The Washington state Court of Appeals held that the sentencing court must ensure that the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum sentence.

Randy Linerud pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender in Washington. The "parties agreed that the standard range sentence of 43-57 months combined with the mandatory 36-48 months of community custody would exceed the 60 month statutory maximum for a class C felony. The court then imposed a standard range sentence of 43 months of incarceration and 36-48 months of community custody and included a notation in the Judgment… that 'combined maximum of prison time + community custody may not exceed the stat max of 60 months.'"

The Court of Appeals agreed with Linerud that the sentence imposed was indeterminate rather than determinate, holding that a sentence is indeterminate when it puts the burden on the (Department of Corrections (DOC) rather than the sentencing court to ensure that the inmate does not serve more than the statutory maximum." This violates Washington's Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) because "requiring the DOC to calculate an inmate's time served and ensure that it does not exceed the statutory maximum for the offense is not authorized by the ...

By Derek Gilna

In a decision published on December 8, 2009, from an appeal of parts of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County dated November 28, 2007, which denied their motion to strike defendants' answer pursuant to CPLR. 3126(3), the lower court's order was reversed, the answer stricken, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing of the issue of damages.

The case arose from the arrest of plaintiff Byam for the homicide of Martin Sweeting on September 26, 1993. Byam was acquitted of that charge. His wife and he sued to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The plaintiffs have been unsuccessful in obtaining discovery from the defendants, and the court cited their "willful and contumacious conduct... from their repeated failures, over an extended period of time, to comply with discovery orders, together with the inadequate, inconsistent, and unsupported excuses for those failure to disclose."

The discovery sanction, which resulted in the striking of defendants' answer, effectively ends the litigation in the plaintiff's favor, save the hearing on damages. Byam v. City of New York, 68 A.D.3d 798, 890 N.Y.S.2d 612 (2009).

The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, has held that the state cannot be held liable for the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) adding post-release supervision to prisoners’ sentences when such supervision had not been ordered by the sentencing court.

Farrah Donald, Shakira Eanes, Jonathan Orellanes and Ismael Ortiz were convicted of felony offenses and received determinate sentences without the sentencing court orally pronouncing they were subject to a period of post-release supervision (PRS). In each case, the DOCS added PRS when they were released. All except Orellanes were reincarcerated for violating the conditions of their PRS, and they filed separate actions in the state Court of Claims alleging false imprisonment. The Court of Claims granted partial summary judgment to Donald but dismissed the other cases.

On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the partial summary judgment in Donald’s case and affirmed the dismissal of the other cases. All four claimants then appealed to the Court of Appeals. [See: PLN, April 2010, p.46].

On June 23, 2011, the Court of Appeals held that Orellanes’ claim should be dismissed because, although the judge failed to orally pronounce a period of PRS, the commitment sheet from the court did include ...

by Matt Clarke

Texas has a generous compensation package for prisoners who are exonerated, which includes $80,000 per year of wrongful incarceration, an annuity with annual payments in the same amount, free college tuition and free medical care. [See: PLN, July 2009, p.12].

However, some state officials are stingy with ...

by Matt Clarke

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Oklahoma City can not be held liable for the actions of disgraced forensic chemist Joyce A. Gilchrist, who was employed in the city’s police crime lab for over two decades, and that a man who served 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit due to forensic evidence falsified by Gilchrist could not force the city to indemnify her.

Gilchrist testified at David Johns Bryson’s 1983 trial, stating that hair and semen found at the crime scene were consistent with samples taken from Bryson. Seventeen years later DNA test results proved that he didn’t commit the crime, and Bryson was released from prison. It took another 3½ years before the charges against him were finally dismissed. Subsequent retesting of the forensic evidence used by Gilchrist indicated that the evidence should have excluded Bryson, and that contrary to Gilchrist’s testimony at trial, Bryson could not have been the semen donor.

Bryson filed a civil rights suit against Gilchrist and Oklahoma City in federal district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He agreed to settle with Gilchrist for $16.5 million in 2009, but the court granted ...

A Tennessee federal court awarded $13,000 to Samuel Key for civil rights violations resulting from his false imprisonment.

The case began in 1987, when Key was convicted and sentenced to prison in Georgia. During that time, a phony escape charge was made against Key. He was paroled in 1994. Thereafter, ...

After the police crime lab in Detroit, Michigan was found to have provided faulty firearm ballistics evidence in criminal cases, the lab was closed in 2008. A subsequent review of around 31,000 firearm-related prosecutions was deemed “admittedly impossible work,” said Wayne County prosecutor Kym Worthy.

Indifferent city officials delayed investigating those cases. Finally, in July 2010, Worthy obtained $2.7 million to review them. She hired three attorneys, other legal experts and support workers to retest the evidence and examine voluminous transcripts and court records.

Of the 31,000 firearm-related cases, only 270 had been closed as of June 2011. Worthy’s office prioritized the cases to focus on those involving defendants who were still in prison on firearm possession charges and cases challenged by defense attorneys. Thus far, four prisoners have received retrials; one was exonerated.

When the crime lab closed, legal experts predicted there would be thousands of requests for review. Yet defense attorneys have sought review just 34 times.

“I feel very strongly that we have to continue going through these cases,” said Worthy. “It’s frustrating. We’re the only ones who did anything with these cases.

In May 2011, the crime lab’s dilapidated building was found unsecured. It was littered ...

California’s County of Sacramento paid $1,800 to settle the claim of Stephen L. Stucker, who was held in jail for two days due to a clerical error. His July 17, 2002 jailing resulted in the denial of his psychiatric medication. The claim settled on January 23, 2003. See: Sacramento County ...

On February 20, 2008, the First Circuit Louisiana Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for further proceedings a trial court’s judgment awarding a former prisoner compensation for a wrongful conviction and imprisonment.

Calvin Williams was convicted in 1977 of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1991, Williams’ application for post-conviction relief was granted because the state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. He was granted a new trial but the state chose not to re-try him. Williams was discharged from prison in 1992, and on August 19, 1996 the first-degree murder charge was dismissed as moot.

During a March 2007 trial on the merits of Williams’ application for compensation pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute (La.RS) 15:572.8, the trial court prohibited the state from questioning Williams about his criminal history related to the murder charge. The state presented no witnesses and instead proffered the entire criminal record of the underlying case into evidence. The court concluded that Williams had “proven his case to the satisfaction of this court,” and awarded him $150,000 (the maximum amount allowed under La.R.S.15:572.8), along with various sums for job skills training and necessary medical and counseling services. Those payments were to be paid from the ...

California’s County of Sacramento paid $5,000 to settle the wrongful imprisonment claim of Robert B. Weber, who was arrested on February 1, 2004 on suspicion of driving under the influence. At the jail, a computer error indicated “no bond, 30 day immediate confinement.”
Weber was taken to court eleven days ...