• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Conviction Overturned In CA. State of apeal but.....

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

K

Kimmie, CA

Guest
What is the name of your state? CA.

In 1998 my father was wrongly convicted of a crime he DID NOT DO. However he was charged with 4 counts. The California state of appeals overturned 1 of his convictions. However when he went back for resentancing.....the judge gave him more time for the other 3! Originally he was sentanced to mid term on all 4 charges.....but when he went back for resentancing, the judge gave him high term on the other 3. This made it 16 years just like he had in the beginning. Is this legal? It just doesnt make sense to me. He commited one less crime.....but still got the same amount of time? And the judge can change his mind 4 years later, and decide "I think this guy should have more time for these charges"? If the judge would have taken off that time of four years....my 70 year old father would be out in 2 years, and have a chance to live a few years as a free man. Of course this is in the federal level of appeals now, but by the time he is finished with the appeals process, he will have almost served his entire 16 year sentance, or will be dead. Just wanted some insight, because anyone I have told about this says it's not legal, and wants to know how the judge got away with this. Any advise, or comments PLEASE!
 


I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
Kimmie said:
What is the name of your state? CA.

In 1998 my father was wrongly convicted of a crime he DID NOT DO. However he was charged with 4 counts. The California state of appeals overturned 1 of his convictions. However when he went back for resentancing.....the judge gave him more time for the other 3! Originally he was sentanced to mid term on all 4 charges.....but when he went back for resentancing, the judge gave him high term on the other 3. This made it 16 years just like he had in the beginning. Is this legal? It just doesnt make sense to me. He commited one less crime.....but still got the same amount of time? And the judge can change his mind 4 years later, and decide "I think this guy should have more time for these charges"? If the judge would have taken off that time of four years....my 70 year old father would be out in 2 years, and have a chance to live a few years as a free man. Of course this is in the federal level of appeals now, but by the time he is finished with the appeals process, he will have almost served his entire 16 year sentance, or will be dead. Just wanted some insight, because anyone I have told about this says it's not legal, and wants to know how the judge got away with this. Any advise, or comments PLEASE!


My response:

Oh my gosh! That's horrible!

What were the exact crimes for which he was convicted?

IAAL
 
K

Kimmie, CA

Guest
Should it really matter?? Or is it couriousity?

There is so much to it, and if I just say what it is for without going through the book long story......judgement may be past upon him. And I dont think I could take that. Its hard enough as it is dealing with it, than to get critisized along with the mess. Not saying that is how you are, just speaking about society in general. In any case should giving more time on less charges be legal? I dont think it should matter what that person is charged with, I think that was the issue with the jury. It was the sensitivity of the charges that convicted him not the "evidence" it was a "better to be safe than sorry" verdict.
 
C

coosi

Guest
There is so much to it, and if I just say what it is for without going through the book long story......judgement may be past upon him. And I dont think I could take that. Its hard enough as it is dealing with it, than to get critisized along with the mess. Not saying that is how you are, just speaking about society in general.
**That's pretty much how it is here too, particularly with "sensitive" (sex, drugs, right?) crimes

In any case should giving more time on less charges be legal?
**If the judge did it, then it's legal

I dont think it should matter what that person is charged with, I think that was the issue with the jury.
**That's ridiculous, then why charge anyone with anything? This was a jury trial???

It was the sensitivity of the charges that convicted him not the "evidence" it was a "better to be safe than sorry" verdict.
**Sorry, but it is the evidence that convicts. Different evidence for different types of charges...

**It's really too bad your 70 year old father will probably die in prison, but sometimes, for the sake of society, it truly is better to be safe than sorry...
 
K

Kimmie, CA

Guest
Not intended to sound "snippy"

I just wanted to make that clear. Its a hard thing to explain, and everyone is inocent in prison when I go there that is all that I hear. So when I say he didnt do it. People always say "yea, right, or "are you sure". This was a major railroad case.
 
