Ronald Cummings, drug trafficking charges

[Nonni Brenda]

Ron believes the SA who handled his case did not have jurisdiction and that the sentences he received are illegal. He filed a "Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence" based on this belief, and that Motion was denied by the court that imposed the sentence. He is now appealing that denial.

Am I correct in thinking that if he wins his appeal, the proffer he was given is null and void? If so, what will happen then? TIA

 

[krkrjx]

He should have questioned that before he agreed to the deal.

You got that right!! I've always said if the SA did not have jurisdiction for purposes of prosecuting, he did not have jurisdiction to offer a plea agreement. This appeal situation could be one of "be careful what you ask for."

 

[Nonni Brenda]

You got that right!! I've always said if the SA did not have jurisdiction for purposes of prosecuting, he did not have jurisdiction to offer a plea agreement. This appeal situation could be one of "be careful what you ask for."

Sorry, I walked away for a few. thanks for the answer. Looks like RC could be screwed either way. We hope...

 

[krkrjx]

Sorry, I walked away for a few. thanks for the answer. Looks like RC could be screwed either way. We hope...

OK...here's my opinion on the possibilities. Please treat this info as only my opinion as I am not an attorney and even if I were there is no telling in advance how a legal process will evolve.

Possibility 1: Appeal denied. The appeals court affirms the lower court (Putnam) and the sentences imposed are determined legal.

Possibility 2: The appeals court rules in Ron's favor and issues an order stating the SA did not have jurisdiction. If this happens the sentences would be remanded to Putnam County for a "do-over." (However, if the SA did not have jurisdiction for prosecution of the three cases in question, he did not have jurisdiction for the plea deal, so the lower court could argue that this would not only negate the sentences, it would negate the plea deal as well and that a "do-over" means starting over from the beginning. Ron would appear in court to answer to all charges and could either enter a guilty or no contest plea, or take it to a jury.)

Possibility 3: The appeals court rules in Ron's favor and issues an order stating the SA did not have jurisdiction. The lower court (Putnam) decides not to pursue the two charges that were dropped in the plea deal, Ron appears in court to answer to only the three intact charges and could either plead guilty or no contest, or demand a jury trial.

Since one can never be sure how an appeals court will rule, Possibility 2 cannot be overlooked. IMO, Possibility 3 could happen if Putnam County does not want to spend the resources necessary to re-open the two dropped charges. However, a jury trial would cost the county some cash, so they might offer Ron another plea deal of minimum mandatory sentence if he agrees not to go to trial. I do not think Ron would accept such a deal, though, because pleading guilty or nolo would net him the same sentences that he now has.

IMO, Possibility 1 is the most likely.

 

[Chablis]

OK...here's my opinion on the possibilities. Please treat this info as only my opinion as I am not an attorney and even if I were there is no telling in advance how a legal process will evolve.

Possibility 1: Appeal denied. The appeals court affirms the lower court (Putnam) and the sentences imposed are determined legal.

Possibility 2: The appeals court rules in Ron's favor and issues an order stating the SA did not have jurisdiction. If this happens the sentences would be remanded to Putnam County for a "do-over." (However, if the SA did not have jurisdiction for prosecution of the three cases in question, he did not have jurisdiction for the plea deal, so the lower court could argue that this would not only negate the sentences, it would negate the plea deal as well and that a "do-over" means starting over from the beginning. Ron would appear in court to answer to all charges and could either enter a guilty or no contest plea, or take it to a jury.)

Possibility 3: The appeals court rules in Ron's favor and issues an order stating the SA did not have jurisdiction. The lower court (Putnam) decides not to pursue the two charges that were dropped in the plea deal, Ron appears in court to answer to only the three intact charges and could either plead guilty or no contest, or demand a jury trial.

Since one can never be sure how an appeals court will rule, Possibility 2 cannot be overlooked. IMO, Possibility 3 could happen if Putnam County does not want to spend the resources necessary to re-open the two dropped charges. However, a jury trial would cost the county some cash, so they might offer Ron another plea deal of minimum mandatory sentence if he agrees not to go to trial. I do not think Ron would accept such a deal, though, because pleading guilty or nolo would net him the same sentences that he now has.

IMO, Possibility 1 is the most likely.

I hope they say, ya know what Ron, you are right, we will drop your plea bargain and let you go at it in court on all five charges! Good luck!

 

[krkrjx]

I hope they say, ya know what Ron, you are right, we will drop your plea bargain and let you go at it in court on all five charges! Good luck!

I will not argue with that. It would be awesome if it goes that way.

