Petition Resentencing: Fill & Download for Free

No; they are not being tried for the same crime twice; they are being resentenced in concordance with a directive from an appellate court, because the trial court erred in sentencing them below the statutory minimum for the crimes of which they were convicted.Double Jeopardy applies if someone is tried twice for the exact same crime, usually after being acquitted the first time.A good explanation follows:By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.Ref: Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison

I was asked to answer. I have little to add to Kelly Kinkade’s or Cliff Gilley’s answers when it comes to substance, but I will summarise and add my personal reaction—the article’s writer takes exception to the court’s apparent endorsement of a ‘social message’:It may be hard to see why this matters. But, again, as a public defender, I am concerned when judges use individual cases to send broader social messages.However, I can’t agree with this proposition (even when I occasionally get the job of involuntary assistant public defender as a conflict case). During the trial proceedings, it is not appropriate for the court to ‘advocate for the victim’,¹ it’s quite true. But an important line—that I think Ms Marshall ignores in her analysis—gets crossed with conviction. That is the point at which a ‘charge’ becomes a legal fact—the crime was committed and it is proven, and the court may, and should, take its nature into consideration in responding. Courts use sentencing hearings all the time to send social messages: ‘This crime matters, and it is appropriate that the court, as the representative of society, show that it matters.’² In this case there was no trial, but the defendant Dr. Nassar pled guilty, which is the functional equivalent of a conviction.³Last Wednesday, as it so happened, I was in court for Criminal Miscellaneous to appear for a court-appointed client, and the first thing on the docket was sentencing for a murder defendant, so I got/had to watch that proceeding before my ARD placement was processed. The defendant had been convicted of a charge of shooting the victim thirteen times in the back (apparently in retaliation for some verbal altercation between the two). The family did not wish to testify at the hearing but they were present. The court said some things in the same general vein of Judge Aquilina’s remarks. One that stuck out at me was something substantially similar to this:I look at the pre-sentence investigation when I have a defendant come in to be sentenced. One thing I always do is look to see if there’s any redeeming thing about the defendant. In your case I saw none.The defendant was sentenced to life per the statute (there was no discretion in sentencing available under such circumstances).I do agree that judges should avoid pandering when setting sentences (and this can be a drawback of a scheme where judges are elected). And perhaps this judge did showboat a little because of the media attention. But as for what she’s quoted as saying in the article, that doesn’t cross a line for me, especially if the sentence is not unlawful (which, since this isn’t my state, I can’t offer a detailed opinion on).Notes:¹ Even the prosecutor does not ‘advocate for the victim’ in a strict sense, though as a matter of politics many prosecutors and some judges will say they’re ‘standing up for victims.’ The victim is not considered a party in interest in a criminal matter; although the victim is the face of the crime, the prosecution is brought in the name of the State. See also this answer I wrote last year where I quoted our Superior Court:The private prosecutor, even if he or she was the victim, “has no legitimate interest, other than as a member of the general public, in seeing a violator of the laws brought to justice by the Commonwealth and punished for his misdeeds. If a private prosecutor feels individually harmed his remedy is a civil suit for damages.”In re Petition of Piscanio, 344 A.2d 658, 661-62 (Pa.Super. 1975); Commw. v. MacGinley, 673 A.2d 343, 346–7 (Pa.Super. 1996).² For example, Pennsylvania’s codified statute on “Sentencing, generally” provides:(b) General standards.—In selecting from the alternatives set forth in subsection (a), the court shall follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant. The court shall also consider any guidelines for sentencing and resentencing adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and taking effect under section 2155 (relating to publication of guidelines for sentencing, resentencing and parole and recommitment ranges following revocation).In every case in which the court imposes a sentence for a felony or misdemeanor, modifies a sentence, resentences an offender following revocation of probation, county intermediate punishment or State intermediate punishment or resentences following remand, the court shall make as a part of the record, and disclose in open court at the time of sentencing, a statement of the reason or reasons for the sentence imposed. In every case where the court imposes a sentence or resentence outside the guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing under sections 2154 (relating to adoption of guidelines for sentencing), 2154.1 (relating to adoption of guidelines for county intermediate punishment), 2154.2 (relating to adoption of guidelines for State intermediate punishment), 2154.3 (relating to adoption of guidelines for fines), 2154.4 (relating to adoption of guidelines for resentencing) and 2154.5 (relating to adoption of guidelines for parole) and made effective under section 2155, the court shall provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reason or reasons for the deviation from the guidelines to the commission, as established under section 2153(a)(14) (relating to powers and duties). Failure to comply shall be grounds for vacating the sentence or resentence and resentencing the defendant.42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b), emphases added. The ‘record’ referred to is the testimony at the sentencing hearing, the pre-sentence investigation, and any other material reasonably relevant to the sentence that is produced by the state or the defendant, which may include victim statements. If the sentencing guidelines apply, they are not-quite-mandatory; the court needs to have a convincing rationale to deviate.³ See also this answer.

A petition to revoke probation works the same way a criminal charge works: you can plead guilty to the alleged violation -- possibly as a result of a plea agreement -- and be subject to resentencing in keeping with the sentencing guidelines for the original criminal charge, or you can demand that the prosecution prove their case at an evidentiary hearing.(Do note that the level of proof required for a PTR hearing is “preponderance of evidence,” not “reasonable doubt,” as it is for a criminal charge.)Since it seems that, wilfully or otherwise, you did, in fact, fail to fulfill that condition of your order, you would have a hard time defending against that accusation.