Will Casey face probation?

RiverRat said:

Clerical error - Wikipedia, the free [email]encyclopedia

A clerical error is an error on part of an office worker, often a secretary or personal assistant. It is a phrase which can also be used as an excuse to deflect blame away from specific individuals, such as high powered executives, and instead redirect it to the more anonymous clerical staff.

"There is a considerable body of case law concerning the proper treatment of a scrivener's error.{ see Barkelew v. Barkelew (1946, Cal App) 73 Cal App 2d 76, 166 P2d 57} For examples, where the parties to a contract make an oral agreement that, when reduced to a writing, is mis-transcribed, the aggrieved party is entitled to reformation so that the writing corresponds to the oral agreement.[1]

A scrivener's error can be grounds for an appellate court to remand a decision back to the trial court. For example, in Ortiz v. State of Florida,[2] Ortiz had been convicted of possession of less than 20g of marijuana, a misdemeanor.[3] However, Ortiz was mistakenly adjudicated guilty of a felony for the count of marijuana possession . The appellate court held that "we must remand the case to the trial court to correct a scrivener's error."

RR

Click to expand...

Glad you mentioned "adjudicated" because weren't there some charges that were on hold? I remember something like that said in the sentencing of the check fraud charges. Sorry, I'm too tired to go back and look.

RR0004 said:

Glad you mentioned "adjudicated" because weren't there some charges that were on hold? I remember something like that said in the sentencing of the check fraud charges. Sorry, I'm too tired to go back and look.

Click to expand...

-----he withheld adjudicating on 7 of the charges--------- those other 7 charges ( many debates on the net at the time as to --why not?? since she began by pleading guilty to ALL 13 charges.....and so she walked out a felon X6.)

http://www.wftv.com/news/22316847/detail.html
--watch court hearing: Part 1 of 2 | Part 2

During the hearing, it came out that prosecutors had offered Casey a 5-year sentence on the charges she stole and used checks from her former best friend, Amy Huizenga; it's more than she wanted and it's more than she ended up getting. She got credit for the 412 days she's already spent in jail. She also has to pay almost $6,000 in court and prosecution costs, which she says is too high.

The hearing started quickly, with attorney Jose Baez, Casey at his side, offering a guilty plea to the court on the 13 charges related to check fraud. Casey was immediately sworn in.

“Five years [in jail], in our position, is extremely absurd,” Baez argued regarding the sentencing the prosecution requested with the plea. "We simply ask that she receive equal justice under the law."

“Because of Ms. Anthony's status, her situation and her unpopularity we find ourselves in a muck,” Baez sad. “We ask the court to withhold adjudication on the counts, issue time served and, due to statutory requirements, give a short probationary period of approximately one year."

After Baez stated his case, the prosecution argued their points and made their request for sentencing.

“We are asking for adjudication on all [13 counts] and a straight prison sentence,” state prosecutor Frank George stated.

“She’s charged with 13 separate crimes or offenses as a result of the four stolen checks,” Judge Strickland said after hearing both sides’ arguments. “On counts 3, 6, 9 and 12, those are the forgery counts, there is going to be an adjudication of guilt and time served is 412 days.”

Strickland also adjudicated guilt on counts 1 and 2 with time served.

“As for the four counts of uttering a forged check, 4, 7, 10, 13, and as to counts 5, 8, 11, three of the four fraudulent use of identification counts, the court is going to withhold adjudication with time served and one year of supervised probation,” Judge Strickland said. “I've done what I think is fair based on what I know.”

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/01/casey-anthony-judge-in-solomon-like-move-adjudicates-guilt-on-6-of-13-counts-in-check-fraud-case.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+entertainment%2Ftv%2Ftvguy+%28TV+Guy%29

Strickland explained his method: “I withheld in seven. I adjudicated in six. If that seems Solomon-like, it is. I just couldn’t think of a better, more appropriate way to do it.”

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20339291,00.html

She was sentenced to 412 days of time served in jail and one year of probation and ordered to pay $348 in court fees and $5,517.75 in investigative fees.


---------i wonder if she ever paid those fines/fees?

..the non-payment of them was what got her driver's license suspended while in jail.

strawberry said:

@CFNews13Casey
Casey Anthony News13
Judge Perry is likely to sign an order or hold a hearing today on this matter. #CaseyAnthony #probation -JFell

Click to expand...

Not that my opinion will make any difference to the judge but I am going to be so ticked off if that bi---gets to have served her probation already in jail. NO ONE EVER does probation while they are in jail. They serve it after they get out of jail and I think it is supposed to keep them on the straight and narrow and so that someone knows what the criminal is doing. Casey Anthony seems to be not just her attorneys little princess but she will probably end up being the judges little princess too. She shouldn't be treated any different then any other criminal. If she gets away with this...if anyone that I know has to do jail time and then probation I will fight for the probation to be dropped cause they will have already done it while they were in jail. What is good for one is good for them all. Which I think is a whole lot of B.S.

