Supremes Reverse Coa On King & Kolonek

[Dr. Bob]

Well .. they need a 2/3 vote to over ride a veto. They already have a 3/4 vote. Way more than needed.

 

Good point. BUT with the SC decision, I wonder if the vote would be as compelling. Prob but still like the idea of a potential veto.

 

Dr. Bob

[+Malamute]

Haha, that isn't true Mal. The proposed bills aren't an initiative. They can be vetoed. If I'm wrong I'll eat my shoe.

 

Imagine this scenario. The people pass an initiative. A democratically controlled house and senate want to pass issue x into law. They know that a repub. governor won't sign issue x into law. They further know they don't have the votes to override a veto. So, they underhandedly pass issue x as an amendment to an unrelated initiative in order to pass a law not subject to veto. See the problem?

 

Like i said, it is a weird theoretical issue because of the way the constitution and law are written. The governor will sign these bills, the theory is, does he need to for a few various reasons. But int he end, it won't matter either way because it takes 3/4 to alter any intiative which easily overrides any veto attempt that needs only 2/3rds. So they would pass something needing 3/4's then only need 2/3rds to override the veto. It's just kinda a silly little paradigm.

 

So your example is actually a bad example because the aforementioned reason. Attaching anything to an initiative amendment requires a 3/4ths vote. But i know what you are saying. There are just a few weird issues that revolve around the initiative process.

[thatoneartist]

WOW! am so sorry i was wondering what happen to you i would call your Lawyer right away i hope he can help you more now to get them to reviser your plea

 

I'm in the process of talking to lawyers, and I think since I plead guilty, and not a "conditional" plead, I won't be able to appeal or anything

[purklize]

YAYAYAYAYAYAYAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[purklize]

And this ruling allows sales to occur under the AD.

 

How?

[bobandtorey]

I'm in the process of talking to lawyers, and I think since I plead guilty, and not a "conditional" plead, I won't be able to appeal or anything

the court tried to get us to take a conditional plea also and i do know something about it it's not a right to appeal it's up to a judge to say you can appeal and most of them won't let you

i think you have said you have already did you time but if you have years of probation it may be worth trying to get that part over sooner good luck

and i do understand how you feel

[Honeyoil]

Bob, I don't think that is right. The judge does not have the right to deny appeal. There is a time limit on how long you have to file your appeal. If you do not file within the limit, then you cannot file.

[bobandtorey]

Most criminal cases are resolved through a plea bargain. In the typical plea deal - the one you see most often on TV or in the news - the defendant (the person accused) pleads guilty to the crime. In exchange for the guilty plea, the prosecution gives the defendant something favorable, like charging him with a less serious offense or a promise to help him get a lighter sentence than he'd get after being convicted by a jury.

After a typical guilty plea is entered, the defendant is automatically convicted of the crime, sentencing follows and the case is over. Usually an appeal won't be allowed, unless there was some mistake in the plea entry process. By pleading guilty, the defendant waives his right to appeal practically all of the legal issues in his case, like whether the prosecution had enough evidence against him.

Sometimes, however, a less common plea, the conditional plea, is used. This plea differs because the defendant reserves or keeps the right to appeal specific legal issues before his plea may be enforced.

How It Works

The mechanics of how a conditional plea works are set out in the court's rules. The process and requirements may differ depending on whether you're instate or federal court. In general most states follow the federal rule, which requires the defendant to:

• Get the consent of the court and the government to enter a conditional plea. This means the defendant has to get express permission from the court and the prosecution to enter a conditional plea. They can say no. In other words, you don't have a right to enter a conditional plea
  
• Reserve in writing any "issue" or legal question that she wants to have settled or reserved by a court on appeal, that is, what she wants a court (other than the court where she's entering the plea) to decide
  

If the appeals court agrees with the defendant, she's allowed to withdraw or "cancel" her guilty plea (or plea of "no contest" or nolo contendere), and she may then go to trial. If the defendant loses on the appeal, then her guilty plea will be enforced and she'll be convicted and sentenced.

In Writing

As the rule states, a conditional plea should be in writing and it should contain the exact issue or issues the defendant wants the appellate court decide. In fact, many courts have a fill-in-the-blank form that you can use. Nevertheless, there are circumstances where the lack of written plea may be excused, such as where:

• The government never challenged or disputed the defendant's characterization of his plea as conditional or his right to appeal a specific issue
  
• Something in the record - like a court's plea hearing transcript or letters between defense counsel and the prosecution - clearly show that prosecution agreed to a conditional plea and/or the judge accepted the plea
  
• The appellate court agrees that its decision on the issue raised by the defendant will settle the case
  

If you sign a written plea agreement or otherwise agree to one that's unconditional - a "regular" plea deal in which you simply plead guilty - and never expressly request to enter a conditional guilty plea or to reserve any appeal rights, and the court and the prosecution never consented to your entry of conditional plea, then it's very unlikely that you'll be allowed to make one. It's best that you or your attorney make sure that the plea is in writing and specifies the issue you want to appeal.

