- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

If you were sentenced for a crime and already served can they resentence you to more time
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:12 am
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:12 am
...for the same crime? Because that's what is happening to this person.
LINK
quote:
A former “Melrose Place” actress who has already served a prison sentence for a fatal 2010 drunken driving crash in New Jersey is headed back behind bars after a judge agreed with prosecutors Thursday that her initial sentence was too lenient.
Saying Amy Locane still refuses to fully acknowledge her culpability in the crash that killed 60-year-old Helene Seeman and severely injured Seeman's husband, state Superior Court Judge Angela Borkowski sentenced her to eight years in state prison. State law requires her to serve more than six years before being eligible for parole.
Locane apologized to the Seeman family in a brief statement. She was placed in handcuffs and taken into custody by court deputies after the proceeding in state court in Somerville.
It was a startling development in a case that has bounced around the New Jersey court system for nearly a decade and has now featured four sentencings in front of three judges, plus numerous appeals.
Locane — who acted in 13 episodes of the popular 1990s Fox series and has also appeared in several movies — was convicted on several counts including vehicular manslaughter, and faced a sentencing range of five to 10 years on the most serious count. The state initially sought a seven-year sentence, but a trial judge sentenced her to three years in 2013. An appeals court ruled he misapplied the law, but at a resentencing, the same judge declined to give her additional time.
Last year, a different judge sentenced her to five years, but an appeals court ruled he didn't follow guidelines it had set and ordered yet another sentencing. Locane's attorney, James Wronko, had argued unsuccessfully that sentencing her again would violate double jeopardy protections since she had already completed her initial sentence and parole term.
LINK
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:15 am to stout
Sounds like the appeals court is trying to get them to follow the rules on sentencing, and her attorney is trying to argue that because she finished a wrongfully short sentence while the appeals process is still playing out that she shouldn’t have to serve whatever sentence is required under the law.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:15 am to stout
Must be new charges
Would be double Jeopardy otherwise
Would be double Jeopardy otherwise
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:15 am to stout
If she's white I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:15 am to stout
Do the crime pay the time kinda but then pay the time again plus interest
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:15 am to Rouge
quote:
Must be new charges
It clearly says it isn't
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:17 am to stout
If the sentencing has been appealed in some way, I don't see why it is any different than an appeal for a lighter sentence.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:17 am to Rouge
quote:Ruled not to be double jeopardy by one court, appeal is pending
double Jeopardy
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:19 am to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:
Sounds like the appeals court is trying to get them to follow the rules on sentencing
1. She should have had a much worse sentence after killing someone.
2. The fact that she didn’t is on the judge not her. If she served her sentence she should be free. Even if the sentence was too lenient.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:20 am to Sneaky__Sally
quote:i would assume the lighter sentence would come while the sentence is being served. instead of just taking on years to the sentence after it had already been finished
I don't see why it is any different than an appeal for a lighter sentence.
This post was edited on 9/18/20 at 9:20 am
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:22 am to memphis tiger
quote:
She should have had a much worse sentence after killing someone.
Why does the outcome of an action mean a harsher sentence?
If person B drives as drunk as her but hits an unoccupied parked car he can get away with pre-trial diversion (assuming first offense).
The intent in both cases is the same.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:24 am to WestCoastAg
Sure, but I just don't logically see the difference.
If she was sentenced to 30 days in jail, and the sentencing appeal took 1 year to move forth. She shouldn't get a magic get out of jail free card because the appeals process took longer than the original sentence.
If she was sentenced to 30 days in jail, and the sentencing appeal took 1 year to move forth. She shouldn't get a magic get out of jail free card because the appeals process took longer than the original sentence.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:25 am to jclem11
quote:
quote:
She should have had a much worse sentence after killing someone.
Why does the outcome of an action mean a harsher sentence?
If person B drives as drunk as her but hits an unoccupied parked car he can get away with pre-trial diversion (assuming first offense).
The intent in both cases is the same.
So if someone acts like an idiot, but they dont' intend to hurt anybody - the outcome of the action shouldn't matter?
Or shoudl we jail all dui drivers for 10 years?
This post was edited on 9/18/20 at 9:28 am
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:26 am to stout
Seems like more time wouldn't create a better person in this instance. Life has to be shite already. May as well leave it be.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:28 am to Sneaky__Sally
under that scenario i could possibly understand why someone would warrant another sentencing, but that isnt what happened here as it seems like the appeal process that got her sent back to jail didnt come about until after she had served her term unless i read the article wrong
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:29 am to jclem11
quote:is this a serious question
Why does the outcome of an action mean a harsher sentence?
If person B drives as drunk as her but hits an unoccupied parked car he can get away with pre-trial diversion (assuming first offense).
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:29 am to stout
I remember her most from "School Ties".
And, she was pretty damn hot at the time --

And, she was pretty damn hot at the time --

Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:31 am to Sneaky__Sally
It just seems very odd to me that if the intent is the same why is one outcome punished much more harshly.
I'm not defending drunk driving but the "she should get much more than x years" just seems quite odd to me when the intent is the same.
From a moral perspective, both actions are the same, i.e. all drunk driving is bad.
From a legal perspective, we have very disparate punishments for essentially the same action.
I'm not defending drunk driving but the "she should get much more than x years" just seems quite odd to me when the intent is the same.
From a moral perspective, both actions are the same, i.e. all drunk driving is bad.
From a legal perspective, we have very disparate punishments for essentially the same action.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:35 am to Sao
quote:
Seems like more time wouldn't create a better person in this instance. Life has to be shite already. May as well leave it be.
Agreed...
Popular
Back to top
