Court ruled Martinez released too soon and must serve 65 more days
Saturday, March 27, 2004 Posted: 9:01 AM EST (1401 GMT)


(CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he backs an effort to excuse a woman from returning to prison, after she's been out of jail for more than two years, to serve more time after a court ruled she had been released too early.

Schwarzenegger sent a letter dated March 25 to a California Supreme Court judge, supporting Pamela Martinez, who has been out of jail for two-and-a-half years, asking the court to recommend her sentence be commuted.

The California Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that she was released too early, and ordered her to serve the remaining 65 days of her sentence.

"Ms. Martinez has been out of prison on her own recognizance while her case was on appeal for approximately two-and-a-half years," the governor said in his letter. "During this time it appears she has led a law-abiding life, been gainfully employed and received a great deal of community support and encouragement.

"I would submit that her sentence be commuted to time served and that she be allowed to commence her period of parole forthwith."

Martinez, who lives in Vista, California, north of San Diego, went to prison under California's three-strikes law in 1996 for stealing a toolbox. After serving five years, she was released and says she has turned her life around.

"I made poor choices in life, but this isn't who I am today," she said.

Martinez said she stole to feed a drug addiction. Now she is praised by her Home Depot supervisor as a "reliable, responsible and dependable" worker.

She said the ruling will cost her her job and put her new life on hold.

The American Civil Liberties Union calls Martinez's situation "a textbook case of the waste, cruelty and injustice of our criminal justice system" pointing out that Attorney General Bill Lockyer "has spent over $2 million of taxpayers' money to pursue Pamela's return to prison."

"California's criminal justice system wants to pull Pam back and derail her hard-won successes," the ACLU said.

CNN's Frank Buckley contributed to this report.


Looks like Arnold just may be a pretty fair Governor after all! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark

I'm surprised he didn't organize a high tech prison break utilizing a vast weapons cache he had accumulated since his days as a special forces officer. Using explosives, knives, machine guns and garrotes he brings justice back to the land by defeating the corruption of the villainous warden and his gang of staffers. Alas he is only to discover that these orders come straight from the top, the Attorney General himself. Can Arnie fight the system? Flock to theaters for this action packed extravaganza.. Arnold Schwarzenegger stars in.. Unchained Justice.

Arnie: Find out who released the convicted criminal 65 days early and have them officially reprimanded/find/relieved of duty. It was a ridiculous mistake to make. It is heartening that Ms Martinez has 'learned her lesson', I hope the pententiary system will learn from this also.

[ 03-27-2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

In this case (not in all) I think the small remaining sentence should be commuted. She didn't intend this to happen, and sending her back for the additional time would certainly ruin what life she's built. Think of it -- 2 months with no income will destroy her. She has been returned to society and is fuctioning lawfully and appropriately. Sometime the gummint should "suck it up" when it comes to its own mistakes.

Hierophant: Ehh? You really support that? This case really is more complex then I think you give it credit for. As far as I understand it goes like this:

A jury convicted Pamela Martinez under CA's "three strikes" rule, her conviction was reversed, and she then pleaded guilty and somehow only had one of her previous two strikes count. She then got in an argument with how her time served should be counted twords her sentence. The time she served can be divided up into 4 parts.
Part I - The time from her arrest (February 11, 1995) until her first sentencing (July 9, 1996)
Part II - The time from her initial sentencing to the reversal (July 9, 1996 through July 9, 1999).
Part III - The time from reversal to the second sentencing (July 9, 1999 until August 19, 1999).
Part IV - the period after the second and final sentencing (after August 19, 1999).
Now everyone agreed on Parts I, III and IV, however they could not agree of Part II. When the trial court resentenced Pamela Martinez on August 19, 1999, after she had pleaded guilty, they recalculated the entire period prior to August 19, 1999 (Parts I, II and III) as presentence time, granting Pamela Martinez conduct credit for 50 percent of her actual custody time. The CA Court of Appeals agreed with this ruling. However the CA Supreme Court then decided that Pamela Martinez’s ultimate phase IV status as a convicted second striker, not her unresolved phase III status as presentence petitioner, nor her initial phase II status as a convicted third striker, controlled the determination of her phase II credits. Pamela Martinez plead guilty as having one prior strike, and she was thus entitled, for her phase II confinement, to a maximum conduct credit of 20 percent of her total prison sentence.

So who exactly is “Arnie” supposed to fire? The Appellate judges, the trial court judges, or the ones on the Supreme Court? Now I'm all in favor of a strong executive, but it seems pretty extreme to let a governor fire judges because they make a ruling that happens to be later overturned.

[ 03-28-2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

I was laying judgement based on a single new bulletin which led me to believe that a mistake was made by prison judiciaries that led to Ms Martinez's premature release. Perhaps I shouldn't make such judgments.

[ 03-28-2004, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Ditto. But, I still think with so few days left to served (which really gets dvided by half in a "day for day" state-- I know, Illogical terminology, but it means every 12-hour "working day" counts as a "day" in some states -- like illinois), they should commute the sentence rather than remove a functioning law-abiding job-holding citizen from society. If she had no job or had further crimes, I'd feel differently.

Same here. I certainly don't think Ms Martinez should be punished for the 'mistakes' made here. By the sounds of things she has really turned her life around.

Doesn't the Govenor of Califorina have the power to comute or pardon? In most States the Govenor has that power. The Goventator should take it out of the courts and comute or pardon her, "Hale" the courts have been stomping on the toes of the other branches of government for years, 'bout time they stomp back. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes, I believe he can -- and should.