Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Schwarzenegger: Freed inmate shouldn't return to prison

Seraph · 03-28-2004, 12:23 AM

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 ]

03-28-2004, 12:23 AM	#5
Seraph Quintesson Join Date: September 12, 2001 Location: Ewing, NJ Age: 43 Posts: 1,079	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 ]