Issues on Appeal

The issue or legal matter you want the appellate court to look at needs to be important to the case. It should be something that could make or break the case against you. Some good examples include:

• The trial court denied your pre-trial motion to bar the prosecution from using evidence that you believe that the police obtained in an illegal search and seizure (called a "motion to suppress"), and because the prosecution would have been allowed to use that evidence you entered a conditional guilty plea
  
• You believe that the statute of limitations on the crime you're accused of has expired and so the prosecution can't bring you to trial
  
• You think the delay between your arrest and the trial was too long, violating your Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights, so you can't be tried
  

[bobandtorey]

Bob, I don't think that is right. The judge does not have the right to deny appeal. There is a time limit on how long you have to file your appeal. If you do not file within the limit, then you cannot file.

 

i guess i was thinking if you take the plea it's up to the judge

[CaveatLector]

Bob, I don't think that is right. The judge does not have the right to deny appeal. There is a time limit on how long you have to file your appeal. If you do not file within the limit, then you cannot file.

 

Bob is correct.

 

There are 2 ways an appeal can be heard by the COA.

 

1. Appeal as of right

2. Application for leave to appeal

 

An appeal as of right is allowed in criminal convictions to review for reversible error and this appeal must be filed within 42 days from sentencing.

 

An application for leave to appeal is basically the defendant applying for permission to appeal. At that point it is up to the COA as to whether they will take the case. Generally to appeal a guilty plea one must file an application for leave to appeal. The COA has full discretion as to whether they will hear the issues. It is exceedingly difficult to appeal a guilty plea.

 

If it were me I would file a motion to withdraw my guilty plea. A guilty plea must be knowing and voluntary. If someone entered a guilty plea because they were not allowed to use the affirmative defense in a case where it should have been allowed then they would probably stand a decent chance of prevaiing on such a motion. I they prevailed, however, they must be prepared to start back at square one with the case.

[purklize]

Shouldn't this mean the end of prosecutions for expired cards?

[+Annnie]

Shouldn't this mean the end of prosecutions for expired cards?

 

Yes.. of course you would still have to prove the three points of the Aff defense in a court.

[Celliach]

Shouldn't this mean the end of prosecutions for expired cards?

 

The courts could still rule that you needed an updated doctor's recommendation as LARA only recognizes them for three months.

[purklize]

All this based on a statement that I made that folks in unquestioned (that means by leo too) compliance don't have problems. If you are doing something both you and leo agree is legal, there is no issue. Folks that do things that are not agreed upon have issues. For those that feel they were in full compliance and arrested, look at the charge sheet. There is a charge there and that is what the violation you are suspected of committing is listed.

 

You can't drown unless your lungs are full of water, so don't worry about hopping on a cruise staffed with assassins looking to throw you overboard in the dark of night.

 

A can't be B unless A is B, therefore A is B only when A is B. No insight here.

 

LEO falsify evidence. They lie in court. They stretch the truth. Of course everyone in court will not be in unambiguous compliance; they would not be able to be hauled before a judge if this weren't otherwise. But the question is whether the "ambiguity" is falsified or engineered into existence.

Edited June 12, 2012 by purklize

[Dr. Bob]

The courts could still rule that you needed an updated doctor's recommendation as LARA only recognizes them for three months.

 

This is not correct Cel, you are confusing how long the doctor's signature is good for when applying for a card with what is considered the patients 'current' medical condition. This is also the basis of the confusing posts about having to see the doctor for a full price visit 4 times a year under the 'new bills'. Nothing is further from the truth. A single update (which we offer free of charge) easily covers the 'on going relationship' concept. In my practice, I have folks fill out a follow up when they get their hard card to let me document how they are doing, plus I am avaialbe by phone, skype, and in person for free follow ups.

 

Right now we have to recertify on an annual basis. The presumption is that the patient's condition needs to be re-evaluted on an annual basis to qualify for certification. So long as the patient has been approved within a year, they are considered 'current'. If the law changes to every two years, that will be the time frame for the evaluation to be considered current. This also clears up the question raised by several posters of 'I got certified in 2009 so now I am good for life under the plain language of the act'. No you are not, you must have a certification of what your 'current' condition is, and right now that is on an annual basis.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

You can't drown unless your lungs are full of water, so don't worry about hopping on a cruise staffed with assassins looking to throw you overboard in the dark of night.

 

A can't be B unless A is B, therefore A is B only when A is B. No insight here.

 

LEO falsify evidence. They lie in court. They stretch the truth. Of course everyone in court will not be in unambiguous compliance; they would not be able to be hauled before a judge if this weren't otherwise. But the question is whether the "ambiguity" is falsified or engineered into existence.

 

You have a point, they do falsify and misread evidence. But the point remains, I do not know one grandmother with glaucoma that was sitting in her closed basement smoking a joint (which she obtained from her registry associated caregiver) with her card taped to her forehead that has every been raided. My one and only suggestion is that you minimize the risk by keeping things quiet and not doing anything that both sides do not agree is fully legal.

