posted on April 7, 2004 09:55:44 AM new
I hope she appeals and wins. If not, pregnant women are defacto property of the government, and all of us shouldn't be shocked when you can't refuse medical treatment when the state says you can't.
SALT LAKE CITY April 7 — The woman accused of murdering one of her twins by failing to undergo a timely Caesarean section pleaded guilty Wednesday to two counts of child endangerment.
Melissa Ann Rowland had been charged with murder for failing to follow doctors' advice to undergo the procedure, which they said was necessary to save the life of her twins. Under a plea bargain, the murder charge was dropped.
Prosecutors charged Rowland, 28, in March with one felony count of murder for exhibiting "depraved indifference to human life" by ignoring repeated doctors' warnings to have a C-section to save the lives of her babies.
She eventually gave birth by C-section to twins, one of whom was stillborn. The surviving baby, who was adopted, was found with cocaine and alcohol in her system.
Sentencing was set for April 29. She could receive zero to five years in prison on each count and up to a $5,000 fine.
posted on April 7, 2004 10:36:57 AM new
because SHE is the one who accepted the agreement... if she appeals then the murder charge could also be placed back on the table...
I'm thinking that Utah is one state where she could be found guilty of murder... then she can begin the appeal process...
posted on April 7, 2004 10:55:55 AM new
Reamond - are you not the one that potrayed himself in an EO thread as a legal expert and now you are asking why she cannot appeal her own guilty plea?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 7, 2004 10:58:34 AM new
She can appeal if she alleges that the plea she agreed to was coerced.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
posted on April 7, 2004 11:11:39 AM new
Everything I have read indicates there is not a recourse for appeal... however if she did, then the state would be within their rights to reinstate the murder charges.
posted on April 7, 2004 11:22:53 AM new
There are any number of appeals that she can bring.
She can claim constitutional violations of privacy and equal protections, and many other issues.
Do you folks really believe that if you plead guilty you can not appeal the conviction ? A guilty plea just means you agree with the pertinent facts and agree you are guilty as those facts are applied to the law. It does not mean the law was applied correctly or the law is constitutional. I know of no criminal plea bargain that can include a "no appeal" clause, and even if there were it would easily be overturned.
Many times defendants will plead guilty just to speed the appeals process.
There is a case in Ohio where a defendant with a history of child abuse convictions was arrested and charged with keeping a journal of his fictional writings about abusing children. He pled guilty and was sentenced.
posted on April 7, 2004 11:32:45 AM new
Show us 12 where it states anywhere that a defendant can not appeal a conviction when he/she pleads guilty.
It is done all the time, and not just on the basis of withdrawing the plea.
You don't understand or grasp the elements of criminal law. It is more that just evidence and statute, and conviction/plea.
The law itself must be constitutional, the application of the law must be constitutional, and pleading guilty has no effect on the defendants right to appeal these elements.
posted on April 7, 2004 11:38:35 AM new
Here is a thought experiment for those of you who have enough grey matter to do it. I'll try to make it simple.
Suppose there is a law in the state of Twelvestupidia that does not allow Asian citizens to vote. Joe is an Asian and he votes and is arrested. Joe pleads guilty and is sentenced to 30 days and a $500 fine. H epays the fine and is serving the 30 days.
Now you folks assert that Joe can not appleal his conviction. He can.
posted on April 7, 2004 11:44:33 AM newOnce the sentencing phase is over, any appeal can make the plea agreement null and void and guess what she gets to go to court for murder...
Well it might except for something called double jeopardy.
There is no release of the right to appeal criminal convictions just because you plead guilty.
Pleading guilty is no different than a judge or jury convicting you. In fact an appeals court gives higher scruntiny to cases where a plea was entered because the case lacked the heightened scruntiny of a trial.
Here is another example. There have been several cases of wrongful conviction and the defendant plead guilty, but DNA evidence got them freed on appeal.
