Who thinks Tommy will succeed in getting his sentence modified?

[LaLaw2000]

I am here waiting as well.

**I really do not want any of these people to catch a break. IMO, Ronald shoudn't have even caught the break he did. The court calendar would be more jammed that it is now if all sentenced would be granted a 'do-over'.

Sentences should be sentences. The whole bunch has lied time and time again, and I am speaking of those that are not even in prison along with those that are.

I am guessing that there will be no modification.

JMO

 

[LaLaw2000]

LOL, so have I...this just in not sure how creditable the news is, but it is said that Tommy was denied a reduction.:waitasec:

Your post showed as I was writing mine, MADJGNLAW. I hope it has been denied.

 

[dodie20]

I'll be the farm that Werter tries to get this heard through a higher court. I expect to see an appeal filed.

& it's my opinion that if Werter keeps up these legal maneuvers, he's throwing Tommy to the wolves. I know he's operating under the assumption that Tommy has been truthful in the Haleigh case, but he needs to back up & assess the consequences. He can't treat Tommy like a typical client. He just can't.

 

[krkrjx]

& it's my opinion that if Werter keeps up these legal maneuvers, he's throwing Tommy to the wolves. I know he's operating under the assumption that Tommy has been truthful in the Haleigh case, but he needs to back up & assess the consequences. He can't treat Tommy like a typical client. He just can't.

I do not think there are grounds for an appeal. The appellate court would probably deny it. There has to be a reason given, such as new evidence, etc.

It is good to see Judge LaRue stand his ground on this. It is high time offenders are made to pay instead of going through life doing whatever they want whenever they want and suffering no consequences.

 

[krkrjx]

OMG, they have filed it already...the appeal!

ETA: And application for public defender also.

10/04/2010 70 MOTION HEARING MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY JAMES WERTER
10/04/2010 70 MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE - MOTION DENIED
10/04/2010 70 DECLARED INDIGENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPEAL
10/04/2010 71 MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT INDIGENT AND REQUEST FOR
10/04/2010 71 APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC DEFENDER
10/04/2010 72 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCE
10/04/2010 73 NOTICE OF APPEAL
10/04/2010 74 DEFENDANT'S DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT

 

[LaLaw2000]

Well, I do not think for one moment a higher court will grant a reduction of sentence.

JMO

 

[krkrjx]

Well, I do not think for one moment a higher court will grant a reduction of sentence.

JMO

I do not think that such a motion can be filed with any court other than the sentencing court.

However, they can appeal on other grounds. I do not see that they have other grounds at this time; the appeal may go nowhere.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Thanks, KrKrjx!

* Then I am guessing the appeal will go nowhere.

 

[Dr. Know?]

10/04/2010 71 APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC DEFENDER

Is that a way for Werter to get paid by the state for appeals etc..? I don't see him withdrawing as Tommy's lawyer anywhere on the docket. Hmmm...

 

[dodie20]

OMG, they have filed it already...the appeal!

ETA: And application for public defender also.

10/04/2010 70 MOTION HEARING MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY JAMES WERTER
10/04/2010 70 MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE - MOTION DENIED
10/04/2010 70 DECLARED INDIGENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPEAL
10/04/2010 71 MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT INDIGENT AND REQUEST FOR
10/04/2010 71 APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC DEFENDER
10/04/2010 72 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCE
10/04/2010 73 NOTICE OF APPEAL
10/04/2010 74 DEFENDANT'S DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT

OMG!!! I understand that a lawyer's gotta do his job, but Tommy portraying himself as a victim, (be for real), is gonna backfire. MOO.

 

[Kat]

OMG, they have filed it already...the appeal!

ETA: And application for public defender also.

10/04/2010 70 MOTION HEARING MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY JAMES WERTER
10/04/2010 70 MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE - MOTION DENIED
10/04/2010 70 DECLARED INDIGENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPEAL
10/04/2010 71 MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT INDIGENT AND REQUEST FOR
10/04/2010 71 APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC DEFENDER
10/04/2010 72 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCE
10/04/2010 73 NOTICE OF APPEAL
10/04/2010 74 DEFENDANT'S DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT

Thank you krkrjx.

So is that that? Or do we expect further appeals?

