|
|
| Wisc. Court rules in truth-in-sentencing cases |
| By AP |
| Published: 04/25/2005 |
|
Inmates sent to prison under Wisconsin's original truth-in-sentencing law are not entitled to have their sentences modified to reflect less harsh penalties enacted in companion legislation more than three years later, a split state Supreme Court ruled last Thursday. But the court also ruled some inmates convicted of lesser felonies can still petition a court to modify their sentences to reduce their time in prison. The court, on 4-3 votes in separate decisions, rejected petitions by two inmates seeking to have their sentences reduced. Justice Patrick Crooks, writing for the majority, noted the court's concern over the potential for similar appeals from the more than 10,700 adults sentenced between the first truth-in-sentencing law in 1999 and the companion legislation in 2003. Only about 1,180 of those prisoners were given stiffer penalties than later allowed under the second legislation, said attorney Suzanne Hagopian, who represented one of the prisoners. The court's decision leaves those prisoners "serving longer sentences than anyone else for that offense," she said. Wisconsin's original truth-in-sentencing law eliminated early release from prison through parole for those who committed their crimes on or after Dec. 31, 1999. Though the legislation was not intended to lengthen sentences, it did for some inmates. The Legislature then adopted new sentencing guidelines that took effect Feb. 1, 2003, to reduce maximum sentences and reflect the fact there would be no parole. The court noted in its decision the Legislature did not intend for the terms outlined in the second law to be retroactive. State Rep. Mark Gundrum, who served on the Assembly committee that reviewed the second piece of legislation, said lawmakers understood that people sentenced in between the two bills could face longer sentences. But legislators decided to trust judges to enact fair sentences while they worked on the second bill. The court's decisions stemmed from two appeals. Jose A. Trujillo was convicted of burglary and sexual assault after he broke into a Kenosha apartment in April 2002 and fondled a woman who lay sleeping in her bed next to her husband. He was sentenced to eight years in prison on the burglary charge and nine months for misdemeanor sexual assault. Several months after he was sentenced, the second truth-in-sentencing legislation took effect, reducing the maximum penalty for burglary to 7 years. James Tucker Jr. of Janesville was found guilty in February 2002 of possession with intent to deliver five or fewer grams of cocaine and felony bail jumping. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison, followed by 10 years of extended supervision. The maximum prison term for his crimes under the second law was reduced to 10 years. |
advertise
|
privacy policy
|
add URL
|
about us
|
terms/disclaimer
|
contact us
|
join our team
|
help
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think