 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Haendiges3/24/1983
encing with punishment has incorporated policies adopted to achieve rehabilitation goals.
Since the initial statutes in 1977, there have been numerous changes in the determinate sentencing laws, both in the length of imprisonment for individual crimes and in the consequences of successive criminal acts. It has been suggested by some legislators and in proposed initiative measures to do away with restrictions upon consecutive sentencing in felony convictions. The wisdom of these proposals, of course, is not for me or this court to determine but rests entirely with the legislative branch of government. But the still fluid nature of legislative policies in this area, in my opinion, clearly militates against our attempting to freeze any policy into a supposed constitutional requirement.
The only real difference between the authority to impose consecutive sentences for misdemeanors under section 19a and that provided for felonies under section 1170.1, is that in the former the determination of what consecutive sentences to impose is left to the discretion of the trial judge, while in the latter the exercise of discretion is circumscribed by legislatively defined limits. This dichotomy may disturb our judicial sense of symmetry, but in my judgment neither it, nor the possibility that in a particular case a trial judge may exceed the bounds of judicial discretion, affords any basis for this court to rule or suggest that the Legislature in carrying out its duty of fixing sentences for crimes has done so in violation of its constitutional obligations.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|