But, Ron did not address any potential illegality of his plea deal. He never mentioned the plea deal in his initial Motion to Correct, so the appeals court might not address that. In researching such Motions I found one case where an inmate tried this and the appeals court ruled in his favor UNTIL they found out there had been a plea bargain and the supposedly illegal sentence in question was born out of that plea deal. Meaning, that inmate was arguing the legality of a sentence he had negotiated for. Once the appeals court found out about his omission of the fact that his sentence was based on a negotiated plea deal, they reversed their decision.

IF the appeals court is diligent in their duties, they will come to know that Ron has omitted the fact that his sentence is one that he negotiated, and they will tell him to pound sand.

 

[titanfan62702]

Sorry, I walked away for a few. thanks for the answer. Looks like RC could be screwed either way. We hope...

and no kisses (couldn't resist)

 

[titanfan62702]

I hope they say, ya know what Ron, you are right, we will drop your plea bargain and let you go at it in court on all five charges! Good luck!

I've a "better" one. Yep, we'll drop all the drug charges, but oh yea, there's the matter of murder.

 

[lil momma]

I am a little confused over the jurisdiction part. If it is the SA wouldn't they have jurisdiction anywhere in the state? I am sorry if this question seems a little silly to some.

 

[Emeralgem]

I am a little confused over the jurisdiction part. If it is the SA wouldn't they have jurisdiction anywhere in the state? I am sorry if this question seems a little silly to some.

BBM.. Well, it might to some but it doesn't seem silly to me.. I was wondering the same... Doesn't SA equate to State Attorney.. I would think a SA would have jurisdication anywhere in the state unless perhaps each SA is assigned to a certain district.. But what do I know..LOL JMHO

 

[krkrjx]

I am a little confused over the jurisdiction part. If it is the SA wouldn't they have jurisdiction anywhere in the state? I am sorry if this question seems a little silly to some.

It's not a silly question. Florida has statewide prosecutors who can act as prosecutors anywhere in the state if charges are pressed in two or more districts. (My guess is this is designed to save money as prosecuting in two or more districts costs more than hearing all charges at once.) If it's just one district pressing charges the local SA prosecutes.

Ron is claiming that Lewis was a "statewide prosecutor" and that since his charges were only in one county, a statewide prosecutor did not have jurisdiction.

The problem with Ron's argument is that while Lewis was a statewide prosecutor at one time, in January 2010 he was appointed SA in the district that serves Putnam County. He was no longer serving as a statewide prosecutor by the time Ron's charges were heard, or even by the time Ron was arrested. So, SA Lewis had jurisdiction, and the lower court denied Ron's Motion to Correct because it had no merit, but Ron had appeal rights regarding that denial.

Having the right to appeal does not mean you have a case.

 

[Emeralgem]

It's not a silly question. Florida has statewide prosecutors who can act as prosecutors anywhere in the state if charges are pressed in two or more districts. (My guess is this is designed to save money as prosecuting in two or more districts costs more than hearing all charges at once.) If it's just one district pressing charges the local SA prosecutes.

Ron is claiming that Lewis was a "statewide prosecutor" and that since his charges were only in one county, a statewide prosecutor did not have jurisdiction.

The problem with Ron's argument is that while Lewis was a statewide prosecutor at one time, in January 2010 he was appointed SA in the district that serves Putnam County. He was no longer serving as a statewide prosecutor by the time Ron's charges were heard, or even by the time Ron was arrested. So, SA Lewis had jurisdiction, and the lower court denied Ron's Motion to Correct because it had no merit, but Ron had appeal rights regarding that denial.

Having the right to appeal does not mean you have a case.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Isn't Lewis the one who also prosectued Tommy and referred to him as being a suspect in Haleigh's case?

 

[lil momma]

It's not a silly question. Florida has statewide prosecutors who can act as prosecutors anywhere in the state if charges are pressed in two or more districts. (My guess is this is designed to save money as prosecuting in two or more districts costs more than hearing all charges at once.) If it's just one district pressing charges the local SA prosecutes.

Ron is claiming that Lewis was a "statewide prosecutor" and that since his charges were only in one county, a statewide prosecutor did not have jurisdiction.

The problem with Ron's argument is that while Lewis was a statewide prosecutor at one time, in January 2010 he was appointed SA in the district that serves Putnam County. He was no longer serving as a statewide prosecutor by the time Ron's charges were heard, or even by the time Ron was arrested. So, SA Lewis had jurisdiction, and the lower court denied Ron's Motion to Correct because it had no merit, but Ron had appeal rights regarding that denial.

