Past Felony Convictions and Relevence in Sentencing

[dudley]

Hello,

Re: California law and criminal proceedures.

A friend is facing a felony charge and is scheduled for a probation/sentencing hearing. He has been asked by his attorney to bring up his past conviction (5 years have past since he served 2 years for the crimes and finished his terms of parole) and explain to the court these past charges which are unrelated crime(s)? As well an explaination for his "current" charge. In otherwords his side to the story of past and present charges.

His question is....how does his past convictions play into sentencing for this current charge? Isn't this a form of double jeopardy if his past history has to be explained and may add to his sentence or influence a guilty verdict for a charge he is currently faced with? His concern is related to a <b>past conviction of perjury</b> (forging of a document) and the way this will reflect on his truthfulness in this case. He feels since the perjury charge is a focus of the courts...this is almost as if he is being tried on the same crime twice!

Bottom line....when the judge (no jury involved) reads of past convictions. Is the judge able to take his past conviction charges into account to determine guilt or innocence in his current charges? Despite the fact he has served his time and finished parole long ago for the perjury charge?

Seperate from the above answer, could "double jeopardy" be explained or a link to an explaination please be provided? Any input or thoughts on this is helpful. Thanks in advance!

 

[lawrat]

I am a law school graduate. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.

It is very relevant. Because once someone has been convicted of a crime of perjury (truthfulness) it bears relevance to his truthfulness now.

Double jeopardy has nothing to do with it - he is NOT being tried twice.

I suggest you go to a local law library and get a small book about california criminal procedure or in this case, the Federal Rules of Evidence.

 

[dudley]

WOW! Now that was quick! Thanks LawRat...

Although not great news. In defense of my friend, his concerns "appear" to be warranted. The reason he feels this as an unfair aspect of this case at present is that the PAST perjury conviction was in actuality a signing of a DMV document which "he feels" was more of a guilty act of forgery rather than a plain out lie under oathe and before God. His explaination, not mine. However, he feels this is like being redflagged as an all around chronic liar. And if this is the main substance in his being UNBELIEVEABLE in this particular case and is found guilty where as he maintains he IS innocent. It would serve as an indirect way of paying twice for the same crime....whole different scenario.

I won't go into the specifics.... but, hypothetically speaking can you see where a person can be found guilty and convicted on new unrelated charges. Adding to the amount of time to be served, influenced by a one time past mistake of "written" perjury/forgery? In a sense any additional time that this past error may add, to a current sentence, different case (only the judge knows for sure) would in essence be a being tried for that same mistake twice if the perjury of past was the deciding factor in guilt in this case?

Just thought I would throw it in for further discussion? Here is where I am coming from............


''The constitutional prohibition against 'double jeopardy' was designed
to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial
and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. . . . The
underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the
Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its
resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to
convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to
embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a
continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the
possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.'' 39

Thank you for your time in answering this and I will look into the suggested reading.