4 ms·

Yes, it was my understanding that a conviction of more than 112 grams (4 oz) of a schedule 1 controlled substance with intent to distribute comes with a mandato

by csfelon 13y ago

Yes, it was my understanding that a conviction of more than 112 grams (4 oz) of a schedule 1 controlled substance with intent to distribute comes with a mandatory sentencing requirement. This was roughly 8 years ago, so I'd have to check with my lawyers. However, it was my understanding as well that the DAs office had made me what they considered to be a "reasonable offer" and that I should not attempt to "push back harder" at a risk of having the offer rescinded or declined - and risk a prison sentence. The DAs I have spoken too since than are typically dumbfounded by the severity of my sentence given my lack of criminal history. So I guess I was just unlucky.

byoung2 13y ago
You weren't unlucky, you just had bad legal advice. There is a reason 95% of cases get settled...the DA doesn't want to waste time in court and risk losing. So they threaten you with some excessive prison term to scare you into taking what seems like a good deal. Your lawyer should have seen through that, or maybe he was inclined to get it over quickly as well? A good lawyer could have gotten the intent to distribute part thrown out or at least gotten a jury to ignore it given that it was orchestrated by the police. You likely could have gotten it reduced to a misdemeanor possession and gotten just community service on your first offense.
- csfelon 13y ago
  I continue to follow and occasionally contact the lawyers I had represent me. I do feel I had adequate representation. Again there were plenty of opportunities for me to "refuse" to "take an offer". All of my legal rights were respected. That being said, DAs have minimum mandatory sentencing as a "hammer" to incentivize a plea bargin - and keep most cases from completing the full legal recourse. The trade off was my lawyers could work as hard as they could to find legal loopholes, to attempt to get a judge or jury to convict on a lesser charge, however, simple possession isn't easy to create a reasonable doubt, and the jury and judge would not have any sentencing discretion so much so as I understand the way the law is written.

by csfelon 13y ago

byoung2 13y ago

You weren't unlucky, you just had bad legal advice. There is a reason 95% of cases get settled...the DA doesn't want to waste time in court and risk losing. So they threaten you with some excessive prison term to scare you into taking what seems like a good deal. Your lawyer should have seen through that, or maybe he was inclined to get it over quickly as well? A good lawyer could have gotten the intent to distribute part thrown out or at least gotten a jury to ignore it given that it was orchestrated by the police. You likely could have gotten it reduced to a misdemeanor possession and gotten just community service on your first offense.

csfelon 13y ago
I continue to follow and occasionally contact the lawyers I had represent me. I do feel I had adequate representation. Again there were plenty of opportunities for me to "refuse" to "take an offer". All of my legal rights were respected. That being said, DAs have minimum mandatory sentencing as a "hammer" to incentivize a plea bargin - and keep most cases from completing the full legal recourse. The trade off was my lawyers could work as hard as they could to find legal loopholes, to attempt to get a judge or jury to convict on a lesser charge, however, simple possession isn't easy to create a reasonable doubt, and the jury and judge would not have any sentencing discretion so much so as I understand the way the law is written.