Let's Save a $100,000

This story is truly outrageous.  A guy commits armed robbery 30 years ago.  His lawyer screws up the case and the guy ends up with a life sentence.  So now he's 74, a model prisoner, expensive to incarcerate and an example of how screwed up our system can get.  There is no mechanism for releasing him, but the Governor can commute the sentence. 

Read the story.  It's obvious that she needs to step in and do the right thing. 

Maynard's co-defendants in the case each took plea agreements recommended to them by their attorneys. One pled guilty to a drug charge in another case, and all charges against him regarding the robberies were dropped. He was released from prison the next year. Another pled no contest to being an accessory to the crime. His conviction was treated as a misdemeanor, and he was placed on probation for one year, with one day of credit for jail time served. The third defendant pled guilty to two counts of robbery and received five years and one day in prison.

However, Maynard didn't take a plea, and his case went to trial. When it was over, he received three 30-to-50-year terms on three armed-robbery convictions. The judge decided these sentences would run consecutively, meaning that Maynard has to serve them one after another.

Comments

[Poison]

I guess the moral of the story is...don't rob a bank.

[loj]

Uh, dude. A single serving of espresso has less caffeine than your basic cup of joe.

[George]

The guy didn't rob a bank. The moral of the story is don't get tried under a judge who dishonors justice.

If Janet were a governor of the calibre of Huck, she'd do the right thing and reprieve. However, I'm not holding my breath.

[Jim]

Greg:

I understand that you're in the middle of law school, but I would suggest that you have a little experience in actually practicing law before you opine that this is an "outrageous story."

The fact that individual's lawyer "screwed up" was litigated in Pima County Superior Court as recently as 2004. The Defendant was given a full opportunity to litigate the issue of the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel. A superior court judge held (after full briefing by the defense attorney and the State on this issue) that his counsel was not constitutionally ineffective.

So, I don't understand how you can state that his lawyer "screwed up." A trial court held the exact opposite.

What your post fails to point out is that criminal defendants often insist on their innocence when the facts show the opposite. If a defendant does not want to accept a plea agreement and insists on going to trial, then that person has a constitutional right to make that decision, whether that decision is a good one or not.

This person was properly convicted and sentenced under Arizona statutes. His case has been reviewed by the Court of Appeals, on direct review and by the Pima County Superior Court on collateral review.

This individual has been provided all the due process that our system allows. The system has worked in this case. At some point people have to be held accountable for their actions, I don't care what the cost is to incarcerate this guy. Governor Napolitano should keep her streak alive and refuse to grant clemency to this person.

[Jim]

To George:

A judge's job isn't to "do justice." It's to enforce the law. That's exactly what the trial judge did in this case.

I suggest you read the U.S. Constitution.

[George]

To Jim:

Perhaps we can read the Constitution together, along with the bill of rights.

I could point out for you "cruel and unusual," as in disproportionate sentencing, and you could show me where it says state judges have no discretion and simply check boxes.

Your way of thinking is certainly clean and orderly, but it was rejected by Marshall a long time ago.

You might find France, under its Roman-law philosophy, more hospitable to your beliefs.

[Michael]

Murderers get less time than this guy has already done. He's remorseful, admits his crime, has been a model prisoner, and sure as hell isn't going to re-offend. Who benefits by the taxpayer continuing to house, feed and care for the declining health of this man? Governor Napolitano.

She gets to preserve her 'tough on crime' record and her future political options at no cost to her, but at great cost to the taxpayers of Arizona. Conservatives are annoyed by the burden-shifting of the Governor's budget proposal to kick a lot of cons in state prison into county jails, but they aren't upset by old cons like this one mouldering and falling apart on the taxpayers' dime?

Due process doesn't alway equal justice, nor does it alway equal practical fiscal policy. Keeping this guy, and other codger-cons like him in jail isn't doing anyone any good - except the Governor.

[Jim]

To George:

Sure, let's read the Constitution and a pertinent case that has interpreted the Eighth Amendment.

First, the U.S. Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the Eighth Amendment prohibits only those punishments that are "grossly disproportionate"to the crime committed. Only in "exceedingly rare" cases will a sentence to a term of years violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. And, in considering whether the sentences imposed is grossly disproportionate, courts have been directed to "accord substantial deference to the legislature and its policy judgments."

In this case, where you claim that Mr. Maynard was tried under a "judge who dishonors justice," no where in the newspaper article did his defense lawyer argue that his sentence was somehow illegal or contrary to law. The defense attorney didn't do that because she couldn't. Mr. Maynard was legally sentenced within the statutory confines of Arizona law as applied in 1976.

So, your claim that Mr. Maynard's sentence is somehow violative of the Eighth Amendment is completely wrong and contrary to established law.

Regarding your question as to where you could be enlightened as to the sentencing authority of state trial court judges, please see Arizona Revised Statutes 13-702.02. Under this current statute, a person in Mr. Maynard's penological situation, could be sentenced in a range of years from 21 to 35 years. No discretion whatsoever, and no authority to deviate from the legislature's mandate. So I would suggest you puruse these statutes sometime. As you'll be able to see, in the vast majority of circumstances a judge's sentencing decretion is severely limited by state statute.

Finally, as to your comment that my way of thinking was "rejected by Marshall a long time ago," I can only assume that you are referencing Chief Justice John Marshall. For your edification, Marshall never issued an opinion regarding the parameters of the Eighth Amendment as is pertains to cruel or unusual punishment.

I'm sure you knowledge of Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison is stunning and quite exhaustive, but it simply has no application to the Eighth Amendment or the issues I was discussing in my response to your first comment.

Judges are not to dispense "justice." If this was the proper duty of a judge, then your fate would be decided by the vagaries of judge not bound by the law, but rather his or her own notice of what is right. A judge's job is to enforce the law - not what they believe to be right or just.

[George]

Ah, Jim -- Thank you for acknowledging that at least in exceedingly rare cases "a sentence to a term of years [will] violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment."

Also, you originally told me to "read the U.S. Constitution" to learn what the state judge's responsibilities are, and I replied that those responsibilities are not described there. And then you as much as acknowledged that, by referring me now to ARS. So again: Thanks for that admission.

You are correct that my reference to Marshall concerned the former chief justice. And you are also correct that Marbury does not address the 8th Amendment, but you are incorrect about it prohibiting judicial discretion. And tho I must seem to you to possess "knowledge of Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison [that] is stunning and quite exhaustive," I really don't.

Feel free to rant a response, but it's really time to move on.