Sentencing proportionality is the hottest topic in criminal justice reform.
Q|NAV is a Colorado-based company. While we work nationwide, there’s no getting around the local politics and the three seats of government.
Recently, our governor reduced a defendant’s sentence from 110 years to 10 years with the stroke of a pen. He achieved this within weeks of the [trial court] sentencing hearing and even before the resentencing scheduled for just a couple of weeks later. The defendant never stepped foot into a prison while all this was going on, and he will serve maybe half of his new gift of ten years or about five, maybe less.
We believe there are many moving parts here. Forget the political part – trying to decipher the motives of others – politicians included. Focus on the massive message sent from the governor to the legislature and the judiciary (trial and appellate courts). This message is local, regional, statewide, and national.
“Stop overcharging defendants. Stop stacking consecutive charges. Stop forcing wrong or illegal charges. Stop threatening defendants with habitual offender charges. Stop abusing and twisting the charging statutes. Stop threatening families and defendants with imaginary complicity and conspiracy charges to coerce plea deals. Stop imposing outrageous and cruel sentences – sentences that the people and legislature(s) never wanted. Stop!”
Sentencing reform begins with charging reform. Indictment reform. Information reform – adherence to our Fourth Amendment promises for probable cause. When prosecutors charge correctly and rightly, it equals more just sentencing schemes that are surely much shorter for most defendants.
Prosecutors charge far more equitably when defense lawyers fight for their clients; when they know and apply the charging statutes for equity and accuracy. Sadly, the constitution’s promise of the “adversarial relationship” between defense and prosecution is often minimized – so much so that the defendant’s due process and equal protection rights are obliterated. When charges are bound over from the preliminary court to the trial court, in many cases the jury is already in; the jury has already formed a prejudicial view of the defendant – “so many counts, so many charges – he (she) must be guilty…”
The executive’s first step, the U.S. supreme court, state supreme courts, and now finally – sentencing, appellate, and post-conviction courts are seeing the light. The pendulum has swung and it’s not reverting backward.
Now. Right now is the time to take a new look at your case. Let’s explore the possibilities for sentencing relief and a reduced sentence.