Bobbisangel said:

Not that my opinion will make any difference to the judge but I am going to be so ticked off if that bi---gets to have served her probation already in jail. NO ONE EVER does probation while they are in jail. They serve it after they get out of jail and I think it is supposed to keep them on the straight and narrow and so that someone knows what the criminal is doing. Casey Anthony seems to be not just her attorneys little princess but she will probably end up being the judges little princess too. She shouldn't be treated any different then any other criminal. If she gets away with this...if anyone that I know has to do jail time and then probation I will fight for the probation to be dropped cause they will have already done it while they were in jail. What is good for one is good for them all. Which I think is a whole lot of B.S.

Click to expand...

in the DOC presser earlier today the spokesperson said that people do sometimes serve probation in jail, it happens.

Does anyone recall when Casey was writing letters to inmates? Was it during her "so called" probation? If so that's a violation. Did she pay the $20-$30 every month, like every other probationer in FL. When NG would list off what Casey was spending her funds on I never heard her probation costs. Did she pay her fines/fees and restitution for the check charges? Normally, you don't get off if not paid. Then to have the same time count for the the check and lying charges is insane! As CA would say "There is something wrong here"! I believe JP needs to straighten this mess out Friday and drag her butt back to jail for the rest of her time and then a year probation.

I am still so angry with the jury and their verdict, I want her to receive some kind of punishment, even if it is only probation. But I won't be satisfied with that either. I think the judge used case law when he made decisions, often in the defense favor to prevent appeals. He will again use some case law when he hears this - but I do not think he will rule the way we want just to give her (and her team) some kind of punishment - just because the jury was wrong.

It seems to me the court can only deal with the fines she owes and if she is in treatment, cannot even start to make. Until/unless she is proven to have received funds (even chaney saying she has thousands in donations is not proof) - even the IRS makes deals for repayment, that will not be addressed any time soon.

I guess what I am trying to say is I think I am glad courts and judges do not make decisions on my dislikes.:maddening:

Dcstew said:

Does anyone recall when Casey was writing letters to inmates? Was it during her "so called" probation? If so that's a violation. Did she pay the $20-$30 every month, like every other probationer in FL. When NG would list off what Casey was spending her funds on I never heard her probation costs. Did she pay her fines/fees and restitution for the check charges? Normally, you don't get off if not paid. Then to have the same time count for the the check and lying charges is insane! As CA would say "There is something wrong here"! I believe JP needs to straighten this mess out Friday and drag her butt back to jail for the rest of her time and then a year probation.

Click to expand...

..as i understand it---

..judgeS sentenced her to 412 days time served---for the check charges.

..at that time --january 25/2010--she had been in jail since october 14/2008.

..plus in and out a few times on bond since her 1st arrest july 16th/2008.

..her 4 years for the ----you're a big fat liar! ( and nothing else..)---charges, began after those 412 days.

..according to the DOC ---"good time/gain time"--- calculation---those additional 4 years were up sometime in july ( they initially got it wrong by a few days---recalculated and she remained until july 17th.)

..i have no idea how the "good time/gain time" thing works ( days taken off non stop for some reason).

..i don't expect to see judgeP send her BACK to jail to serve any time.( THAT'S a done deal.)

..i do expect him to work through the legal "mess" of this probation----and rule according to the law.

lauriej said:

..as i understand it---

..judgeS sentenced her to 412 days time served---for the check charges.

..at that time --january 25/2010--she had been in jail since october 14/2008.

..plus in and out a few times on bond since her 1st arrest july 16th/2008.

..her 4 years for the ----you're a big fat liar! ( and nothing else..)---charges, began after those 412 days.
..according to the DOC ---"good time/gain time"--- calculation---those additional 4 years were up sometime in july ( they initially got it wrong by a few days---recalculated and she remained until july 17th.)

..i have no idea how the "good time/gain time" thing works ( days taken off non stop for some reason).

..i don't expect to see judgeP send her BACK to jail to serve any time.( THAT'S a done deal.)

..i do expect him to work through the legal "mess" of this probation----and rule according to the law.

Click to expand...

BOLD by me

I believe she served the first 412 days for the check and then they also counted that same 412 days for the lying charges. JP sentenced her concurrent vs consecutive, so he didn't give her the most time he could have. Richard Hornsby explains it well here... http://blog.richardhornsby.com/

kelian36 said:

I've been afraid to say anything negative about HHJP BUT I will now that Whisperer has spoken.

The judge was fair in many ways but I felt like he constantly pandered to the defense. The judge knew what would be included in opening statements--yet he allowed Baez to begin the DT part of trial with out and out bs lies.

I keep going back to someone here stating that Judge Perry could have rejected the jurors verdict. Too bad he didn't. I lost respect for him when he let a child killer -imo-walk free never to pay for a terrible crime.

If Perry has anything to do with the parole --FCA won't suffer at all.
imoo

Click to expand...

In the ask the lawyer thread, AZlawyer said that HHJP couldn't have rejected the verdict. There was nothing he could do after the verdict was read.

I still can't figure out why Judge Perry imposed the $1000 fine for each of the four counts of lying to LE and didn't place her on probation until it was paid off. Most other offenders would be required to serve probation until their fines were all clear and paid.