Having the right to appeal does not mean you have a case.

Thank You! That makes much more sense. Basically, Ron thought there was a loop hole, and he was going to take it and run, but if SA Lewis is the SA in Putnam County then Ron's fight is going to blow up big time in his face.


BBM- this i got..lol.

 

[krkrjx]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Isn't Lewis the one who also prosectued Tommy and referred to him as being a suspect in Haleigh's case?

IIRC, Lewis handled both cases.

 

[Chablis]

IIRC, Lewis handled both cases.

And he called Tommy a suspect, yet Ron also got the same time as the "suspect" The very guy Ron was calling that night!!!!!!

And some still think his hands are clean........ where would we be if we didn't have the 6 pictures of Ron with his kids brushing his teeth?

 

[Levi]

I am a little confused over the jurisdiction part. If it is the SA wouldn't they have jurisdiction anywhere in the state? I am sorry if this question seems a little silly to some.

From what I am told by lawyers in Florida, the state attorney can get involved in any case they want to.

Wow, look at Ron now. A man that was able to walk into Chili's and demand a free meal. A man that was able to take money from gas stations and buy all the booze he wanted... now he can't even get an attorney to file an appeal or motion to correct his sentence for him. :great:

 

[krkrjx]

From what I am told by lawyers in Florida, the state attorney can get involved in any case they want to.

Wow, look at Ron now. A man that was able to walk into Chili's and demand a free meal. A man that was able to take money from gas stations and buy all the booze he wanted... now he can't even get an attorney to file an appeal or motion to correct his sentence for him. :great:

BBM: Yes Levi, I believe that is accurate. Ron has decided, for whatever reason, that it is not and is basing his appeal on that.

I looked this up back when Ron filed his initial Motion to Correct and it appeared to me as though the statewide prosecutor can prosecute anywhere in the state. However, what I read was not 100% clear on the intended purpose of that statewide prosecutor's office, and I know that laws, rules, etc., are often ambiguous (sometimes purposely so). Ambiguity in a law or regulation has been used successfully in legal proceedings, but even if Florida's statewide prosecution procedure leaves possible a loophole for a jurisdictional challenge, it does not look like Ron can use it because his charges were not prosecuted by a statewide prosecutor.

 

[lonetraveler]

And he called Tommy a suspect, yet Ron also got the same time as the "suspect" The very guy Ron was calling that night!!!!!!

And some still think his hands are clean........ where would we be if we didn't have the 6 pictures of Ron with his kids brushing his teeth?

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Nonni Brenda]

OK...here's my opinion on the possibilities. Please treat this info as only my opinion as I am not an attorney and even if I were there is no telling in advance how a legal process will evolve.

Possibility 1: Appeal denied. The appeals court affirms the lower court (Putnam) and the sentences imposed are determined legal.

Possibility 2: The appeals court rules in Ron's favor and issues an order stating the SA did not have jurisdiction. If this happens the sentences would be remanded to Putnam County for a "do-over." (However, if the SA did not have jurisdiction for prosecution of the three cases in question, he did not have jurisdiction for the plea deal, so the lower court could argue that this would not only negate the sentences, it would negate the plea deal as well and that a "do-over" means starting over from the beginning. Ron would appear in court to answer to all charges and could either enter a guilty or no contest plea, or take it to a jury.)

Possibility 3: The appeals court rules in Ron's favor and issues an order stating the SA did not have jurisdiction. The lower court (Putnam) decides not to pursue the two charges that were dropped in the plea deal, Ron appears in court to answer to only the three intact charges and could either plead guilty or no contest, or demand a jury trial.

Since one can never be sure how an appeals court will rule, Possibility 2 cannot be overlooked. IMO, Possibility 3 could happen if Putnam County does not want to spend the resources necessary to re-open the two dropped charges. However, a jury trial would cost the county some cash, so they might offer Ron another plea deal of minimum mandatory sentence if he agrees not to go to trial. I do not think Ron would accept such a deal, though, because pleading guilty or nolo would net him the same sentences that he now has.

IMO, Possibility 1 is the most likely.

Thanks K for this great answer. I have been gone all day and just now reading it...(Had Glaucoma laser surgery). I agree posibility 1 seems more logical. That may be the safest for the general public too, at least we know he will serve the appropriate part of 15 years, hopefully at least 85%.:crazy:

 

[kolokolo]

God bless him. I hope he gets out soon.

Yea, I hope he gets out soon and walks straight to the electric chair, enough wasting the taxpayers of Florida money!