K

Kimmie, CA

Guest
That's pretty much how it is here too, particularly with "sensitive" (sex, drugs, right?) crimes

In any case should giving more time on less charges be legal?
**If the judge did it, then it's legal

I dont think it should matter what that person is charged with, I think that was the issue with the jury.
**That's ridiculous, then why charge anyone with anything? This was a jury trial???

It was the sensitivity of the charges that convicted him not the "evidence" it was a "better to be safe than sorry" verdict.
**Sorry, but it is the evidence that convicts. Different evidence for different types of charges...

**It's really too bad your 70 year old father will probably die in prison, but sometimes, for the sake of society, it truly is better to be safe than sorry... [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks for letting me know that you believe that judges can't make mistakes. Are you a judge? The conviction was overturned because THE JUDGE instructed the jury wrong......hmmmmm?
It sounds like you were on the jury to me......have you ever heard of "without reasonable doubt" Better safe than sorry doesnt sound like it would work with that quote. And yes this was a jury trial, and my fathers attourney took $90,000 of his $, and went to lunch with the prosecutor on a daily basis. That seemed odd to us, but of course never being involved in the judicial system.....we thought nothing of it. We had evidence after evidence, proving this was impossible, my father was in another state (proof is available) when this happened. But his attourney saw $$$$$ from my dad, and did NOTHING TO HELP. I wanted to be an attourney until all of this happened. But I decided.....i would not want to prosecute someone that might be innocent, nor defend someone that could be guilty. Are you an attourney???
 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
Ok, I give up. What were the railroad crimes that he was convicted of? Even if your opinion, he got railroaded into prison.
 
K

Kimmie, CA

Guest
Leud acts on a child......

