Page 1 of 2
Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:30 am
by Scooter
Florida Judge: 20-Year Sentence for Firing Gun an Injustice
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — An appeals court judge criticized Florida's mandatory minimum gun laws Tuesday while regretfully upholding the 20-year-sentence of a man who fired a gun at the ground.
A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal agreed that Eric Patrick Wright's sentence cannot be reduced, but Judge James Wolf took the extra step of writing an opinion that calls the case an injustice.
"This case ... is a classic example of how inflexible mandatory minimum sentences may result in injustices within the legal system that should not be tolerated," Wolf wrote.
Court documents show that Wright's ex-girlfriend and mother of his child barged into his fiancee's Jacksonville home in 2013 to confront him. He asked her to leave, she refused and a struggle ensued. Wright drew a gun and fired it to scare her off.
"It is undisputed that the gun was not fired directly at the victim and was fired in an attempt to get the victim to leave," Wolf wrote.
Wright was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill. Because a gun was fired, he fell under Florida's 10-20-Life law for gun crimes. He was 24 at the time, with no prior criminal record, and had held the same job for four years. The trial judge said she didn't want to sentence Wright to 20 years, but had to under law.
Wolf also noted that the Legislature has twice changed the 10-20-Life law since the incident. The first change in 2014 would have given a judge leeway to issue a shorter sentence. Then last year the Legislature removed aggravated assault from the list of offenses under which the mandatory minimum sentencing law applies.
But neither change was retroactive. Wolf said it was "bad timing" for Wright and suggested he seek clemency before the governor and Cabinet.
Our previous federal government was a great fan of mandatory minimums and created a whole host of new ones, but our courts in several instances have either set them aside in individual cases or struck them down in their entirety, ruling that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Could not the same thing happen in cases like these in the U.S.?
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:14 pm
by Big RR
Perhaps, but face it--why did he draw and fire a gun? Apparently he was in Jacksonville, a pretty good size city, so unless they were threatening him with weapons, why not just call the police (and I would be surprised if Jacksonville did not have a police force), who would make them leave? Why escalate it by drawing a gun, and then endanger others in the area by firing it? 20 years does seem excessive, and I ma not a fan of minimum sentencing in any cases, but firing gun in a residential area puts a lot of people in danger from the guy walking his dog out front to the kid in the next door yard. This wasn't a trivial offense and could have been a lot worse.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:27 pm
by BoSoxGal
I agree it's not a trivial offense - it's assault with a weapon in my prior jurisdiction, a felony that calls for a 10 year max sentence. A first time offender with no prior record would get a deferred imposition of sentence, with the possibility to have the charge dismissed upon successful completion of some period of probation, up to 3 years.
Jacksonville is Florida's largest city, so police response time is probably @ 5 minutes.
Another good case for why firearms in the home aren't such a great idea. Stupid kid makes stupid choice and ruins his life. A 20 year sentence is insanely excessive and even stupider; now he'll be a burden on the state for the rest of his life, probably.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:32 pm
by Big RR
Is the sentence 20 years, or 20 years with a 10 year minimum (that's the way I read 10/20). If it's 20 years minimum, then it does show the idiocy of minimum sentencing laws--but even rapists don't serve 20.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:38 pm
by BoSoxGal
The article says he got 20, and that's consistent with the statute as written prior to repeal. Here's a neat little graphic put out by the state of Florida:
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:43 pm
by Big RR
OK, that's why it's 10/20. And it's why I think mandatory sentences are ridiculous. Let's let the professionals do their jobs and not tie their hands--20 years here is not justice.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 4:06 pm
by ex-khobar Andy
I always think that's why they are called judges: we trust them to use their judgment and hopefully they get it more or less right. Yes pulling a gun is an idiotic response to what was, IIUC, a fairly unthreatening situation - and we have all seen the consequences of over-reaction, often by highly trained responders as well as by common thugs. And Stanford student Brock Turner gets three months for, essentially, rape although that was not the actual charge (sexual assault). By that yardstick being an idiot should be worth a few days.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 4:59 pm
by BoSoxGal
Just FYI, sexual assault IS the legal terminology used for rape in many US jurisdictions. Turner digitally penetrated his victim and that is considered rape in most jurisdictions, where no distinction is made between penetration with penis, fingers, tongue or foreign object.
Sadly it's the cases like Turner's, and other notorious light sentences, that compels politicians running on 'tough on crime' platforms to propose and pass such stupid mandatory minimums. They're hard to vote against without risking backlash from constituents who simply don't understand the realities of the injustice system.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:41 pm
by Burning Petard
Wait minute. Somebody I know comes into my home (in Florida) uninvited. I ask them to leave. Any unkind words spoken by me might constitute an assault.They do not leave. I have no legal recourse but to call the cops and wait for them to settle the dispute? Have I ended my right to evict them if I offer them a chair while waiting for the cops?
snailgate
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:48 pm
by Big RR
No, I imagine you could try to "escort" them to the door, but firing a gun at them (or to just scare them)? No.
