Quote:
She declined the state's offer of 20 years in prison and chose for a jury to decide her punishment.
Quote:
The district attorney said the jury deliberated for about 1 1/2 hours, sending out only one question: "What is the difference between 99 years and life?"
i think the four prior felony conviction probably didn't help.PneumAg said:
The article says it was a charge of "drug possession with intent to deliver."
Unless she was part of some ruthless criminal organization and connected a bunch of misers or something, 99 years seems a tad excessive. Hell, 20 years seems excessive.
Tomdoss92 said:i think the four prior felony conviction probably didn't help.PneumAg said:
The article says it was a charge of "drug possession with intent to deliver."
Unless she was part of some ruthless criminal organization and connected a bunch of misers or something, 99 years seems a tad excessive. Hell, 20 years seems excessive.
Quote:
Unless, like I said above, the person is part of a criminal enterprise and connected to other crimes, or something like that.
Body By Fisher said:Quote:
Unless, like I said above, the person is part of a criminal enterprise and connected to other crimes, or something like that.
It's a shame jurors don't have access to that kind of information or the insight to ask such questions.
PneumAg said:Tomdoss92 said:i think the four prior felony conviction probably didn't help.PneumAg said:
The article says it was a charge of "drug possession with intent to deliver."
Unless she was part of some ruthless criminal organization and connected a bunch of misers or something, 99 years seems a tad excessive. Hell, 20 years seems excessive.
Regardless of prior convictions. I don't think you should go to prison for 99 years, or even for 20 years, if your crime was just possessing and selling drugs.
Unless, like I said above, the person is part of a criminal enterprise and connected to other crimes, or something like that.
Damn that's sad.fwheightsboy said:
I have dealt with these situations for years, and I am still amazed at the bad decisions people make. They would rather listen to other inmates or friends than the lawyer. Very frustrating when you are trying to save people from themselves, they won't listen and end up with a disastrous result. Worst example I knew of was a guy who turned down 2 years, with credit for 17 months. Went to trial and got 60 years. You cannot impose logic on illogical people.
Quote:
Byrd said that on May 26, 2018, Williams was a passenger in a car stopped for displaying multiple registrations and mismatched license plates.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/images/2016/11/10/TX2016-county-results.png)
As a Financial Advisor, my favorite expert source was my client's, dad's co-worker....a taxi driver.fwheightsboy said:
I have dealt with these situations for years, and I am still amazed at the bad decisions people make. They would rather listen to other inmates or friends than the lawyer. Very frustrating when you are trying to save people from themselves, they won't listen and end up with a disastrous result. Worst example I knew of was a guy who turned down 2 years, with credit for 17 months. Went to trial and got 60 years. You cannot impose logic on illogical people.
Obviously, she didn't learn her lesson the previous times she got busted for felonies.PneumAg said:Tomdoss92 said:i think the four prior felony conviction probably didn't help.PneumAg said:
The article says it was a charge of "drug possession with intent to deliver."
Unless she was part of some ruthless criminal organization and connected a bunch of misers or something, 99 years seems a tad excessive. Hell, 20 years seems excessive.
Regardless of prior convictions. I don't think you should go to prison for 99 years, or even for 20 years, if your crime was just possessing and selling drugs.
Unless, like I said above, the person is part of a criminal enterprise and connected to other crimes, or something like that.
Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:
99 years?! Kid diddlers don't even get half of that.
Quote:
The jury took less than 30 minutes to sentence Mark Randall Beasley to four separate life sentences for each Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child offense and 20 years for the Indecency of a Child offense. The Judge then ordered these sentenced to be served consecutively (stacked) meaning Mr. Beasley will not be eligible for parole until the year 2148.
Tomdoss92 said:i think the four prior felony conviction probably didn't help.PneumAg said:
The article says it was a charge of "drug possession with intent to deliver."
Unless she was part of some ruthless criminal organization and connected a bunch of misers or something, 99 years seems a tad excessive. Hell, 20 years seems excessive.
aggiebrad94 said:As a Financial Advisor, my favorite expert source was my client's, dad's co-worker....a taxi driver.fwheightsboy said:
I have dealt with these situations for years, and I am still amazed at the bad decisions people make. They would rather listen to other inmates or friends than the lawyer. Very frustrating when you are trying to save people from themselves, they won't listen and end up with a disastrous result. Worst example I knew of was a guy who turned down 2 years, with credit for 17 months. Went to trial and got 60 years. You cannot impose logic on illogical people.