Here it goes......There was a 8 year old little boy who befriended my father. He lived 5 houses down from us. He came over every day, stayed with us overnight and became part of the family. (like a nephew to me, grandchild to my father) His mother (6 kids by 4 fathers) had been trying to borrow $ from us. We had lent $ to her in the past. But my mother decided it wasnt happening anymore. We were also friends with her ex-husband. At one point I had walked into her home and found her 6 month old baby straddled over a vaporizor burning him from his lower abdomen, up to his neck. She was passed out drunk on the couch next to him and didnt budge to his screams. She also asked my one time to punch her in her face so she could call the police and say her ex came over and beat her up. I could go on forever about her. So I contacted her husband and told him what was going on and that the children needed to be with him before something worse happens. She became angry at my mother, and I. then started making false police reports about my mother, saying "she tried hitting her and her kids with the car, she was threatening her" (lies) my mother has better things to do. The mother got a restraining order against my mother. BUT still let her son come down to our home. She didnt do anything to me yet because I was 8 months pregnant at the time, and probably thougt the judge wouldnt believe her. She waited until after I had my son then made allegations that I was "throwing firecrackers at her home, and swirving to hit her in my car" She then got a restraining order against me! I can sure tell you I have plenty of better things to do with my time. If I wanted to hurt her, I would use something a lot better than a firecracker! LOL!! Then she went after my brother in law (in the Navy) and started writing false alegations against him to his comanding officers. Then she went after my brother, got a restraining order against him. She had nothing better to do with her time, than pretend to be a lawyer. She still let her child come down to our home!!! Then one day the police showed up at our front door asking for my father, they spoke with him and asked him questions about what was being said. From the beginning he thought this was "a joke" and took it with a grain of salt. He went down the next day to the police department and answered any questions they had. He asked them if the boy was saying this happened, they told him no, the boy is saying "no, way he would never do that to me" the mother is stating she "thinks this happened". The charges were dropped! Then the lady decided she wanted to sue the city for $1,000,000 for not doing there job. She lost! But they re-opened the case, my father retained he attourney. And a warrant was issued for my fathers arrest. He turned himselfe in and posted $100,000 bail. We read the police reports with the statements from the child, during a years time his story went from nothing, I dont know, Nothing, my mom says it happened, I woke up before with my pants off but nobody was there and I could have been dreaming. But the mother states that he told her very horrible things happened. There were no doctors reports, or councelors reports. And during the trial......"he couldnt recall, and even said "his mom said it happened, and that why he thinks it happened" I was there, I saw that child with my father on a daily basis, and I AM a child molest victim. Why would he have kept comming back, he only lived 5 houses down, why didnt he remember, I remember everything by detail 20 years later. There was no evidence on the prosecutions part, besides the mothers story. During the trial, the child had "no recolection" and "didnt recall" yea....those are words from a 9 year olds mouth huh? Well....my dad was a truck driver, and had tags showing this couldnt have happened he was in Arizona on one particular date this supposedly happened. (Attourney didnt present that evidence in our behalf) We had pictures showing that the way that the mother saying it happened on one particular time was impossible. (attourney didnt show pictures, we paid him $1000 to have a professional photographer come to our home and take) In 1985 my dad was arrested for urinating in public, and was slammed to the ground sighted and released. However when he got to court....he found out he was urinating during the middle of a gay prostetution sting, and was being charged with soliceting to prostetution. The charges were dropped to indecent exposure, he paid the fine and that was it. So he thought. When all of the evidence was being presented to the judge the prosecution wanted to bring this into court. The judge said NO, this has NOTHING to do with this case, nor children. During the end of the trial right before my dad went to take the stand, the prosecutor asked the judge if she could use it to impeach him. She wanted to ask my dad if he was gay, or bisexual......if he said no she wanted to present it. She was trying to predjudice the jury to believe my dad was gay, and liked little boys! Hello!!! He has been married to my mother for 45 years and has 5 children, with a lot of friends. I think he would have started this a long time ago, with one of us, or our friends. Anyways..... The judge then allowed her to present it. So my fathers attourney advised my dad not to testify, because there was no reason to because it was all in the bag. Because nothing incrimating was said, and no evidence was presented to convict. So that was it. The jury never heard my father, and didnt know why. But during deliberation.....they asked the judge how much time he would get for the crimes. My questions is if you are sure that this man hurt this child......what would it matter? And If I thought my father did this, I would hope he would rot and die in there. That is just a few details. Oh....one more thing.....she (the mother) sued my mother for $1.000,000 after the conviction saying she new about the entire thing. My mother filed BK on it, because she couldnt afford an attourney. I will probably throw in more details later on during this forum. Like I said it is a long story. But that part is over and done with.......I am into the Appeal now, and wondering how he could get more time, with less crime? I havent ever heard of this, and if anyone has......tell me where, if I am wrong for thinking this isnt legal fine I will be done with it. But until I can find somewhere this has happened before I consider it unjust! (forgive spelling errors)
 
Last edited:
K

Kimmie, CA

Guest
Too much huh?

Hey....you asked, and like I said it would be a story book.
 
K

Kimmie, CA

Guest
A lot of help!!

Thank you so much, I have already started working on this. If anything comes of it....I will let you know.
 

wenwas

Member
coosi said:
It was the sensitivity of the charges that convicted him not the "evidence" it was a "better to be safe than sorry" verdict.
**Sorry, but it is the evidence that convicts. Different evidence for different types of charges...

**It's really too bad your 70 year old father will probably die in prison, but sometimes, for the sake of society, it truly is better to be safe than sorry... [/B]
I just was at a trial that the person was innocent and there was no evidence other than what a witness said and that witness changed her story many times but he was still convicted on a better safe than sorry situation some crimes they dont care what evidence proves innocence they hear the alleged crime and convict
 

JETX

Senior Member
"I just was at a trial that the person was innocent"
*** Okay, how do you KNOW that the person was innocent??? Not emotionally, but factually!!
The only way that you could KNOW that would be that either the accused was with you at the exact time of the crime, or that YOU did the crime.
So, please tell us..... how do you KNOW that this person is innocent???
 

JETX

Senior Member
wenwas said:
the person was with me at the time thats how i know
*** Then of course, you testified about his alibi at the trial, right??
And if you did, clearly SOMEONE didn't believe you.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top