abe supercro
Well-Known Member
kinda lonely aren't you pablo? much of your time here is spent picking apart others.
Jail Gets a Bad Rap
- Thread starter Finshaggy
- Start date
Corso312
Well-Known Member
I'll bring some cards to the next bbq! If I make it lols. Love me some spades! And yes sir, fuck the county of Monterey.
Aeroknow
Well-Known Member
Fuck yeah, bring em! I'll be your partner and we'll set that ass!
My buddy had a pad right at lovers point. Some good times there. Lots of killer golf courses. My buddy runs one of the bars/pub there, lots of great times there too. but other than that, fuck that county is right! Especially the jail in Salinas
Last edited:
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Check Texas law, it wasn't Federal Court. And I won, it was dismissed and I have no Conviction, so you just have to deal with that, no matter what anything says, the whole case was dismissed. I have 0 Convictions for anything ever.
And again, the Lawyer was known for corrupt actions that involved having people she was assigned to for Free, she had waive their rights. She never actually fought for anyone she was assigned to, and she lost her job and stopped practicing law because of it. So the case could have gone on to a higher court on the basis of this:
Supreme Court opinion in Cuyler V Sullivan
" But it held that a criminal defendant is entitled to reversal of his conviction whenever he makes "`some showing of a possible conflict of interest or prejudice, however remote. . . .'" Id. at 519, quoting Walker v. United States, 422 F.2d 374, 375 (CA3) (per curiam), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 915 (1970). See also United States ex rel. Hart v. Davenport, 478 F.2d 203, 210 (CA3 1973). The court acknowledged that resting at the close of the prosecutor's case "would have been a legitimate tactical decision if made by independent counsel." [Footnote 3] Nevertheless, the court thought that action alone raised a possibility of conflict sufficient to prove a violation of Sullivan's Sixth Amendment rights. The court found support for its conclusion in Peruto's admission that concern for Sullivan's codefendants had affected his judgment that Sullivan should not present a defense. To give weight to DiBona's contrary testimony, the court held, "would be to . . . require a showing of actual prejudice." 593 F.2d at 522.
Last edited:
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
From the Supreme Court in Bounds V Smith
Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969). In fact, one of the consolidated cases here was initially dismissed by the same judge who later ruled for respondents, possibly because Younger v. Gilmore was not cited.
Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969). In fact, one of the consolidated cases here was initially dismissed by the same judge who later ruled for respondents, possibly because Younger v. Gilmore was not cited.
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
You didn't win dude.
That wasn't for federal court I posted.
You have told yourself you won so much you believe it.
You said so yourself you took a deferred adjudication. That is either a guilty or no contest plea.
If you won you would said dismissed not deferred.
Sorry dude. The charges may have been sealed but you still plead out to the charge.
It happened because they do that for stupid first time offences not because you won or convinced them to drop the charges.
Do you do probation? Yes or no?
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
I did.
Texas law.
Still a guilty plea under Texas law.Maybe stupid people will believe you. I have shown and you even stated deferred adjudication.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
"Is not considered a Conviction under the law"
It's in your own definition, and I have been saying it this whole time.
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
You are warped if you think that means you won because of your legal arguments.
It means the court didn't want to waste money on a trail and gave you a plea bargain. Someone else might not be so lucky.
When you took the plea, you pled guilty with conditions. If those conditions were met the charge was sealed. The court a da still have a record of it.
It is not a win.
You should be saying you pled out or got lucky.
No amount of talking is going to change the fact it is a plea agreement.
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
Ok, I looked it up. By the way, you give out too much personal info online, imo.
In any event, you're right. It was dismissed. But it was not dismissed because of your religious use defense. No Judge or Jury ever acquitted you based on that defense. Which is what you wrongfully claimed. And what others here have pointed out.
If you were found not guilty based on that defense, we could look up the case, and it would be citable as precedent in TX. It isn't.
What happened to your co-defendant Kyle?
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
A deferred adjudication is a program that allows for rehabilitation. When you took the plea you agreed that you had a problem needing rehabilitation.
It has nothing to do with your religious beliefs.
You agreed you had a problem that needed rehabilitation. You will not be able to claim religious reasons now. The case is sealed but any judge or cop can still see that info.
What part of that do you not understand? You didn't win. It wasn't because your religion. It was dropped because you completed the required conditions.
Last edited:
You watching telemundo?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
They didn't want to take the case. The only thing my Public Defender did that was notable was that he filed a Motion to Dismiss and attached to that motion was my 144 page Memorandum of Law, meant to be used later in a higher court with a Habeas Corpus, I was ready to be there for 6 months or longer to do this.
The Motion to Dismiss was rejected, but what that did is bring that 144 page Document in to the records of the case. So then when I didn't say guilty to anything the Prosecutor decided to withdraw from the case, and then it was dismissed.
His charges were dropped.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Great so now you understand the beginning of it. Now, look up what a Revocation and a Dismissal are.
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
Why does this not surprise me? Nosy Parker
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And if anyone wants to learn how to write Habeas Writs, here is where to start
28 U.S. Code § 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
(a)
The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
(b)
(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that—
(A)
the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or
(B)
(i)
there is an absence of available State corrective process; or
(ii)
circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.
(2)
An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.
(3)
A State shall not be deemed to have waived the exhaustion requirement or be estopped from reliance upon the requirement unless the State, through counsel, expressly waives the requirement.
(c)
An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
(1)
resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2)
resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
(e)
(1)
In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.
(2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that—
(A) the claim relies on—
(i)
a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
(ii)
a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and
(B)
the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
(f)
If the applicant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence adduced in such State court proceeding to support the State court’s determination of a factual issue made therein, the applicant, if able, shall produce that part of the record pertinent to a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to support such determination. If the applicant, because of indigency or other reason is unable to produce such part of the record, then the State shall produce such part of the record and the Federal court shall direct the State to do so by order directed to an appropriate State official. If the State cannot provide such pertinent part of the record, then the court shall determine under the existing facts and circumstances what weight shall be given to the State court’s factual determination.
(g)
A copy of the official records of the State court, duly certified by the clerk of such court to be a true and correct copy of a finding, judicial opinion, or other reliable written indicia showing such a factual determination by the State court shall be admissible in the Federal court proceeding.
28 U.S. Code § 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
(a)
The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
(b)
(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that—
(A)
the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or
(B)
(i)
there is an absence of available State corrective process; or
(ii)
circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.
(2)
An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.
(3)
A State shall not be deemed to have waived the exhaustion requirement or be estopped from reliance upon the requirement unless the State, through counsel, expressly waives the requirement.
(c)
An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
(1)
resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2)
resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
(e)
(1)
In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.
(2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that—
(A) the claim relies on—
(i)
a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
(ii)
a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and
(B)
the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
(f)
If the applicant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence adduced in such State court proceeding to support the State court’s determination of a factual issue made therein, the applicant, if able, shall produce that part of the record pertinent to a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to support such determination. If the applicant, because of indigency or other reason is unable to produce such part of the record, then the State shall produce such part of the record and the Federal court shall direct the State to do so by order directed to an appropriate State official. If the State cannot provide such pertinent part of the record, then the court shall determine under the existing facts and circumstances what weight shall be given to the State court’s factual determination.
(g)
A copy of the official records of the State court, duly certified by the clerk of such court to be a true and correct copy of a finding, judicial opinion, or other reliable written indicia showing such a factual determination by the State court shall be admissible in the Federal court proceeding.
