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."
Didn't you read the article? "Between 1981 and 1997, he committed six crimes and spent almost seven years behind bars, five of which were passed in state prison." And of course, these are only the ones he got caught doing.
"...the guy went 18 years without committing a crime..."
They mention specifically crimes committed in 1981 and 1997. But the article also says he committed six crimes between those years (16, not 18) and out of those 16 he was in jail seven of them. So that makes it six crimes that we know of in nine years. Looks like a career to me. Of course, I've only gone 59 years without any felony convictions so what do I know?
gosh... thanks
It's a great idea, to bad that means it will never get implemented :)
There are some people on the street who committed the same "recidivism" prior to the passage of the law. They are not in jail because all three crimes that they committed were prior to the passage of the Three-Strikes Law. Yet they committed the crime described.
The prohibition against ex-post-facto laws is to prevent the creation of a crime after the fact. To the extent that any person's crimes were committed prior to the enactment of Three-Strikes, the law is certainly after the fact.
I haven't followed the matter closely, but I believe that the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that sentence enhancements, such as those for using a gun in the commission of a crime, require that the facts substantiating the enhanced sentence must be submitted to a jury. If the same standard is established for the facts establishing recidivism, then we would have a situation in which the jury is considering facts regarding crimes committed prior to the enactment of the law against recidivism. How would that not be "ex post facto"?
It's not ex post facto because it's the will of the people.
/sarcasm
They are not in jail for 3 strikes, because they were not in violation AS OF WHEN the law was passed. If they commit a new felony and are convicted, they can then be charged with a NEW violation of 3 strikes IN ADDITION to whatever their new felony conviction carries. They are not being retried for previous crimes, but the fact of their previous convictions are evidence in the charge of violation of the 3 strikes statute.
I haven't followed the matter closely, but I believe that the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that sentence enhancements, such as those for using a gun in the commission of a crime, require that the facts substantiating the enhanced sentence must be submitted to a jury.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that 3 strikes is not an enhancement of a sentence for the third felony, but a separate violation. It can only be brought after conviction of the third strike, and not during the trial. Which is why the D.A has some measure of discretion on bringing the charge.
What of the issue of "due process"? Some convicted of "recidivism" as you describe it may have decided at some time prior to the passage of this law to plead guilty to a lesser felony charge rather than face trial. Is it not possible that they would have decided differently if they realized that two plea bargains and a later felony conviction could result in a life sentence? Are they not entitled to know what the penalties are for their crimes at the time charged?
Treating "recidivism" as a separate crime is clever but requires that elements of the crime be proven which were not elements of that particular crime at the time committed. That is what ex post facto describes.
3 strikes requires two of the felony convictions to be for serious felonies, mostly involving violence. If a felon managed to plea down to a lesser felony that STILL qualified under 3 strikes, then I shudder to think of what his greater crime was.
Are they not entitled to know what the penalties are for their crimes at the time charged?
At the time they are charged with violating the 3 strikes law, they are informed. They and their lawyer can fight it then. But, if a two-time loser is too stupid to know by now that this provision is hanging over him or her, then I have no sympathy anyway. Barretta sez: don't do the crime if ya can't do the time.
Treating "recidivism" as a separate crime is clever but requires that elements of the crime be proven which were not elements of that particular crime at the time committed. That is what ex post facto describes.
The third strike, which is what triggers the statute, must have been since the law was enacted, thus no ex post facto. But would you feel any different if all three felonies had been committed after the law was enacted?
Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure the ex post facto argument has already been tried in one of these cases, and the law still stands. The only argument this scumbag has is that one of his previous felonies, that of armed robbery, wasn't serious enough to count as one of the two major strikes, therefore invoking 3 strikes is "unusual punishment".
Yes. Absolutely. Consider the possibilities in your own life. Most of us on FR are not felons, I presume. How would you like it if your state passed a three-strikes law for moving violations in an automobile? On the third ticket you lose your driving privileges for life.
I've been driving for forty years and have one such ticket. What about you? Should such a law consider what has happened going back forty years or more? Or should the law give everyone the same fresh start?
Where is the equity in taking my license after two more violations, but leaving licensed a person who has had dozens?
He was caught and convicted six times, he may have committed hundreds of crimes.
So, you feel felons should get three more whacks at violent crimes before we remove them from society for life. How about if any felony conviction carried a manditory parole provision requirement of life imprisonment if convicted of another felony? Is that enough fair warning for you?
