Posts
“life in prison!!
for embezzlement, but 5yrs for murder..Vt laws are whacked!!!!!”
That was a comment left under an article I wrote a little while ago about a former route supervisor
for the Bennington Banner being charged with embezzlement after he
was accused of taking money from the newspaper vending machines. The
state filed a “habitual offender” enhancement against him because
he had at least three prior felony convictions.
When the state seeks a habitual
offender enhancement I write something like “If he is convicted of
a new felony, he could face up to life in prison.” That “life in
prison” bit, no matter how I qualify it, throws people off. Still,
it has to be mentioned because while a life sentence is rare, the
fact the defendant is technically facing life can be used against
them when the judge sets conditions of release.
Release conditions are their own kettle
of fish, so without getting too deep just remember that when a judge
is thinking about releasing you while your case is pending one of
things he or she thinks about is how likely you are to show up to
court later. A life sentence can be a strong incentive to flee, so
being charged as a habitual offender can mean tighter release
conditions than someone else accused of the same crime, but not of
being a habitual offender.
Each criminal offense statute carries
limits to how long a person can be jailed for being convicted of it.
“Up to life” does not necessarily mean a person will get life any
more than a person will get 10 years for embezzlement. What judges
often do with habitual offenders is they set the maximum beyond what
the statute would normally allow while keeping the minimum bellow the
unenhanced maximum.
For the state to be able to file a
habitual offender enhancement the defendant needs to have at least
three felony convictions on their record. Pretty much any prior
felony goes. They can all come from one incident or multiple
instances and they do not have to be the same type of crime. Property
crimes, felony DUI, assault, they all count. When they occurred does
not matter. The felonies can also be enhanced themselves. For example
when someone gets convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault, their
next domestic assault charge will be a felony even if it would not
normally have been. That enhanced domestic assault felony can be one
of the felonies the state uses to lay the basis for a habitual
offender claim.
Before
any sentencing the state has to actually prove it was the defendant
in question who committed the prior felonies. The last time I saw
this happen it was right after a jury convicted a man of violating a
restraining order. He had the option of having the trial in front of
the jury that just convicted him or the judge. He picked the judge,
who agreed with the state. Challenging a habitual offender claim is
often a long shot as the defendant is arguing with documents. When a
person gets a criminal history it comes with a lot of identifying
information about them. Height, weight, scars, tattoos, etc. all get
recorded. Not to say those papers are never wrong, but it's rare.
Habitual
offender rules are often called “three strikes and you're out”
laws. I don't have much to say about how well they work or don't. I
know you can find an anecdote to support or decry pretty much
anything the court does, but the idea behind habitual offender
enhancement makes sense; if a person keeps committing serious crimes
they should face more severe penalties. One key thing to note about
the habitual offender enhancement is that unlike a mandatory minimum
sentence it grants a judge more leeway rather than restricts it.
