (appr.)

Now Perry apparantly gave her credit again for that time served. If she had probation on the first charges that were up on Jan2010, why wouldn't her new sentence start on that date? Since she was on probation in Jan 2010, that means she (according to their warped minds) on probation from Jan 2010 to Jan 2011.

While on probation, she was earning time toward the four counts of lies plus she was getting 33% time earned. This is insane. I suspect DOC didn't want to bring up this fact because this was an error.... I aslo suspect Baez knew all along. He played the game. He had to know because I bet that letter was given to him. He must have laughed all the way back to Kissimee.

Exactly.

Jail time, probation, and more jail time---all in one fell swoop.

This is not even double-dipping. It's triple-dipping!

 

[rotterdam]

Correct, JP did not say consecutive to the fraud sentence. However, he also did not say concurrent to...and usually they say one or the other.

I think it was an oversight and the case/time served was confusing at best so when a calculation was made it was just assumed to be accurate. Not an excuse, IMO, but I think it is what happened. Someone did the math and no one double-checked it.

Judge Perry is still within the time frame, 60 days, I think, to amend that.
Doubt if that is going to happen though especially if he fully intended it to run concurrent. Plus if he would, DT could certainly appeal that.

 

[krkrjx]

Casey's total days in jail at the time of sentencing on the lying charges was slightly over 1000 days.

Her sentence on the lying charges was 1460 days.

WTH?

 

[rossva]

And she has a letter from the DOC saying so.

addressing the terms of probation issue in the ask lawyers thread FWIW:

"Originally Posted by AZlawyer
She did comply with the terms, and her probation was officially terminated."

 

[krkrjx]

Judge Perry is still within the time frame, 60 days, I think, to amend that.
Doubt if that is going to happen though especially if he fully intended it to run concurrent. Plus if he would, DT could certainly appeal that.

The could probably just amend the appeals already filed on the lying convictions.

And yes, there is recourse to fix this. But, I doubt anyone will touch it.

 

[krt]

He did say that the 4 years he sentenced her to would run consecutively, not concurrently. What he did not specifically say though is if any of her 4 years could run concurrently with her 412 days she got for the check fraud plea. He did say some sort of calculation would have be done to see what was used on her prior convictions but looks to me like he allowed or someone allowed those 412 days to run concurrently for both sentences (check fraud and lying convictions). Now, along with that, her probation ran concurrent with her lying convictions.

BBM that is my entire point....why would he say that he would have to check time served for the check fraud if he was going to have her sentence run concurrently? I internalized that to mean that he was going to tack ON the ADDITIONAL time.......and NOT run the the lying to LE w/ check fraud concurrently.....KWIM?

PLUS......Judge Perry is still within his 60 days that allegedly he has to issue a clarification order............maybe that is why Strickland recused himself from this issue and Judge Perry is going to clean this all up in one sweep. Wishful thinking but that is what REALLY should be done!

PLUS PLUS........They can't have it both ways.......(the DT) IF she truely was on probation during time served.....did they do drug testing? Plus she DID violate probation....she was writing to a convicted felon "cookie" so she violated her probation or probation was not performed properly.

 

[kelian36]

Casey's total days in jail at the time of sentencing on the lying charges was slightly over 1000 days.

Her sentence on the lying charges was 1460 days.

WTH?

NO! Ok, that greatly surprises me.
Did I miss how that was calculated?

 

[kelian36]

And she has a letter from the DOC saying so.



"Originally Posted by AZlawyer
She did comply with the terms, and her probation was officially terminated."

:waitasec: If her probation was terminated, how can she have a probation hearing now?