You know that Montana judge that gave the 30 day sentence to the rapist?

[davidn3600]

Apparently he wants a do-over since the law requires a 2-year minimum sentence...

(CNN) -- A 30-day rape sentence given to a teacher who admitted to raping his 14-year-old student may be illegal, according to the Montana judge who imposed it.

The judge scheduled a new hearing for Friday.

"The Defendant shall be present at argument as the Court, if necessary and appropriate, will amend the mandatory minimum portion of the sentence," read a court order filed Tuesday.

It appears the mandatory minimum is two years, not 30 days, the order said.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/03/us/montana-teacher-rape/index.html

[Gravitycollapse]

1. The only thing he regrets is getting caught.

And now he's trying to save face.

[joshcryer]

2. Yep.

He even admitted it was illegal (but a mistake). He should be removed. Hope it happens.

[deutsey]

3. This bozo needed a law to tell him that a rapist should get more than 30 days? n/t

[Theyletmeeatcake2]

4. Even the minimum sounds too lenient !!

[Delphinus]

6. Amen!

(belated welcome to DU!

[B Calm]

5. Wondering what kind of sentence he gives to a pot smoker?

Probably life. . .

[sulphurdunn]

7. I know this guy deserves

everything the law can throw at him, but it concerns me that a judge can overrule his own sentence, leave the defendant with no right to appeal and not be held accountable himself. Should that bother me or am I reading this wrong?

[hobbit709]

8. Reading comprehension

The law says a 2 year minimum, so the judge violated the law with a 30 day sentence.

[tclambert]

9. The judge is accountable for his error.

He may have to suffer the embarrassment of a reversal. So sad.

[Jim Lane]

12. Why do you assume the defendant is left no right to appeal?

I don't know Montana law but the most common rule is that a defendant can appeal a criminal sentence. If the defendant is resentenced but has some argument about why the two-year minimum doesn't apply to this case, he can raise that with the appellate court, even though it's presumably now too late to appeal the underlying determination of his guilt. (According to the linked article, he admitted to the rape as part of the deferred prosecution agreement, the terms of which he then violated. That's why I'm guessing he can't now argue on appeal that he's innocent.)

[sulphurdunn]

13. Unless I'm mistaken

a guilty pleas precludes the right of appeal. My concern was that he copped a plea, which has now been rendered moot due to judicial error, or misconduct or both. That being the case, shouldn't his plea be rescinded also?

[Jim Lane]

14. I'm guessing it's more complicated than that.

A guilty plea precludes the right of appeal from the determination of guilt. It should still be open to a defendant to appeal a sentence as being too harsh. For example, if Montana law is that rape carries a two-year minimum and a 30-year maximum, and a defendant who pleads guilty to rape were sentenced to life imprisonment, I think he'd have a very good basis for an appeal.

In this particular case, he didn't plead guilty in exchange for a 30-day sentence. According to the linked article, he admitted guilt as part of a deferred prosecution agreement. I infer from the context that the agreement came quite some time ago. The deal was presumably that his guilty plea would make him eligible for the deferred prosecution agreement. He entered into the agreement, under which he wouldn't be prosecuted if he complied with the terms of the agreement. (Incidentally, I note in passing that the 30-day sentence isn't necessarily the most troubling aspect of this case. If he had complied with the agreement, he would apparently have served zero jail time. I agree that the courts should be open to exploring alternatives to incarceration but this can obviously be carried too far.)

Having made that agreement, the defendant then failed to comply with its terms. Accordingly, he was no longer entitled to the guarantee of zero jail time. That's how he came before this judge for sentencing.

I don't think fairness requires that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. He made the plea on the understanding that, in return, he would get a conditional deferral of prosecution. He has in fact received the benefit promised to him, in the form of what's presumably an enforceable agreement that he would do no prison time if he stayed away from children, etc. The state hasn't breached that agreement.

[sulphurdunn]

15. OK

That sounds good to me.

[BrotherIvan]

10. I applaud all those who put pressure on this incompetent judge

Looks like he's running scared and backpedaling as quickly as possible. That is a major victory in and of itself. Please don't give up though, get this prick off the bench!

[seabeyond]

11. lmao... davids threads just is not going the direction he want. people should be outraged this

judging is willing to change the sentence from 30 days to two years, dontcha know. catch the little sarcasm at the end of his comment. even though the judge broke the law with 30 days, i am guessin david feels it should stand.

so, the only hope he has lost is the very light sentence of a rapist.