 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Minor8/31/2004
case. The affidavit in support of extradition set forth the circumstances of the Riverside case, including the guilty plea that resulted in the convictions for vehicular manslaughter, three counts of driving under the influence of alcohol and causing bodily injury, and *1434 related offenses. The affidavit explained that imposition of sentence had been suspended, with Minor placed on five-years probation, which probation was revoked as a result of the Orange County crimes (the drunk driving case and the assault on an **241 officer case). The affidavit specified that under the sentencing laws of California, the maximum amount of time Minor could be sentenced to state prison in the Riverside case was 15 years, but that the Riverside County Probation Department was seeking imposition of an 11-year prison term.
Orange County requested extradition of Minor for prosecution of the drunk driving case and the assault on an officer case (collectively, the Orange County cases). The affidavit in support of the extradition request set forth the details of the crimes in each case. The affidavit explained the offenses in the drunk driving case were charged as felonies because of Minor's previous conviction in the Riverside case of "felony Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Manslaughter" and enhancements were added based on that prior serious felony conviction. Likewise, the affidavit explained the offenses in the assault on an officer case were filed as felonies and subject to enhancements because of Minor's prior serious felony conviction in the Riverside case. The affidavit went on to quote relevant provisions of the applicable Penal and Vehicle Code sections, including provisions of the "Three Strikes" law set forth at sections 667 and 1170.
On November 17, 1999, the Court of Appeals of Perugia, Italy, issued an order denying the Riverside County extradition request. In the same order, the Italian court granted the Orange County extradition request, stating that extradition of Minor to the United States "is to be granted for the following crimes: a) 'Case no. 98HF1269': crime of assaulting a peace officer with a deadly weapon and failure to provide assistance [hit and run] ...; b) 'Case n [o]. 98HF1273': crime of driving while intoxicated...." The extradition order specified as a "condition" of extradition that Minor not be subjected to prosecution or "any other measure restricting his personal freedom ... for facts prior to the delivery [of Minor], other than those for which extradition has been granted."
On January 17, 2000, the Italian court issued a lengthy statement of its reasons for the judgment. Essentially, the court based its denial of Riverside County's extradition request on due process concerns and on the "harshness" of the sentence sought in the Riverside case. For one thing, the court was disturbed at the thought of returning Minor to Riverside County only for sentencing rather than trial. The court noted that, given his guilty plea, Minor had not had the benefit of cross-examining witnesses or of presenting "an adequate legal defense" to the charges. Moreover, the court expressed outrage at the penal consequence of probation revocation in the United States: the *1435 fact Minor could be sentenced to the maximum 15-year prison term in the Riverside case without any credit given for the nearly five years of incident-free probation (with "severe constraints" on personal liberty) Minor had already served before committing the unhappy string of Orange County offenses.
The court concluded the American procedure of denying credit for time served on probation violated the Italian Constitution. The court stated, "Probation is, in effect, a criminal sentence albeit an alternative way of serving a sentence. It follows, then,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|