Posted on 03/07/2005 8:12:52 AM PST by Cagey
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California man sent to prison for 26 years for lying on a driver's license application won a new hearing on Friday in a case that revived debate over the state's "three strikes" law, which imposes lengthy terms on repeat offenders.
Santos Reyes was convicted of perjury for filling out a driver's license under a cousin's name in 1997. Convicted of burglary in 1981 and armed robbery in 1987, he was sentenced to 26-years-to-life. Reyes appealed, arguing such a sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco ordered the case returned to a lower court to review Reyes's previous crimes.
"But for Reyes' armed robbery conviction, Reyes would appear to have a plausible case for relief," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote. "Unfortunately, the circumstances under which Reyes committed the robbery are not sufficiently developed in the record for us to determine whether the offense was a 'crime against a person' or involved violence."
The case is the latest in a heated debate over California's "three strikes" law, which imposes prison terms of 25 years to life on those convicted of a third felony. Opponents of the law say large sentences for minor crimes unfairly target small-time criminals and overburden the prison system.
California's prison population has grown fourfold over the past 25 years amid stiffer sentencing. Yet voters in November rejected a proposal to soften the three-strikes law.
In its decision, the court cited a 2004 ruling that found a Californian sentenced to at least 25 years in prison after stealing a $199 video recorder was unfairly punished.
One of the three judges hearing the Reyes case dissented, saying the sentence was justified and further consideration of the case was not necessary.
"Reyes does not present an 'extraordinary' rare case; he is a career criminal," Richard Tallman wrote. "Between 1981 and 1997, he committed six crimes and spent almost seven years behind bars, five of which were passed in state prison."
"His criminal history reflects the very type and degree of recidivism the Supreme Court recognizes Three Strikes laws were properly intended to address."
Rules are rules, and in America - That doesn't mean squat anymore! Why have them at all? >Sarcasm<
He knew full well that he was subject to the three-strikes provisions, yet he chose to offend for a third time.
I have no sympathy for him, whatsoever.
Hell, It sounds like "Three Strikes" is really WORKING...
If the bastard didn't learn from two slaps in the head for being a crook ---- the third swing should remove the bastard from society....
Semper Fi
There has to be more to this. It's as if these judges are trying to create justification to rid themselves of the Three Strikes law.
I would be for a modified version of "three strikes" law.
I call it the "sentence multiplier" law. If you are convicted of a crime, your sentence is multiplied by the number of previous convictions.
If you were convicted twice for burglary, then you commit a petty crime you get 3 times the sentence for the petty crime - NOT life in prison.
We could lower the 'first crime' sentence length- and keep the repeat offenders in longer.
Oh for crying out loud, eliminate the three strikes law already.
Institute the 4 strikes law. 4 strikes = lethal injection!
Next.
How many habitual liars do We know? Lock'em all up!
This is one of those cases where I think a judge should be able to use some restraint and give a more appropriate sentence. However, they tend to use that latitude stupidly and give ridiculous sentences for violent crimes as well, which is why the 3 Strikes law was created. Sorry dude, but in you go.
He was sentenced for two other crimes plus lying. Yes I know he may have already paid for those, but this is part of that payment for those previous crimes.
Well you beat me to it. Same idea.
spell check should be (lawyers)
"His criminal history reflects the very type and degree of recidivism the Supreme Court recognizes Three Strikes laws were properly intended to address."
I am inlcined to agree with Judge Tallman on this one.
Make that "inclined".
...which is precisely why the bleeding-heart libs are screeching about how unfair it is!
Ypu'd think Libs would want more people in jail, as it increases the proportion of homo-normative behavior.
Just imagine how many crimes he got away with. I heard somewhere that only 2% of all crimes result in a conviction.
Genius, shear genius ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.