 

[justus4all]

I guess with his sentence..to stay fixed....and any further appeals..NADA.....Tommy is going to have to like his new home....for a loooooooonng time....

I feel..... NEXT ..Tommy will want a NEW attorney....

IMO

 

[krkrjx]

I think the appeal will be denied. Of course, I do not know on what grounds they filed, but usually appeals are granted to hear new evidence (no reason at this time to believe there is any), didn't get a fair trial (he didn't go to trial), or ineffective counsel (doubtful Werter would file for that reason).

If it is granted, the appeal process is a long one. I have been following the progress of Hope's appeal and it is moving along slowly.

As for Tommy wanting a new attorney, I think that would be his best bet. I am not sure how many here recall one of Tommy's last recorded phone conversations where Lindsy informed him that she had been told by Werter that Tommy would probably serve two years and two months. That was how they had calculated the time with a three-year sentence considering time served, etc.

When Tommy heard that, he jumped on it. He said he would plea and take his three years. It sounded to me like Lindsy had him convinced that's all he would serve, and it also sounded as if Lindsy had been convinced of that by Werter.

Now, it's true that there was the possibility of a harsher sentence--three years was Tommy's minimum, and when he entered his plea in court, the court advised him that he could get up to 30 years, so there was no reason for Tommy to believe he had a guarantee of a three-year sentence. However...I would bet that Werter told Tommy it would be OK, that he would not get more than the minimum. The reason I would bet on that is Werter appeared on NG and shows of that ilk making statements to the effect that "Tommy is going to come out all right in all this" and "I do not think Tommy will have to serve much time [for the drug charge]."

Werter seemed so confident this would be the outcome for his client that I bet he had his client feeling confident, too. And I think that with that false sense of security, Tommy pleaded as charged.

Sounds like ineffective counsel to me! And that would be grounds for appeal...but of course Tommy would need another attorney to file such an appeal.

All JMO.

I am only describing the situation as I see it, so please don't read me wrong, WS'ers! I do not want Tommy to get out! I want them all locked away. They all lied, cheated, stole, intimidated and then whined when they finally got caught, after which they lied some more. And I fear that their drug sentences will be the only justice Haleigh ever gets...sadly.

 

[azwriter]

I guess with his sentence..to stay fixed....and any further appeals..NADA.....Tommy is going to have to like his new home....for a loooooooonng time....

I feel..... NEXT ..Tommy will want a NEW attorney....

IMO

Tommy needs a new attorney. jmo

 

[impatientredhead]

I think the appeal will be denied. Of course, I do not know on what grounds they filed, but usually appeals are granted to hear new evidence (no reason at this time to believe there is any), didn't get a fair trial (he didn't go to trial), or ineffective counsel (doubtful Werter would file for that reason).

If it is granted, the appeal process is a long one. I have been following the progress of Hope's appeal and it is moving along slowly.

As for Tommy wanting a new attorney, I think that would be his best bet. I am not sure how many here recall one of Tommy's last recorded phone conversations where Lindsy informed him that she had been told by Werter that Tommy would probably serve two years and two months. That was how they had calculated the time with a three-year sentence considering time served, etc.

When Tommy heard that, he jumped on it. He said he would plea and take his three years. It sounded to me like Lindsy had him convinced that's all he would serve, and it also sounded as if Lindsy had been convinced of that by Werter.

Now, it's true that there was the possibility of a harsher sentence--three years was Tommy's minimum, and when he entered his plea in court, the court advised him that he could get up to 30 years, so there was no reason for Tommy to believe he had a guarantee of a three-year sentence. However...I would bet that Werter told Tommy it would be OK, that he would not get more than the minimum. The reason I would bet on that is Werter appeared on NG and shows of that ilk making statements to the effect that "Tommy is going to come out all right in all this" and "I do not think Tommy will have to serve much time [for the drug charge]."

Werter seemed so confident this would be the outcome for his client that I bet he had his client feeling confident, too. And I think that with that false sense of security, Tommy pleaded as charged.

Sounds like ineffective counsel to me! And that would be grounds for appeal...but of course Tommy would need another attorney to file such an appeal.

All JMO.

I am only describing the situation as I see it, so please don't read me wrong, WS'ers! I do not want Tommy to get out! I want them all locked away. They all lied, cheated, stole, intimidated and then whined when they finally got caught, after which they lied some more. And I fear that their drug sentences will be the only justice Haleigh ever gets...sadly.