How would you like it if your state passed a three-strikes law for moving violations in an automobile? On the third ticket you lose your driving privileges for life.
I would feel forewarned is forearmed and strive to not exceed my three. If I already had three when the law was passed, I would know I had no more chances left and drive accordingly. If I felt the law was too harsh or too widely applicable, I would lobby for its repeal.
He stopped doing the moving violations; you didn't. Tough luck. The law worked as intended.
Our Founders didn't want the government changing the rules after the fact. This was an abused practice of the monarchy that was overthrown. Most of the career criminals have records as long as your arm. Having three strikes against them is not really the problem.
Another thread describes a new gun control law being proposed which includes a "stockpiling" provision which makes it unlawful to build an inventory of arms prior to a regulation becoming effective but after it has been "prescribed". The government wants to punish a person for not pre-obeying a proposed regulation.
You seem to be under the assumption that the law is designed to punish recidivists. It isn't. It's designed to remove them from amongst the law-abiding on whom they prey. If a criminal with a record as long as your arm gets out and never commits another felony, then fine. He can have as many previous convictions as possible; I'm not concerned about adding to those sentences.
But, if he should take up his criminal career again, he should be subject to life imprisonment for the protection of the rest of us. He is proved ineducable on the subject of lawful behavior.
Your gun stockpiling analogy is flawed. 3 strikes takes into account past behavior that is ALREADY criminal. The stockpiling law attempts to criminalize currently LEGAL behavior.
Then let's consider double jeopardy issues.
Here's another way to look at the issue. We only disagree on what the effective date of criminal behavior must be in order to qualify as a strike. The only practical difference between our approaches is the amount of time it takes for the benefit of the new law to be realized. Considering the effect of criminal actions prior to the passage of the law works to the convenience of the public. The long term effects are unchanged.
My point is that the "convenience" achieved is at the expense of retroactively applying a standard of punishment which was not in effect at the time of the crime.
Consider the effect of the Lautenberg Amendment which further criminalized misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence by imposing lifetime prohibitions against keeping and bearing arms. It is certainly convenient to be able to disarm such people but it was at the expense of imposing punishment which was not part of the law at the time of the criminal behavior.
Let's try another scenario. Suppose that Congress passes a law which permits ten year prison sentences for anyone found jaywalking if they have a prior conviction for keeping and bearing arms without a license. Do people with such convictions deserve to face such jeopardy? Do the protections against double jeopardy and ex post facto amount to nothing in such a case? What limits to future jeopardy for past crimes can be expected? Is there none? Does one conviction for a crime (whether felony, misdemeanor, or infraction) leave one at the mercy of the judicical system forever?
What is the law under Homeland security for false ID's?
Is it a Felony under Federal Law.If so the debate is over, it is a third count the feds can enforce.
Ops4 God Bless America!
What you keep assuming is that 3 strikes is an additional punishment for the 1st and 2nd felony, or even the third. It isn't. It is a separate violation, carrying its own penalty aside from whatever punishment those other convictions carried. The previous convictions are facts in the case for invoking the 3 strikes, but whether the statute is invoked by the D.A. or not will not change the punishments invoked for the felony convictions themselves.
What you are arguing is something that defense lawyers have managed to ingrain into our legal system: that it is somehow dirty pool to reveal a person's history of similar crimes when trying him for a subsequent one. I believe that considering a man's criminal record when trying him for NEW violations does not violate double jeopardy. Indeed, it speaks to his motive and method, and should be available to any jury. Repeat offenders should not have their history shielded, and justice is not well served by intentionally keeping a jury ignorant.
The Lautenberg Amendment is unconstitutional, not only for violating 5th A. guarantees against double jeopardy or ex post facto, but because it violates 2nd A. rights without due process. The difference is that it imposes an additional punishment for a previous violation. Three strikes is only triggered by a new violation.
Do people with such convictions deserve to face such jeopardy? Do the protections against double jeopardy and ex post facto amount to nothing in such a case?
No they don't, and no they don't. This would be a violation of the 8th amendment: excessive punishment. It would be ex post facto and double jeopardy only if old jaywalking cases were retried under the new law.
Rather, it would be double jeopardy only if old jaywalking cases were retried under the new law. It would be ex post facto if jaywalking was previously legal, and you were tried for a violation prior to the statute.
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.