• 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.

truth in sentencing law in Illinois

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

I

in limbo

Guest
My husband was convicted of a Class X felony in the state of Illinois. The paper with his charge says that the crime was committed June 2 through August 18 of 1998. The truth in sentencing law had been ruled unconstitutional, but was reinstated effective June 18, 1998. If his charge dates back to before the new law came into effect, shouldn't he just have to serve 50%, instead of the 85%? He had a public defender, because we could not afford a lawyer. I cannot afford one now. But we need to find out why he is still being held under the truth in sentencing law, when others that have committed similar crimes in which the earliest date of the indictment is before June 18 only have to serve 50%. Please help me! I know that my husband deserves to be punished, but I don't want him to "slip through the cracks" because we could not afford a lawyer.
 


L

lawrat

Guest
I am a law school graduate currently awaiting Bar results. I offer this as mere guidance, not to be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship.

I do not know anything about the truth in sentencing law, but I do know this: you can contact your legal aid foundation(found in yellow pages usually under legal services section of the front part) and get a criminal defense attorney (or at least speak with one) for no money or very little.

Also, if you really want to get the most for no cost, why don't you talk to your local law school? Ask a criminal law professor. Maybe they might help you at least clarify the ramifications of the law.


Hope this helps.
 
T

Tracey

Guest
The court has to sentence your husband under the laws that were in effect on June 2.

Briefly: a person can only be sentenced under the penalties in effect when they committed the crime. If the legislature increases the penalty after the crime is committed, the old sentences are still in effect. Since the date of the crime was given as June 2 - Aug 18, the court cannot know whether he committed the crime before or after the truth in sentencing act was reinstated. It has to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Don't jump for joy yet; if the facts of the case show that the crime was ongoing and continued after June 18, the new act applies. Also, he still has to get past the appellate procedure rules before he can be heard. It may be too late already.

The constitutional right to an attorney includes the right to an attorney for an appeal of right. Request a public appellate attorney to represent him on appeal.

------------------
This is not legal advice and you are not my client. Double check everything with your own attorney and your state's laws.

[This message has been edited by Tracey (edited April 21, 2000).]
 

marchello

Junior Member
My husband was convicted of a Class X felony in the state of Illinois. The paper with his charge says that the crime was committed June 2 through August 18 of 1998. The truth in sentencing law had been ruled unconstitutional, but was reinstated effective June 18, 1998. If his charge dates back to before the new law came into effect, shouldn't he just have to serve 50%, instead of the 85%? He had a public defender, because we could not afford a lawyer. I cannot afford one now. But we need to find out why he is still being held under the truth in sentencing law, when others that have committed similar crimes in which the earliest date of the indictment is before June 18 only have to serve 50%. Please help me! I know that my husband deserves to be punished, but I don't want him to "slip through the cracks" because we could not afford a lawyer.
First of all DONT BREAK THE LAW!! Secondly u stated his crime was commited June 2 to August 18 of 1998. Were there a string of crimes? One crime over a time period? If it was a srting then he committed his last crime in August of 1998 if it was one crime over a span of days then they prolly filed formal charges using Aug as "date of crime" Either way that date is well after the June of 98 reinstatement date of law that maybe why he was not excluded
 

marchello

Junior Member
I am a law school graduate currently awaiting Bar results. I offer this as mere guidance, not to be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship.

I do not know anything about the truth in sentencing law, but I do know this: you can contact your legal aid foundation(found in yellow pages usually under legal services section of the front part) and get a criminal defense attorney (or at least speak with one) for no money or very little.

Also, if you really want to get the most for no cost, why don't you talk to your local law school? Ask a criminal law professor. Maybe they might help you at least clarify the ramifications of the law.


Hope this helps.
Law graduate and know nothing about truth in sentencing?...Wow! I guess thats why u felt it would take a "graduate of law" to tell someone to grab the yellow pages...LMFAO!!!!
 

quincy

Senior Member
marchello, this thread is ELEVEN YEARS OLD. in limbo is no longer looking for advice, yours or anyone else's.

The advice offered in 2000 was good and responsible advice although, admittedly, your advice to not break the law was definitely an important addition to this thread. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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