Do you people really think that if you plead guilty you have forfeited your constitutional rights ?
posted on April 7, 2004 12:07:51 PM new
Double jeopardy attaches as soon as she was in jeopardy - which means as soon as she was available for conviction.
You can not be tried for the same thing twice. If you are convicted on a lesser included offense, as she was, they can't come back later and charge a higher offense for the same activity.
SHE made the agreement... it becomes VOID if there is an appeal...
The conviction becomes void, not the plea deal, although the plea deal in moot.
posted on April 7, 2004 12:15:17 PM new
LOL reamond you should go into comedy... or at the very least look up some law...
Also, a defendant who pleads guilty and gives up their right to trial also gives up their automatic right to appeal. They may only appeal if the Court of Appeals gives them permission to appeal. In exchange for a defendant giving up all of his or her constitutional rights the people obtain a conviction and there is no trial.
This from a LEGAL site on the web...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
[ edited by Twelvepole on Apr 7, 2004 12:26 PM ]
posted on April 7, 2004 12:43:34 PM new
LOL how about reading them instead of looking for the pictures... oh and reamond whitehouse.com is not the white house...
posted on April 7, 2004 12:43:49 PM newAlso, a defendant who pleads guilty and gives up their right to trial also gives up their automatic right to appeal.
Who said anything about an automatic appeal ? Do you know what type of cases that have "automatic" appeals ? I'll give you a clue-- an automatic appeal would not apply to her case. And there is no constitutional right to an automatic appeal.
They may only appeal if the Court of Appeals gives them permission to appeal.
Which they will if the law was applied unconstitutionally, or is unconstitutional. Granting an appeal applies to all cases, but even if the appeal was denied they may yet go to a higher court.
In exchange for a defendant giving up all of his or her constitutional rights the people obtain a conviction and there is no trial.
And the only rights they are talking about are the rights within the trial level. It does not apply to other rights, including appeal.
But anyway, I think you lifted your quotes out of context. Please cite US Supreme Court Cases.
posted on April 7, 2004 12:47:57 PM new
How in the world did the defendant below appeal all the way to thew Supreme Court when he pled guilty to 2nd degree murder ???
ERNEST C. ROE, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. LUCIO FLORES-ORTEGA
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[February 23, 2000]
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we must decide the proper framework for evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, based on counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal without respondent’s consent.
I
The State of California charged respondent, Lucio
Flores-Ortega, with one count of murder, two counts of assault, and a personal use of a deadly weapon enhancement allegation. In October 1993, respondent appeared in Superior Court with his court-appointed public defender, Nancy Kops, and a Spanish language interpreter, and pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. The plea was entered pursuant to a California rule permitting a defendant both to deny committing a crime and to admit that there is sufficient evidence to convict him. See People v. West, 3 Cal. 3d 595, 477 P.2d 409 (1970). In exchange for the guilty plea, the state prosecutor moved to strike the allegation of personal use of a deadly weapon and to dismiss both assault charges. On November 10, 1993, respondent was sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison. After pronouncing sentence, the trial judge informed respondent, “You may file an appeal within 60 days from today’s date with this Court. If you do not have money for Counsel, Counsel will be appointed for you to represent you on your appeal.” App. 40.
JOSEPH LIBRETTI, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit
[November 7, 1995]
Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court [n.*]
Petitioner Joseph Libretti pleaded guilty to engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation of 84 Stat. 1265, 21 U.S.C. § 848 (1988 ed. and Supp. V), and agreed to forfeit numerous items of his property to the Government. We must decide whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) requires the District Court to determine whether a factual basis exists for a stipulated asset forfeiture embodied in a plea agreement, and whether the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(e) right to a special jury verdict on forfeiture can only be waived following specific advice from the District Court as to the existence and scope of this right and an express, written waiver.
