Pike Vs America

Ms. Zikoviachi was sentenced to a conditional discharge with 9 month probation, required to attend Narcotics Anonymous Meetings regularly, as well as regular meetings with a parole officer that would be assigned to her. Persuasiveness: We found the position of the defense to be the most persuasive because they used the Ms. Zikoviachi’s personal life circumstances to convince the judge that while she did in fact commit the crimes she is being accused of, her life circumstances leading up to the event caused her to be forced into the situation of stealing. We found that the Crown’s arguments were very impersonal and based completely on the crime itself and not the circumstances surrounding it.

The judge did not feel as though this sentence would be a wise one for this particular case. S.K the teenager in charge of the wheel ended up a quadriplegic, though unintentional the sacrifice of his limbs as well as 25 years off of his life, is what saved him from facing a harsh prison sentence. The judge decided that S.K would not live if he were to stay in a jail, due to his current physical situation. S.K required 24-7 medical attention. These services Justice Sonosa felt could not be provided, at the rehabilitation facility that S.K was supposed to attend, hence his final decision.

Albert W. Florence, the petitioner in this case, was initially arrested in 1998 and charged with use of a deadly weapon and obstruction of justice (Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, Opinion, I). He pled guilty to two lesser counts and was ordered to make monthly payments to cover his fine. However, as stated in the Opinion of the Court, he did not keep up with his payments, and a warrant was issued for his arrest in 2003. Florence paid the rest of his fine only days later. However, when he and his wife were pulled over in Burlington County, New Jersey, in 2005, the state trooper’s computer system still had Florence’s warrant, so he arrested and transported him to Burlington County Detention Center.

The Case Against Marijuana Gonzales v. Raich In Gonzales v. Raich the legal issue facing the court is whether Congress has the power, through Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, to “prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.” The 1996 Proposition 215, now codified as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, was created to ensure ill residents of California had access to medicinal marijuana. The 1996 Act is relevant to this 2005 case because it is important to the eventual dispute before the court.

The case People v. Smith was finally decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan in 1991. The case involved the defendant Ricky Franklin Smith whom pled guilty to breaking and entering and of being a habitual offender, fourth offense (People v Smith, 1991). The judge sentenced Smith to 6 to 30 years imprisonment for the Habitual Offender charge. Ricky Franklin Smith after sentencing requested to be resentenced because his juvenile record, which had been expunged, was considered by the judge for sentencing. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with the sentencing; however, when the case went to the Supreme Court of Michigan, they reversed the decision because the sentencing should not have been based on the defendant’s prior expunged juvenile record.

Defendants are facing a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison, with a maximum of life in prison, if convicted. Therefore, the ends of justice and the effective assistance of counsel is served by a continuance. WHEREFORE, Mr. Williams and Mr. Davis request that this Honorable Court grant the motion and continue to the trial date to a date in the latter part of February 2018, or in the alternative, a hearing on the

In July 1979, Gary Dotson was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and rape of a young woman in 1977. He was sentenced to not less than twenty-five and not more than fifty years. Many years after Dotson’s conviction, the victim recanted her testimony because she didn’t want anyone to know about a sexual encounter with her boyfriend so she fabricated the rape. Once the victim recanted her testimony, Dotson contended that the recantation constituted grounds to vacate the original sentence and he should be awarded a new trial. In 1987, the governor agreed to grant Dotson his last chance at parole.

But the Arkansas court issued a death sentence against him and force him medication before the time of his execution on January 2004. Arkansas court puts doctors in dilemma, adhere to their medical oath or criminal law. Regarding to the medical oath, doctors are not allowed to participate in the execution or use of drugs to take people life. Duty’s doctors are helping and treatment of patients not killing the patient. (Eisenberg, 2004).

Defendant is appealing his 46-month sentence following a guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The sentence length was determined, as per Federal Sentencing Guidelines, using Defendant’s criminal history score. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. Defendant takes issue with the district court’s assignment of one point to his criminal history score for a prior marijuana conviction. We hereby affirm the sentence for the reasons stated below.

The most important issue that must be addressed in this case is the principle of the “evolving standards of decency” and the uses of a national consensus. The “evolving standards of decency” were developed by Trop v. Dulles and have been implemented in one way or another in all of the precedents dealing with “cruel and unusual” punishment. It is important to treat these principles as an important aspect of “cruel and unusual” punishment jurisprudence, therefore turning from these set of principles would be foolish and a disregard for every precedent. However, it is important to acknowledge that each case satisfies the standards by using a different method; some use the presence or lack of state legislature as a judgment of consensus while others look at foreign countries.

Ruiz 2002, when immigration agents founded 30kg of marijuana in Angela Ruiz’s baggage (defendant) she was arrested and charged with importing marijuana from Mexico to the United State. Ruiz’s regular sentencing was range to twelve to eighteen months. However, a United State federal prosecutor for the Southern District of California presented Ruiz a “ fast track” plea bargain. The condition for the plea agreement required Ruiz to plead guilty within thirty days of her court appearance. In addition Ruiz would give up her right to a “ fair” trial if the cases goes to trial but on the other hand, Ruiz would spend less time in prison the crime.

In that case, the Supreme Court held that prison staff (whether doctors or officers or any others) violated the Eighth Amendment if they were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of prisoners.

Federalism and Marijuana The scuffle over the marijuana regulation is one of the most important federalism dispute in a generation. This open-ended conflict of federal and state marijuana laws forces people to think over the protective powers of the federal drug laws and the fiiting roles of state and federal government in setting drug policy. A weaken instability and confusion have been caused due to the conflict of these states changing from prohibition to the regulation of marijuana use. Although the courts have not authorized an actual configuration of the preemption doctrine of this situation and it is argued that the precautionary extension of the Federal Controlled Substance Act is comparably reserved.

He appealed his conviction and sentence to the Fourth District Court of Appeal and they affirmed that the Act does not violate any constitutionality challenged the defendant. Facts 1. The defendant committed to serve time for certain crimes and he was prison released in August 1996. 2.

He did not want to let him get out of jail if he was just going to end up back in it within days. However, the judge let the client out of jail. An additional aspect I found very intriguing were the certificates and reading some client’s had done. Clients had received a certificate for achieving a higher level of drug court. Then, some client’s had to write up what they wanted to say when they entered a new phase.