95 results for 'cat:"Probation" AND cat:"Sentencing"'.
J. Stegall finds that the lower court improperly imposed lifetime post-release supervision on defendant, who was convicted for knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse with a female victim who was unable to consent to sex while intoxicated. The jury was not given any direct evidence of defendant's age at the time of the crime, so the case must be remanded for resentencing. Reversed.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court, Judge: Stegall, Filed On: August 30, 2024, Case #: 125,141, Categories: probation, sentencing, Sex Offender
Per curiam, the court of appeals finds that the trial court improperly sentenced the defendant to four years in state prison after revoking his probation based on a decision of dangerousness. The jury should have been instructed to determine whether sentencing him to a nonstate prison sentence could present a danger to the public; this determination is crucial before imposing a state prison sentence. The case is remanded so that a jury can assess the level of danger before imposing a state prison penalty. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 30, 2024, Case #: 6D23-0825, Categories: probation, sentencing, Jury Instructions
J. Smith finds that the lower court properly sentenced defendant to 36 months in prison for probation violations. Defendant argues that his sentence was unreasonable based on his completion of various classes and his volunteer activities while incarcerated. However, the evidence shows that he waited only 17 days while out on probation before reverting to his old ways. Affirmed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Smith, Filed On: August 29, 2024, Case #: 23-2402, Categories: probation, sentencing
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Kamins finds the trial court didn’t err in sentencing defendant to 39 months in prison for violating probation instead of the 26-month sentence jointly recommended in his plea agreement after pleading guilty to five counts of identity fraud in three separate cases. The state statute guiding plea agreements does not obviously apply to future revocation sanctions. Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Kamins, Filed On: August 28, 2024, Case #: A178609, Categories: probation, sentencing, Identity Theft
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly sentenced a juvenile delinquent defendant to 12 months of probation after being charged with possession of a weapon by a juvenile. Defendant’s circumstances were based on this offense, his background, the balance between rehabilitation, supervision and community protection. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 8, 2024, Case #: 04182, Categories: probation, sentencing, Weapons
J. Fulton finds that the trial court properly imposed an active incarceration of one to year and six months, but improperly decided to resuspend defendant’s remaining three years sentence and place him on probation for an extra two years for violating probation. Based on Virginia’s probation changes the court did not have authority to order additional suspension or probation. The case is remanded for further proceedings. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
Court: Virginia Court Of Appeals, Judge: Fulton, Filed On: August 6, 2024, Case #: 0769-23-1, Categories: probation, sentencing
J. Georges determines the juvenile defendant’s adult state prison sentence is not unlawful, but the defendant has a right to appeal that sentence to the appellate division, just as an adult sentenced similarly would be able to do. The appellate division exists to examine whether sentences are too harsh or lenient and correct them if necessary.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Georges, Filed On: August 5, 2024, Case #: SJC-13496, Categories: Juvenile Law, probation, sentencing
J. Tavitas finds the trial court found that defendant violated the terms of his probation by committing a new criminal offense while on probation and sentenced him to serve four years of his previously suspended sentence. Defendant violated a protection order by attempting to enter his ex-girlfriend’s house and he pleaded guilty to the resulting charge of invasion of privacy. Affirmed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: Tavitas, Filed On: July 31, 2024, Case #: 24A-CR-00115, Categories: probation, sentencing
J. Lee finds the district court properly revoked defendant's supervised release. After defendant had completed his custodial sentence, he began a term of supervised release and eventually admitted to committing several violations, resulting in another prison term. Though defendant says the court failed to calculate his guidelines range, the record refutes this. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Lee , Filed On: July 31, 2024, Case #: 23-2317, Categories: Firearms, probation, sentencing
J. Scudder finds that the lower court improperly sentenced defendant to a maximum revocation sentence of two years for violating his supervised release by using cocaine and losing contact with his probation officer. Defendant's maximum revocation sentence under the First Step Act and Fair Sentencing Act is five years, not two, but the court has the discretion to selection a revocation sentence below that limit on remand. Vacated.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Scudder, Filed On: July 26, 2024, Case #: 23-1591, Categories: probation, sentencing
J. Ortiz finds that the trial court improperly imposed defendant’s three months of active incarceration. Defendant failed to complete a psychosexual evaluation which resulted in a violation of a special condition of his suspended sentence to complete all recommendations of the order. The case is remanded for further proceedings to reconsider the decision, because the court of appeals disagrees with most of the interpretation of the sentencing. Reversed.
Court: Virginia Court Of Appeals, Judge: Ortiz, Filed On: July 16, 2024, Case #: 0675-22-2, Categories: probation, sentencing, Sex Offender
J. Decker finds that the trial court properly revoked defendant’s five-year suspended sentence and imposed an active sentence of one year and six months. Defendant violated conditions by not following the probation officer’s instructions, he was untruthful regarding the use of alcohol and illegal substances and he failed to register as a sex offender or follow the GPS rules. Affirmed.
Court: Virginia Court Of Appeals, Judge: Decker, Filed On: July 16, 2024, Case #: 1682-23-3, Categories: probation, sentencing, Sex Offender
J. Blane finds that defendant was properly sentenced after pleading guilty to drug charges since the state did not breach the plea agreement by stipulating that defendant attend a residential treatment facility as part of probation. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Blane, Filed On: July 3, 2024, Case #: 23-1365, Categories: probation, sentencing, Plea
J. Zahn finds that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion for three days of credit for time served. His motion relied on a sentencing statute, but the trial court had withheld judgment following his guilty plea to grand theft and placed him on probation with a condition to serve 30 days in jail. He is required to serve 30 24-hour periods in jail and he does not get credit for partial days served. Affirmed.
Court: Idaho Supreme Court, Judge: Zahn, Filed On: July 1, 2024, Case #: 49921, Categories: probation, sentencing, Theft
J. Motz finds the lower court properly withdrew its initial agreement to a time-served sentence and instead elected to maintain the defendant's supervised release with an additional mental health condition. Following more than 20 years of incarceration, the defendant was released and began a five-year term of supervised release. Soon after, his mental health deteriorated after he suffered a lapse in his medication and began to experience worsening psychiatric symptoms, including clinical paranoia and panic attacks. The defendant was cited for misdemeanor trespassing after refusing to leave a bus station in Raleigh. At the following revocation hearing, the lower court initially agreed to terminate his supervised release and enter a time-served sentence. But before the hearing concluded, the defendant engaged in what the court viewed as one of the worst outbursts it had ever seen in an open courtroom, leading to them concluding he posed a danger to the public and his probation officers. The defendant maintains that a sentence becomes final and binding when it is announced in open court. A sentence is not imposed until it has been unequivocally pronounced during the sentencing hearing and there has been a formal break in the proceedings from which to logically and reasonably conclude that sentencing has finished. Affirmed.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Motz, Filed On: June 26, 2024, Case #: 23-4618, Categories: probation, sentencing, Trespass