Dcstew said:

BOLD by me

I believe she served the first 412 days for the check and then they also counted that same 412 days for the lying charges. JP sentenced her concurrent vs consecutive, so he didn't give her the most time he could have. Richard Hornsby explains it well here... http://blog.richardhornsby.com/

Click to expand...

I enjoy reading and watching Hornsby - this case is so nasty bad, we have to have some humor to just get through it.

lorann said:

I enjoy reading and watching Hornsby - this case is so nasty bad, we have to have some humor to just get through it.

Click to expand...

I really enjoy his blog also. The very last section regarding the State Attorney's need to support Strickland was especially interesting. He doesn't mince words does he:great:

By the way, his father was also a prominent defense attorney in Orlando. It's refreshing to see someone who stands up for his beliefs in such a controversial matter.

rhornsby said:

I predict the State will not oppose the Defense motion to dismiss the VOP for lack of jurisdiction and double jeopardy. That Judge Perry will simply shrug and say if State doesn't have a problem with it, I don't. And she will once again get off as if she did nothing.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that you're correct, disappointing to think about as it is. Quick question though:

Is it known for certain yet, what the State's position is on this? It's my understanding that Mr. George will be in attendance for tomorrow's hearing. Is he to be there to express the view you shared, as a formality? Could he be there to argue that the State wishes to see Judge Strickland's clarified order enforced?

My apologies if this has been discussed already, and thanks for any enlightenment that you (or anyone!) can share on this.

I agree with Hornsby, if the State doesn't object to this one visit probation that was conducted and which was not according to the orders of the court, this is going no where. Truth be told I think the State of FL has washed their hands of Casey Anthony.

grandmaj said:

I agree with Hornsby, if the State doesn't object to this one visit probation that was conducted and which was not according to the orders of the court, this is going no where. Truth be told I think the State of FL has washed their hands of Casey Anthony.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I think they are done with her, this case and everything else that goes along with it. They (the state) probably see that the DOC screwed up and no matter how wrong it was, it's still a screw up.

Should she serve probation, yes. But you are penalizing her because of something that was out of her control (DOC signing the paper saying she completed her probation). Take personal feelings out of this (I know it's hard). Should anyone be subject to something because the people in charge didn't get their act together?

Leah0107 said:

BBM - I believe I read it is because he gave her the max penalty for the lying charges.
The probation upon release was the requirement to his adjudication of 7 of the 13 fraud charges. I wonder why he didn't just convict her all 13 charges?

Click to expand...

I think this case has taught the Florida legal system something. It was supposed to be the other way around.

I don't know if the State will respond, I guess since there is hearing someone will be there to represent the interests of the State. I do think Judge P will say probation has been served, it is unfortunate that there was a typo, but DOC has already done it's job and been paid for it once, why do it again. He already ruled on this once, why change it now.

I think that Orlando wants Ms. Anthony gone. But do not forget, the State is busy calculating costs for the investigation of a child that really was never missing. Judge P will have to rule on that, so the saga will continue. Perhaps the State will be happy to stay quiet now and proceed with the false investigation costs. Isn't that coming up on the 25th?

I'd be happy with a compromise.
Probation to be served without returning to Orlando and via phone or mail after the initial visit by a PO.

This will mean that her whereabouts will be known and the media can stop the 'where's FCA game', and the DT won't be able to cash in on their pics because it'll be common knowledge and we could all go get a pic if we really want one for our shelf.

The biggest injustice was the NG on charges of killing her daughter, I will forever be bothered by that.
The lying, stealing, probation stuff is becoming a way to back door retribution for that. I no longer care where she is or what she is wearing.
I will be spending my energy highlighting the reality of the 'foundations' so that they profit as little as possible and I've already stopped watching any show where the entourage appear. It's all I can do whilst we lobby to change a flawed system.

The values of our founding fathers were very similar to mine, but they couldn't have envisioned how the evolution of the system would lean so heavily toward a defendant. We must keep our justice system abreast of current issues. I'll spend time doing that.

Adrienne37 said:

I still can't figure out why Judge Perry imposed the $1000 fine for each of the four counts of lying to LE and didn't place her on probation until it was paid off. Most other offenders would be required to serve probation until their fines were all clear and paid.

Click to expand...

Wonder if she paid her fees and fines for the check charges while doing probation in jail. If not why wasn't it continued until she did? Also, just thought of something she wasn't listed on the FL offender site as being on probation for that year. If they had that would of caused an outrage right away and it would of been corrected then! :banghead:

cityslick said:

I agree with this. I think they are done with her, this case and everything else that goes along with it. They (the state) probably see that the DOC screwed up and no matter how wrong it was, it's still a screw up.

Should she serve probation, yes. But you are penalizing her because of something that was out of her control (DOC signing the paper saying she completed her probation). Take personal feelings out of this (I know it's hard). Should anyone be subject to something because the people in charge didn't get their act together?

Click to expand...

Bold by me... I personally think she should be subject to probation out of jail because she's a loose cannon and could do anything at any time, but if she's already served the probation, so be it.