Werter telling Tommy he *thinks* a sentence will be handed down and advising him to plea no contest is not ineffective counsel. At the end of the day Tommy knew what the possible sentences were. His lawyer advised him, he didn't force him to do anything.

Tommy's options were to go to trial with an avalanche of evidence where he stood a much higher chance of being sentence to WAY more than the minimum mandatory. No one told Tommy there was a three year guarantee, they can't do that, even if the prosecutor wanted the three year and said they would not argue against the judge decides the sentence. They judge will generally accept the recommendation of the prosecutor in that type of situation, but they still can't promise their client it will go that way.

For Tommy to have ineffective counsel you would have to have a situation where Werter had access to evidence that proves his client is innocent and never presented it because he was too drunk to file the paperwork in time (an exagerration but you get the point).

Werter thinking the judge would go one route, giving his advise and being wrong is not ineffective counsel. Tommy is done.

I don't think Hope will have a shred more luck.

 

[krkrjx]

Werter telling Tommy he *thinks* a sentence will be handed down and advising him to plea no contest is not ineffective counsel. At the end of the day Tommy knew what the possible sentences were. His lawyer advised him, he didn't force him to do anything.

Tommy's options were to go to trial with an avalanche of evidence where he stood a much higher chance of being sentence to WAY more than the minimum mandatory. No one told Tommy there was a three year guarantee, they can't do that, even if the prosecutor wanted the three year and said they would not argue against the judge decides the sentence. They judge will generally accept the recommendation of the prosecutor in that type of situation, but they still can't promise their client it will go that way.

For Tommy to have ineffective counsel you would have to have a situation where Werter had access to evidence that proves his client is innocent and never presented it because he was too drunk to file the paperwork in time (an exagerration but you get the point).

Werter thinking the judge would go one route, giving his advise and being wrong is not ineffective counsel. Tommy is done.

I don't think Hope will have a shred more luck.

OK. Tommy has a great attorney.

He will have all appeals denied.

 

[dodie20]

Werter telling Tommy he *thinks* a sentence will be handed down and advising him to plea no contest is not ineffective counsel. At the end of the day Tommy knew what the possible sentences were. His lawyer advised him, he didn't force him to do anything.

Tommy's options were to go to trial with an avalanche of evidence where he stood a much higher chance of being sentence to WAY more than the minimum mandatory. No one told Tommy there was a three year guarantee, they can't do that, even if the prosecutor wanted the three year and said they would not argue against the judge decides the sentence. They judge will generally accept the recommendation of the prosecutor in that type of situation, but they still can't promise their client it will go that way.

For Tommy to have ineffective counsel you would have to have a situation where Werter had access to evidence that proves his client is innocent and never presented it because he was too drunk to file the paperwork in time (an exagerration but you get the point).

Werter thinking the judge would go one route, giving his advise and being wrong is not ineffective counsel. Tommy is done.

I don't think Hope will have a shred more luck.

actually, if Hope or Donna can legally get less time, I think they probably will, but they got their minimums, so I don't know if they legally can. Tommy didn't get his minimum, so Werter had something to work with. (or so he thought). & when it's all said & done, I don't think a different lawyer would make much of a difference with Tommy. Tommy has told the lies, not Werter. He's just repeating the crud that Tommy's spewing. I think Werter's biggest mistake is believing Tommy, & giving him credit for being forthcoming & decent. Live and learn.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

Not sure if this has been posted here or not, sorry if a repeat. I am floored that TN feels that Ron should not be in jail and question why Marie is even talking to her. Maybe to be civil and to try and get info out of TN is the only reason I can think of. But what in the world is TN thinking saying she doesn't feel Ron should be in jail? IMO, if should of been put away a long time ago, and maybe Haleigh may of still been here today..:cow:

Added thought: If Judge LaRue feels this way then why did he give Ron such low sentence? I know Ron was given a plea, but was it not up to the judge to sentence Ron? He could of given Ron the max? Something just doesn't sound right to me here.



Quote: LaRue reiterated his surprise that Hank Croslin Jr. and the others would engage in the sales since they were in the public eye.

"I had trouble believing that they could do that, and I still do," LaRue said.

The judge said he felt the 15-year sentence was fair.

"It was drug dealing," he said. "No doubt about it."