KENNETH EUGENE BOUSLEY, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[May 18, 1998]
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to “using” a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) in 1990. Five years later we held in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 144 (1995), that §924(c)(1)’s “use” prong requires the Government to show “active employment of the firearm.” Petitioner meanwhile had sought collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming that his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent because he was misinformed by the District Court as to the nature of the charged crime. We hold that, although this claim was procedurally defaulted, petitioner may be entitled to a hearing on the merits of it if he makes the necessary showing to relieve the default.
posted on April 7, 2004 12:52:10 PM new
12 you need to get to Washington DC right away and tell the US Supreme Court to stop hearing appeals of case where the defendant pled guilty.
posted on April 7, 2004 12:54:09 PM new
Krafty - I don't tell you who to debate
Why is everyone so eager to find a way for this woman not to take responsibility for her actions. This has nothing to do with the murder charge now which was dropped but with the actual charge she pled guilty to which she would have been charged with even if both babies had been born alive and with just cause. Both infants came from her womb with cocaine & alcohol in their system which is child endangerment.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 7, 2004 12:54:59 PM new
OH MY GOSH !!!! THE US SUPREME COURT HEARD THIS CASE AND THE DEFENDANT EVEN BARGAINED AWAY HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL ??? HOW COULD THAT BE ????
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ANGELA RUIZ
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 24, 2002]
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we primarily consider whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require federal prosecutors, before entering into a binding plea agreement with a criminal defendant, to disclose “impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 46a. We hold that the Constitution does not require that disclosure.
I
After immigration agents found 30 kilograms of marijuana in Angela Ruiz’s luggage, federal prosecutors offered her what is known in the Southern District of California as a “fast track” plea bargain. That bargain–standard in that district–asks a defendant to waive indictment, trial, and an appeal. In return, the Government agrees to recommend to the sentencing judge a two-level departure downward from the otherwise applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines sentence. In Ruiz’s case, a two- level departure downward would have shortened the ordinary Guidelines-specified 18-to-24-month sentencing range by 6 months, to 12-to-18 months. 241 F.3d 1157,
posted on April 7, 2004 12:57:41 PM new
OH JEEZE, HERE IS ONE FROM 60 YEARS AGO-- YOU MEAN THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THIS ALL ALONG !!!!
JACKSON, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant Pollock questions the validity of a statute of the State of Florida making it a misdemeanor to induce advances with intent to defraud by a promise to perform labor and further making failure to perform labor for which money has been obtained prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. [n1] It conflicts, he says, with the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and with the anti-peonage statute enacted by Congress thereunder. Claims also are made under the due process and equal [p*6] protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment which we find it unnecessary to consider.
Pollock was arrested January 5, 1943, on a warrant issued three days before which charged that, on the 17th of October, 1942, he did
with intent to injure and defraud under and by reason of a contract and promise to perform labor and service, procure and obtain money, to-wit: the sum of $5.00, as advances from one J. V. O'Albora, a corporation, contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.
He was taken before the county judge on the same day, entered a plea of guilty, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and in default to serve sixty days in the county jail. He was immediately committed.
On January 11, 1943, a writ of habeas corpus was issued by the judge of the circuit court, directed to the jail keeper, who is appellee here. Petition for the writ challenged the constitutionality of the statutes under which Pollock was confined and set forth that,
posted on April 7, 2004 01:05:42 PM new
Well having been proven WRONG again, I guess we can change the subject.
There are several reasons why she should not be prosecuted.
First and formost, it is the essence of privacy and autonomy to refuse medical treatment. Some want to pit the unborn fetus' interests against the mother's privacy interests, but even so, the mother should win. The rights of the unborn should not eclipse the bodily integrity rights of the mother. But I cloud the issue with the term "rights". It is better put that he mother should not be controlled by the government. Remember, if the government can do this, it can also force a mother to have an abortion.
Second, and quite a distance second, she has been battling mental illness since a young teen. It is not at all clear that she could understand and appreciate the risks.
I think the guilty plea was done to speed up the appeals process.
