I visited a friend of mine who is incarcerated in prison here in Texas yesterday. About five years ago he was convicted of armed robbery of a local fast food restaurant, plead guilty per the suggestion of his lawyer, and received a 40 year prison sentence without the possibility for parole until his has served 20 years. He was 17 at the time of the robbery but his trial wasn’t held until after he turned 18. Listening to his story yesterday has made me curious as to how someone could appeal a judges ruling. My friend knows that he did wrong and he expects to spend time behind bars for his crime, but 40 years?!? There are people who have committed far worse crimes than him who are eligible for parole in much less time. My questions are: Is it possible to appeal a judges decision and receive a reduction in sentencing? Is so, what steps are involved in order to request such an appeal?
A newspaper article about the trial can be found here.
As I understand, an appeal can only be filed if there is reversible error found in the trial itself. (For example: if the judge allowed in evidence which should have been tossed because of a procedural error.) Your friend can’t appeal just because he changed his mind.
Ummm… reading that article I’d say you’re friend is not only pretty much screwed, he’s also an idiot. He pled guilty to a crime they hadn’t even charged him with yet? I’m referring to this part here:
The impression that I get from that is that basically they gave him a sentence appropriate for someone who had committed two armed robberies. In that case, and considering that shots were actually fired during the act, 40 years (20 to serve) is not unthinkable.
From what I understand (from the number of cases I’ve sat in on or testified in, and having listened to the explanation of rights more times than I care to remember), Lissa is correct- your friend took his lawyer’s advice, waived a jury trial which put him completely at the mercy of the judge, and pled guilty. You can’t retract a guilty plea just because your spin of the wheel ended badly (or basically because the judge decided perhaps two armed robberies was the beginning of a bad habit that needed to be nipped in the bud). He might be able to claim misrepresentation by his lawyer, but I imagine there’s a statute of limitations on that.
I’m interested in what the official SD lawyers think…
When Julian was arrested the night of the robbery he was taken into interrogation at 5:00 in the morning. The officer doing the interrogation told Julian that the other guys caught in the robbery had already confessed to the other robbery and Julian just went along with it because he didn’t know any better. Yes, he was an idiot, but remember, he was 17 years old (a minor) going under interrogatioin at 5:00 in the morning all without the presence of a lawyer. (Something about that doesn’t sound very lawful on the part of the cops to me.)
This is what I was thinking. Julian was told by his lawyer that he would get a reduced sentence if he plead guilty. So, per the advice of his lawyer, he plead guilty and ended up getting the maximum sentence for both crimes.
He didn’t get the maximum, though. Aggravated robbery is a first degree felony in Texas, same as murder. He could have gotten 99 years in prison. If he’d been charged with the other aggravated robbery he could have gotten 99 more, either concurrent or consecutive.
This just is a shitty situation all round I feel bad for your friend.
I am, however, sending the article to my dad. His stepson just accepted a plea bargain of 3 years in prison and 3 years probation for armed burglary and it may make him feel a little better :eek:
States differ in whether or not a suspect is considered a “minor” who must be interrogated in the presence of his/her parents or attorney. I’m pretty sure he is legally an “adult.”
There is also nothing legally wrong with not getting a suspect an attorney unless the suspect requests one. The police are under no obligation to insist upon the presence of counsel-- only to provide an attorney if one is requested. And yes, often police will use psychological tactics which discourage a suspect from “lawyering up,” but the suspect always has the right to refuse to answer questions until their lawyer is present. Your friend was naive enough to talk, and unfortunately, a dumb decision isn’t grounds for appeal.
I feel bad for your friend.