Here is the article, snip it now or it will get lost because this news paper link will ask for you to pay if you want to retrieve it in the future.

Hank Jr. Croslin denied reduction in drug sentence

By Larry Sullivan lsullivan@palatkadailynews.com
"snip" http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2010/10/05/news/news01.txt
Published: Tuesday, October 5, 2010 1:55 AM EDT
A key figure in the Haleigh Cummings case lost his bid Monday for a reduced sentence on oxycodone trafficking charges.

Hank "Tommy" Croslin Jr. had petitioned to cut the 15-year jail term he received in August, with his attorney suggesting three to five years was more consistent with similar cases in Putnam County.

"Fifteen years might be a bit of overkill," defense attorney James Werter told Circuit Judge Terry LaRue.

But LaRue wasn't moved.


"I gave considerable consideration to it," the judge said of the sentence.


Hank Croslin Jr., 24, was arrested on two counts of trafficking.
Misty Croslin, faces 7 counts in Putnam County and another St. Johns County, she is slated to be sentenced later this month.

Ronald Cummings, was sentenced to 15 years after authorities dropped three of the five charges against him.

Hope Sykes, received a 15-year prison term in April.

During Monday's hearing, LaRue reiterated his surprise that Hank Croslin Jr. and the others would engage in the sales since they were in the public eye.

"I had trouble believing that they could do that, and I still do," LaRue said.

The judge said he felt the 15-year sentence was fair.

"It was drug dealing," he said. "No doubt about it."

Werter blamed Hank Jr. Croslin's problems on his home environment - drug addiction. He said Croslin had tried to "break the cycle he grew up in."

Members of Croslin's family sat in the front row of the courtroom. Some sobbed during the hearing.

Behind them sat members of Haleigh Cummings' family, several wearing T-shirts or holding photos of the child.

Marie Griffis, Haleigh's maternal grandmother, hugged Ronald's mother outside the courtroom and after the hearing they stood talking in the shade outside the courthouse.

TN said she supported Croslin's sentence.

"They're not in here getting a reduced sentence and I don't think he should have either," she said.

When asked about her son Ronald, Neves said, "I don't even think he should have been in there but that's how it goes."

A prosecutor said in Aug, that Hank Croslin Jr. remained a suspect in the Haleigh Cummings case.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

From what Levi reported Tommy is getting a new attorney. Tommy has already filed an appeal and asked for a new public defender because Tommy feels that he had ineffective counsel. You can here Levi report this on his show 10/04/2010.

Levi Page Show 10/04/2010

"snip" Listen here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/levipage/2010/10/05/levi-page-show

 

[dodie20]

Not sure if this has been posted here or not, sorry if a repeat. I am floored that TN feels that Ron should not be in jail and question why Marie is even talking to her. Maybe to be civil and to try and get info out of TN is the only reason I can think of. But what in the world is TN thinking saying she doesn't feel Ron should be in jail? IMO, if should of been put away a long time ago, and maybe Haleigh may of still been here today..:cow:

Added thought: If Judge LaRue feels this way then why did he give Ron such low sentence? I know Ron was given a plea, but was it not up to the judge to sentence Ron? He could of given Ron the max? Something just doesn't sound right to me here.



Quote: LaRue reiterated his surprise that Hank Croslin Jr. and the others would engage in the sales since they were in the public eye.

"I had trouble believing that they could do that, and I still do," LaRue said.

The judge said he felt the 15-year sentence was fair.

"It was drug dealing," he said. "No doubt about it."



Here is the article, snip it now or it will get lost because this news paper link will ask for you to pay if you want to retrieve it in the future.

This judge is 2 faced. He should've called Ronald out for dealing, during the Haleigh investigation, just like he did Tommy, Is this guy Misty's judge? Because if he is, I'm sure he's gonna throw that on her too. If he's no't willing to be consistent, then he should've kept that opinion to himself. Globbing Ron in with 'the others', is too little too late. Him not fronting Ronald out, makes him lose credibility, IMO. Why is this judge so offended by a missing girl's dad's gf's brother, selling drugs, but not the missing girl's dad? & I'm not sure what TN was even talking about. court? jail? the drug dealing? If she was talking about court or jail, then she's more delusional than I thought. Ron was no less drug dealing, than the others...& more than some.