Meet the Editors. Additional Sentencing Considerations. Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, and Double Punishment. Defendants are often sentenced for more than one charge.
Do these sentences "run" back to back, or are they served at the same time? Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences If a defendant is convicted of a number of crimes that carry lengthy prison terms, the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentences can be tremendous. Example 1 Haydn Goseek was convicted of 20 counts of forgery for forging and cashing 20 separate checks. Example 2 Same case. Double Punishment for a Single Act Sometimes, a sentencing judge can legally give just a single sentence to a defendant who is convicted of separate crimes.
Here's how California's law reads: "An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.
Talk to a Lawyer Sentencing might seem straightforward, but it tends to be more complicated than one might assume. Talk to a Lawyer Start here to find criminal defense lawyers near you. Practice Area Please select Zip Code. How it Works Briefly tell us about your case Provide your contact information Choose attorneys to contact you.
Legal Information. Criminal Law Information. First is the number of months in prison. Consecutive is bad. It means that sentences for the various crimes of conviction will be served one after another. If you are convicted of one count of mail fraud, one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy and sentenced to 18 months on each one, then your total prison sentence is 54 months, if the judge says they are consecutive sentences. If you were wondering why there is a picture of pancakes with this post, this is why.
Concurrent is good. It means that the sentences for the various crimes of conviction will be served at the same time. For the example above, you would serve 18 months total. There is a statute that governs this issue: 18 U. I had no idea this statute even existed before researching this blog post. You learn something new every day.
If multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time, or if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively, except that the terms may not run consecutively for an attempt and for another offense that was the sole objective of the attempt.
Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively. Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently. The court, in determining whether the terms imposed are to be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively, shall consider, as to each offense for which a term of imprisonment is being imposed, the factors set forth in section a.
In other words, John would spend a total of five years in jail with a consecutive sentence as opposed to three years in jail with a concurrent sentence.
In some jurisdictions, judges have discretion to decide whether to issue consecutive and concurrent sentences. In other jurisdictions, statutes specify whether or not a particular crime can be served consecutively or concurrently with another crime.
In cases where a judge has discretion, the judge often evaluates a number of factors in determining whether concurrent sentencing is appropriate. A first time offender may be more likely to receive a concurrent sentence than a repeat offender. A concurrent sentence may also be granted if a defendant has been cooperative during the trial proceedings. He was given a further 2-year custodial sentence and 3 strokes of the cane for the April charge.
Interestingly, the District Judge ordered that both terms run concurrently. The Public Prosecutor appealed the order that the jail terms were ordered to run concurrently. The main grounds of the appeal centred around the different nature of the offences.
The Public Prosecutor also highlighted that the accused actually committed the April offences while out on bail for the October charges. The argument forwarded by the prosecution was that if the accused were to serve the sentences concurrently, he would effectively escape being punished for the April offences.
Further, the defence also argued that the sentencing by the District Judge was in line with the totality principle. The totality principle requires the sentencing court to look at the overall criminality. It also requires the sentencing court to consider whether the punishment meted out to the accused was excessive. In his Grounds of Decision, the Chief Justice made note of the following which are instructive: 1.
The Accused had past brushes with the law which involved violence and property-related offences. The Accused had previously been sentenced to probation and reformative training.
In fact, just 4 months after the completion of his reformative training, the Accused assaulted someone with a knife.
0コメント