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."
The statute violates the double-jeopardy rule. If he served his time for the previous convictions, then he paid the price.
26 years for lying is excessive by any rational standard - it's positively medieval.
A three-strikes rule is a cop-out. If justice is the goal, then the penalties for committing crimes need to be proportionate and appropriate. It's the lack of appropriate sentencing which led to the three-strikes rule; some restoration of real penalties, especially for violent crimes, is the solution. It's not this poor schmuck's fault that the California legislature hasn't the guts to do its job.
Poor lying bastard.
Perhaps someone should point out to the idiot that had he not robbed someone and committed another crime he would be free to victimise someone right now.
The only difference this ruling will make is to the NEXT victim this worthless fleme of society decides to target when he is returned to the streets.
Not me, I prefer my plan. It's called the 44 club.
You mess up twice the second time you become a member of the 44 club.
44 Magnum behind the ear. Ends large prison costs, ends long court procedures, ends high medical treament of imprisioned persons...
3 strikes are for wimps. Terminate them with extreme prejudice.
You can lie before a grand jury and nothing is supposed to happen to you.
It's just all out of proportion.
Puss puss.
My .40 Cal Club is even a better idea. If you are even ACCUSED of ANY crime, you are given an execution, on the spot, with a .40 caliber round through the temple.
Damned speeders anyways. IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME, DON'T DO THE CRIME!
"His criminal history reflects the very type and degree of recidivism the Supreme Court recognizes Three Strikes laws were properly intended to address."
The 9th Short-Circuit does it again. Coddle and pander to criminals.
Your multiplier idea has merit, IMO. Touche.
"The statute violates the double-jeopardy rule. If he served his time for the previous convictions, then he paid the price."
Not so. The sentence for the first (and second) conviction also carries with it the condition that these convictions are "strikes" under the law. There are no surprizes here. As has already been stated, the strike is not for lying but for continuing to live a felonious lifestyle. When they tell one more strike and you're gone, you'd better damn well believe it.
BTW, double jeopardy is being tried again for a crime you were once aquitted of. If you are convicted, you are subject to whatever penalties the law allows.
Nonsense. There is nothing in the double jeopardy concept that excludes considering past criminal behavior when trying a person for present crimes. It is only the willing blindness of the sort that sees "penumbras" that even considers such as being double jeopardy.
I believe that juries should get to see the whole rap sheet of every defendant that comes before them, including the previous charges that were plea bargained down, and their juvenile record.
If this felon is willing to continue to commit felonies, then he needs to go away forever. It isn't about him "paying the price"; it's about the people removing this human trash from society, and protecting those of us who wish to live without the threat of his presence among us.
If you were convicted of this, not having had a history of multiple felony convictions, 26 years would be too much.
But for someone who has had multiple felony convictions, it bothers me not at all.
We as a society don't trust him as much as we trust someone who does not have such a record. And we require him to walk a narrower straight-and-narrow than we do of most.
He knew this, and chose to commit another felony.
It's on his head.
You folks are splitting judicial hair. This sentencing violate the "spirit" of the law, even if it is within the letter. Don't you realize that this sort of short-minded idiocy leads to eventually to a total disillusionment in our justice system, one that will spread like a virus? Use your heads. You should be punished for the crimes you commit, not what you might do. Hell, if that's the case, we're ALL guilty.
If it were really about removing the human trash from society then the average served time for murder would not be a mere 7 years. Don't ignore the fact that the root of the problem is that violent crime is not proportionally punished to its severity. Regardless of past criminal behavior, 26 years for a lie, compared with light sentences routinely handed down for violent crimes, is disproportionate and unreasonable. You want to take the trash off the streets, the way to do it is to sentence them appropriately for their crimes. The three-strikes law is sentencing them for the negligence of the state legislature and the arrogance of the courts.
You really don't get why a career criminal was trying to get a driver's license under an assumed name?
Say, Laz ... I know where you can get a brand new Rolex, really cheap.
I don't know either, at least not specifically, but I assumed it was somehow linked to hanky-panky. Was he trying to steal his cousin's identity, or what?
Although I am very much a supporter of increasing severity of sentences for career criminals, I agree with you on this. The Constitution was explicit on this point for a reason.
I would also tie sentencing to the rate at which crimes are solved. If we are only solving 2% of burglaries, there is nothing wrong with recognizing that the average burglar apprehended is committing his share of the unsolved crimes. Decreasing initial penalties and increasing the sentences for recidivists will ensure that this policy is not harsh.
Considering the guy went 18 years without committing a crime, I wouldn't call that a career. This isn't the kind of person the law was intended to take off the street permanently. You are clearly driven by emotion and not any reasonable analysis of the situation.
Murder = 7 years. Burgulary + Armed Robbery + ID fraud = 32+ years? That's ridiculous and out of proportion in the extreme.
Whatever the good people of California may have decided in this case, it does not trump the basic rights enumerated in the Constitution. That's the difference between a republic and a democracy - a democracy is mere mob rule. A 26-year sentence for ID fraud meets every and any reasonable test of "excessive" as spelled out in the 8th Amendment.
I'm very much a supporter of increasing penalties for repeat offenders, too, but this law is ridiculous and doesn't meet basic Constitutional standards.
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.