Other Criminal Charges & Offenses Sentence Rules for Lesser Included Offenses?

[sisyphus]

Would this arguably be unfair or unjust? A witness claims you used a gun to rob a bank, a different witness claims you didn't. No gun was found.

A state has a law that prescribes a sentence of 1year to life for the crime of Armed Robbery,

The same state has a prescribed sentence of 1 year to life for petty theft,

Could that state charge you with petty theft(and give you life)if the facts of the case weren't sufficient to support a conviction for armed robbery, assuming petty theft is considered "lesser included"?

 

[cbg]

I get the feeling that we're doing your homework here.

 

[army judge]

Would this arguably be unfair or unjust? A witness claims you used a gun to rob a bank, a different witness claims you didn't. No gun was found.

A state has a law that prescribes a sentence of 1year to life for the crime of Armed Robbery,

The same state has a prescribed sentence of 1 year to life for petty theft,

Could that state charge you with petty theft(and give you life)if the facts of the case weren't sufficient to support a conviction for armed robbery, assuming petty theft is considered "lesser included"?

In law school, these are called "hypos".
I loved them then, especially in crim law, and I love them today.
My kids hated me as they were growing up, because I'd punish them by making them sit with me for an hour or two doing hypos. LOL
It was a fun time, OP.

Actually your hypose aren't that hard.
I'm surprised you can't just throw together a couple of sentences and scribble an answer.
My wife just answered the one above, OP.

I've paraphrased her answer:

Could that state charge you with petty theft(and give you life)if the facts of the case weren't sufficient to support a conviction for armed robbery, assuming petty theft is considered "lesser included"?

If they charged you AFTER you'd been acquitted of "armed robbery", yes because double jeopardy won't attach.
In this case, petty theft isn't a lesser or included offense of armed robbery.
But, one year to life is very draconian for petty theft, and any conviction flowing from such a charge would likely be overturned as cruel and unusual.

 

[Betty3]

I get the feeling that we're doing your homework here.

It's very possible OP's other thread was homework also.

 

[sisyphus]

Thanks for the feedback, I guess I am also wondering if petty theft would in fact be considered a "lesser included" offense if it carries the same sentence? To me lesser means less significant and would warrant less of a sentence.

 

[army judge]

Thanks for the feedback, I guess I am also wondering if petty theft would in fact be considered a "lesser included" offense if it carries the same sentence? To me lesser means less significant and would warrant less of a sentence.

A lesser and included offense is determined statutorily.
For example, theft is inherent in any crime that involved stealing.
But, any theft must also illustrate an intent to not only take the property of another, but an intent to deprive the victim of the property taken permanently.

You take a car belonging to Bill. You drive the car across town and abandon it. Bill reports it stolen, you might even get charged with grand theft auto. But, your actions never demonstrated an intent to permanently deprive Bill of the car. You used it, then abandoned it.

At trial (or during plea discussions), you argue that you USED, then abandoned, and showed no intent to permanently deprive Bill of the car. Hence, you're likely to be charged with "joyriding", because without the intent to permanently deprive, there is no theft.

Read the definition of "lesser and included":


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lesser+Included+Offense

 

[sisyphus]

Army Judge, thanks for your reply,

I understand the premise behind how they are they are "included" what I don't understand is how they can have crimes that are significantly different in severity but still carry the same sentence guidelines.

It doesn't seem just or fair to me that a defendant can be tried on relatively benign charges(petty theft) when the crime being alleged(armed robbery) is much more severe in nature.

To me, it allows a prosecutor or judge to dole out a sentence that is more suitable for the greater offense, when the lesser is the one they tried him on.

 

[Proserpina]

If the State wants Person X to be behind bars no matter what but are not sure they'll get the conviction, they can use a lesser charge just to make sure the defendant isn't going anywhere fast.

It's different but also similar (ahem) than when the jury is given several options to convict ... murder, manslaughter, etc.

 

[army judge]

Army Judge, thanks for your reply,

I understand the premise behind how they are they are "included" what I don't understand is how they can have crimes that are significantly different in severity but still carry the same sentence guidelines.

It doesn't seem just or fair to me that a defendant can be tried on relatively benign charges(petty theft) when the crime being alleged(armed robbery) is much more severe in nature.

To me, it allows a prosecutor or judge to dole out a sentence that is more suitable for the greater offense, when the lesser is the one they tried him on.

I get it, now, Sisyphus.
You're applying logic, reason, and scientific analysis to an illogical, unreasonable, and unscientific subject, the law.
Law is a social science, often created to protect those with money, influence, and power.
When kings ascended to the the throne by birthright, the king ruled that he couldn't be sued.
As the fiction of freedom developed, and kings ascended to power by elections, laws softened somewhat, but those who make laws for us peasants; often exempted themselves from obeying those laws.
We need only look at the recent hubbub about health care to see where Congress exempted themselves from the law's impact.

I'm sure you've seen where those convicted of crack cocaine abuse or sales, were sentenced more severely than those convicted of powder cocaine abuse or sales. The former tending to be those of color, the latter being more represented as those not of color. That discrepancy was argued for years, until Obama and Congress finally adjusted the federal sentencing guidelines to make the more congruent.

We can look at a certain crime being a misdemeanor in one state, a felony in a neighboring state, and legal in another.

I think you're mixing apples with potatoes when you say petty theft is a lesser or included of armed robbery. A weapon used in the commission of a theft raises that crime from robbery or larceny to armed robbery. Simply put, petty larceny isn't a lesser or included of armed robbery. I get your point, but you need to keep the crime chain in the lane.

Robbery for example, using a gun, (or making the victim THINK you have a gun) makes it armed robbery, even though the perp had no weapon.

This is a good discussion of aggravated (armed) robbery in Texas.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-robbery-laws.html

You can compare and contrast NY state's interpretation of armed robbery.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/robbery-penalties-and-sentencing.html

 

[cbg]

I still think this is homework

 

[army judge]

I still think this is homework

I think it could be, it might also be a person going pro se in a criminal trial, or trying to help their loved one defend his case.

 

[cbg]

Given that they have another thread going on a totally different, but also quite serious topic, we are faced with a few options;

1.) It's homework
2.) This poster seriously needs to clean up his act
3.) This poster's family members and/friends need to get a lawyer on retainer instead of relying on poster to dig up information on a message board

I'm going with Door Number One.

 

[Betty3]

Based on this thread & OP's other thread, I lean toward door #1 also but that is just my guess/opinion.

 

[army judge]

Well, mama always said if it had oily feathers, waddled, and quacked; it had to be a duck. Until it quacked, she'd laugh, I couldn't sure, but the quack always gives them away, along with their webbed feet and flat bills.

 

[sisyphus]

Well, mama always said if it had oily feathers, waddled, and quacked; it had to be a duck. Until it quacked, she'd laugh, I couldn't sure, but the quack always gives them away, along with their webbed feet and flat bills.

Quack! lol

 

[sisyphus]

Well, mama always said if it had oily feathers, waddled, and quacked; it had to be a duck. Until it quacked, she'd laugh, I couldn't sure, but the quack always gives them away, along with their webbed feet and flat bills.

Is there any way to PM you Army Judge?