SHOPLIFTING CANDY CAN LAND YOU IN PRISION FOR 20 YEARS TO LIFE
One of the first questions a person asks after they have been arrested is how they can find the best attorney. This makes sense because we all know that one of the most expensive things to fix is your reputation and well-being. A good outcome in your criminal case is priceless.
Recently a 34-year-old New Orleans man, Jacobia Grimes, was charged with a felony theft when he stole some candy bars from a convenience store. He had prior incidents. Because of his record, he was exposed to Louisiana's habitual-offender law and faced a maximum of 20 years to life. Grimes was unable to hire an attorney and the over strained New Orleans public defender took his case. Unfortunately, public defenders usually have little training, busy caseloads, and have to triage cases by focusing on those they think they can save at the expense of those they simply don't have time to help.
Grimes will be subject to a sentence of 20 years to life for stealing candy bars from a convenience store. Luckily for Grimes, New Orleans District Attorney's office has said that they have no intention of pressing for such a harsh sentence. But legally they have every right to do so.
47-year-old Maurice Anderson's criminal history was similar to Jacobia Grimes', since 1989 he was convicted of three thefts, simple burglary, and unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling. Then in 2014 he was found guilty of theft over the amount of $1,500 and the judge sentenced him to the minimum of 60 years in prison due to his status as a habitual-offender.
The judge said that he would have given him life but none of the crimes for which Mr. Anderson was convicted of involved violence. I will repeat this as it deserves being repeated—Mr. Anderson has never been convicted of a crime involving violence and he was sent to prison for 60 years due to the habitual-offender law.
Legal experts point out another serious consequence of Louisiana's habitual offender law especially considering how over strained public defenders are.: It forces the accused to plead guilty for a reduced sentence rather than risk a trial and the possibility of a lengthy mandatory minimum prison term, when they may not have even committed the crime, and there is little evidence against them. Virtually no one is willing to risk trial when the best they can do if they are found guilty is 60 years in prison.
NOT TAKING SERIOUSLY YOUR FIRST CRIMINAL CHARGES CAN LAND YOU IN PRISION FOR 20 YEARS TO LIFE FOR STEALING A CANDY BAR
One of the first questions a person asks after they have been arrested is whether they should get a private attorney (a "real lawyer") or go with a court appointed public defender. When I am walking through the corridors of jail to meet with a new client, people will ask me, "hey, are you a real lawyer?"
Some don't know that public defenders are lawyers, but more often they believe that public defenders are so bad that they don't deserve to be called lawyers. While public defenders are indeed real lawyers, and take the same bar exam as private attorneys, the quality of their work is usually not on pare with that of a private attorney.
Lawyers know the reason, but the public usually does not—public defenders have far too many cases. They simply cannot dedicate as much time to investigate, plan and prepare their client's case.
And the costs of relying on such overloaded attorneys to provide the crucial guarantee of a fair trial are significant. Almost every criminal case ends in a plea bargain, in fact 95% of criminal cases end in a plea. And that is in part due to the excessive caseloads thrust upon public defenders. Often a defendant will only have a brief conversation outside the courtroom with a public defender before pleading guilty.
This may not seem like a big deal if you are pleading to a misdemeanor and getting no jail time, but when these charges—that should have been fought—add up, you are exposing yourself to unimaginable consequences.
Recently a 34-year-old New Orleans man, Jacobia Grimes, was charged with a felony theft when he stole some candy bars from a convenience store. The real problem is that he had five prior convictions, all for theft. Because of his record, he is exposed to the habitual-offender law if he is convicted on this charge.
Grimes will be subject to a sentence of 20 years to life for stealing candy bars from a convenience store. Luckily for Grimes, New Orleans District Attorney's office has said that they have no intention of pressing for such a harsh sentence. But legally they have every right to do so.
47-year-old Maurice Anderson's criminal history was similar to Jacobia Grimes', since 1989 he was convicted of three felony thefts, simple burglary, unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling and introducing contraband into a penal institution. Then in 2014 he was found guilty of theft over the amount of
,500 and the judge sentenced him to the minimum of 60 years in prison due to his status as a habitual-offender.
The judge said that he would have given him life but none of the crimes for which Mr. Anderson was convicted of involved violence. I will repeat this as it deserves being repeated—Mr. Anderson has never been convicted of a crime involving violence and he was sent to prison for 60 years due to the habitual-offender law.
Legal experts point out another serious consequence of the habitual offender law: It forces accused repeat offenders to plead guilty for a reduced sentence rather than risk a trial and the possibility of a lengthy mandatory minimum prison term, when they may not have even committed the crime, and there is little evidence against them. Virtually no one is willing to risk trial when the best they can do if they are found guilty is 60 years in prison.