Now if they threaten you with a gun or knife, it might be different (I don't know Florida law), but you can't just fire a gun because you want to "scare" them.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:38 pm
by rubato
This is the same state where it was legal to stalk and murder an unarmed black teenager?
yrs,
rubato
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:09 pm
by Scooter
I was wondering about that. There are so many cases where homeowners have not been charged after shooting unarmed people IN THE BACK who are OUTSIDE of their homes and FLEEING, that I really don't know how firing a warning shot to get an intruder who is inside your house to leave should be prosecuted by comparison.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:47 pm
by Long Run
It is probably not safe to assume, but he must have argued self-defense or "stand your ground" and obviously did not convince the jury. Couldn't find anything in a search except the interesting joining in this matter of opponents of mandatory minimum sentences and gun rights advocates.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:44 pm
by Scooter
Long Run wrote:It is probably not safe to assume, but he must have argued self-defense or "stand your ground" and obviously did not convince the jury.
I would give odds that he is black and crazy ex-girlfriend is white.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:57 pm
by Burning Petard
Rubato, if your alluding to the Trevor Martin case, is a nice case of real 'fake news' In the trial, the jury was convinced it was Martin who was doing the stalking.
Every legitimate discussion of defensive shooting always brings up brandishing. It is very bad for the person with the gun if they pull it out and shoot it to scare or even just pull back an item of clothing to reveal they are packing, unless the circumstances are such they they are convinced it is time to shoot to kill. If it is not that state, leave the gun alone.
snailgate
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:34 am
by BoSoxGal
The negligence in this case belongs to the prosecutor, who knew what the mandatory sentencing guidelines were and chose not to amend the charges to avoid this outcome and thus ignored the ethical mandate to seek justice rather than mere convictions. Prosecutorial discretion is an even more powerful tool than judicial discretion, and there are very few statutory limitations on it - it should be wielded for good and not for evil.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:06 am
by ex-khobar Andy
Burning Petard wrote:Rubato, if your alluding to the Trevor Martin case, is a nice case of real 'fake news' In the trial, the jury was convinced it was Martin who was doing the stalking.
Every legitimate discussion of defensive shooting always brings up brandishing. It is very bad for the person with the gun if they pull it out and shoot it to scare or even just pull back an item of clothing to reveal they are packing, unless the circumstances are such they they are convinced it is time to shoot to kill. If it is not that state, leave the gun alone.
snailgate
SG - I assume you mean Trayvon Martin. I don't think the jury was convinced that Martin was doing the stalking: but Zimmerman's defense managed to convince them that they could not be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was a cowboy wannabe cop with a very itchy trigger finger. With our binary legal system (guilty or innocent) the Rush Limbaughs of this world leapt on the verdict to conclude that Zimmerman was a shining angel and Martin was a belligerent thug.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:54 am
by Jarlaxle
Burning Petard wrote:Rubato, if your alluding to the Trevor Martin case, is a nice case of real 'fake news' In the trial, the jury was convinced it was Martin who was doing the stalking.
Every legitimate discussion of defensive shooting always brings up brandishing. It is very bad for the person with the gun if they pull it out and shoot it to scare or even just pull back an item of clothing to reveal they are packing, unless the circumstances are such they they are convinced it is time to shoot to kill. If it is not that state, leave the gun alone.
snailgate
Haven't you realized by now that Ozzie would not know a fact if it crawled up his ass and did the can-can?
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:14 pm
by Big RR
BoSoxGal wrote:The negligence in this case belongs to the prosecutor, who knew what the mandatory sentencing guidelines were and chose not to amend the charges to avoid this outcome and thus ignored the ethical mandate to seek justice rather than mere convictions. Prosecutorial discretion is an even more powerful tool than judicial discretion, and there are very few statutory limitations on it - it should be wielded for good and not for evil.
Assuming the prosecutor had that discretion; sometimes these sort of statutes can limit that as well. Sometime legislatures enact the stupidest statutes.
Re: Mandatory minimums destroy another life
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:32 pm
by BoSoxGal
Prosecutors have very few limitations on discretion - some states have enacted restrictions on deferrals of DUI in response to MADD advocacy, but the charge can always be amended, say to a reckless driving. I've attended over a hundred hours of career prosecutor training from NDAA and APA and haven't heard of any such limitations - in fact, there are dozens of law journal articles specifically discussing the ability that prosecutors have to dampen the effects of mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. There are just far too many ambitious persecutors and far too few prosecutors devoted to justice.
eta: I took an excellent course in advanced criminal procedure with Julie O'Sullivan at GULC; we spent half the semester focused on prosecutorial discretion, which was an eye-opening experience for me. I think that most lay people and even many lawyers who don't study or practice criminal law are unaware of the truly awesome scope of power of the prosecutor in the American injustice system. My intimacy with that power, and having met dozens of people wielding it all over our country, underlies my deep distrust in the system.