 

Dr. Bob

[purklize]

There have probably been many who were sitting in their basement doing everything by the book who were raided and then, to save themselves the embarrassment, the police planted evidence or lied, making your example grandmother one of the many "violators." Also, most people, especially those who were already secretive to begin with, will not bring attention to their case on this forum or in the media. They'll just quietly plea out and do their time in silence. Sad...

Edited June 12, 2012 by purklize

[Dr. Bob]

There have probably been many who were sitting in their basement doing everything by the book who were raided and then, to save themselves the embarrassment, the police planted evidence or lied, making your example grandmother one of the many "violators." Also, most people, especially those who were already secretive to begin with, will not bring attention to their case on this forum or in the media. They'll just quietly plea out and do their time in silence. Sad...

 

Well I made my point, no harm in letting you make yours. Both probably have an element of truth in them. I am sure you would agree.

 

Dr. Bob

[purklize]

As you said, most who abide by the strictest interpretation of the law will probably be okay. But I have dealt with the police enough to know that following the law often isn't enough to keep you out of jail.

[Dr. Bob]

My point was to stack the deck in your favor with strict compliance. No guarentee of safety by doing that, but pushing the limits of the law, talking about or showing off your grow, doing things that are controversial in their legality, all work toward making you UNSAFE. Perhaps a better way to phrase it might be to say the deck is somewhat stacked against us to start, so we have to be more careful with what we do and say to keep well within the limits of the law if we expect to have any margin of safety at all.

 

Dr. Bob

[purklize]

Absolutely, that I can agree with entirely. I only take issue with the notion that they aren't prosecuting law abiding patients.

[Dr. Bob]

let's revise that to your chances of prosecution are the lowest if you fully comply with the act and all agree with what you are doing.

 

Dr. Bob

[Celliach]

Semantics is everything!

[+mayorherb]

There have probably been many who were sitting in their basement doing everything by the book who were raided and then, to save themselves the embarrassment, the police planted evidence or lied, making your example grandmother one of the many "violators." Also, most people, especially those who were already secretive to begin with, will not bring attention to their case on this forum or in the media. They'll just quietly plea out and do their time in silence. Sad...

What about the Argo,s? they was BOTH arrested..Mr. Argo died of a heart attack..His wife is on probation..Just one EXAMPLE of Grandma,s/Grandpa,s being arrested..Or ANN and RODNEY who was following the law..They was all following the law..all was arrested and all but one so far has been charged..Only cause the judge wouldnt accept her guilty plea..People are getting arrested everyday ..Which are following the law.So as i see it..We seen 10 people plea guilty to Possesion..9 all was patients with a small amount..The Prosecutor/there attornies told them they had NO choice but to plea..OR they would be doing alot of time behind bars.....Which one day for a sick person is one day to many..one of the people who plead guilty..is allowed to use cannabis on PROBATION>>Cause he is a marijuana patient..He He can continue to use cannabis ,can even continue to grow..All while on probation..I get tired of people saying..You was arrested cause you broke the law..SO NOT TRUE>>all the people i have met and or known , who was arrested..WAS following the law... All of them was rail roaded in to a plea..Once they have a bunch of PLEA bargains of our younger PATIENTS>>They use this info agasint us...How? heres How..once they have so many patients plea to Possesion charge..THEY then say LOOK AT all the people using cannabis with out a card( so not true..Most have had a card)This is causeing issuses..Since it has been a law..They are forcing all to plea..and using info against our cause..As i see it..Plea NOT GUILTY>>let a jury decide.. Any Marijuana case..Screw them..We tried..

[Dr. Bob]

What about the Argo,s? they was BOTH arrested..Mr. Argo died of a heart attack..His wife is on probation..Just one EXAMPLE of Grandma,s/Grandpa,s being arrested..Or ANN and RODNEY who was following the law..They was all following the law..all was arrested and all but one so far has been charged..Only cause the judge wouldnt accept her guilty plea..People are getting arrested everyday ..Which are following the law.So as i see it..We seen 10 people plea guilty to Possesion..9 all was patients with a small amount..The Prosecutor/there attornies told them they had NO choice but to plea..OR they would be doing alot of time behind bars.....Which one day for a sick person is one day to many..one of the people who plead guilty..is allowed to use cannabis on PROBATION>>Cause he is a marijuana patient..He He can continue to use cannabis ,can even continue to grow..All while on probation..I get tired of people saying..You was arrested cause you broke the law..SO NOT TRUE>>all the people i have met and or known , who was arrested..WAS following the law... All of them was rail roaded in to a plea..Once they have a bunch of PLEA bargains of our younger PATIENTS>>They use this info agasint us...How? heres How..once they have so many patients plea to Possesion charge..THEY then say LOOK AT all the people using cannabis with out a card( so not true..Most have had a card)This is causeing issuses..Since it has been a law..They are forcing all to plea..and using info against our cause..As i see it..Plea NOT GUILTY>>let a jury decide.. Any Marijuana case..Screw them..We tried..

 

Nice ramble. Thanks for the input and have a nice day Mayor.

 

Dr. Bob