365 day lid deal but then sentenced to prison

[ScottMcC]

Jurisdiction

California

Hello,

A deal was taken to sentence the offender to probation with a 365 day lid for a felony/misdemeanor wobblier. The offender was on released onto probation for five years. Two years later, the offender violated the terms of probation by consuming alcohol. A different judge then sentenced the offender for violating his probation, and then that judge sentenced the offender to prison for six years, terminating the probation.

How is this legal for a second judge to over rule the primary judgement of the case?

 

[army judge]

How is this legal for a second judge to over rule the primary judgement of the case?

I'm sure you KNOW why it is legal, but I'll explain.

The sentencing judge wasn't overruled.

The miscreant violated his/her probation by doing things he/she had agreed NOT to do.

It matters NOT what the offender was alleged to have done, because he/she had a hearing regarding the revocation attempt by the state.

The matter was adjudicated using the lower standard of proof than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal trials.

Because of the lower standard, the prosecution only had to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" (50.01%) that the defendant violated a condition (as in ONE, not two, three, or more, just ONE condition and only ONE time) of probation.

A licensed CA attorney offers a more extensive explanation:

https://www.bamieherickson.com/california-crime-probation-violation/

 

[ScottMcC]

I'm sure you KNOW why it is legal, but I'll explain.

The sentencing judge wasn't overruled.

The miscreant violated his/her probation by doing things he/she had agreed NOT to do.

It matters NOT what the offender was alleged to have done, because he/she had a hearing regarding the revocation attempt by the state.

The matter was adjudicated using the lower standard of proof than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal trials.

Because of the lower standard, the prosecution only had to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" (50.01%) that the defendant violated a condition (as in ONE, not two, three, or more, just ONE condition and only ONE time) of probation.

A licensed CA attorney offers a more extensive explanation:

https://www.bamieherickson.com/california-crime-probation-violation/

Is this not double jeopardy, being sentenced twice for the same charge?

 

[army judge]

Is this not double jeopardy, being sentenced twice for the same charge?

No.

A revocation hearing is a not a trial de novo.

If you're the offender, read your probation documents.

If you're not the offender, read your pal's probation documents.

 

[leslie82]

Is this not double jeopardy, being sentenced twice for the same charge?

That's not what double jeopardy is.