Personally I disagree with decision as the circumstances in question didn't arise until he broke the registration law, only then can he say "excessive" and have it be ripe for consideration! AND, The real problem is that the "conditions" of supervised release are not disclosed at time of sentencing. They are imposed by parole/probation agents after it starts.8-12-17 Nebraska:
LINCOLN — The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday rejected the appeal of a convicted sex offender who challenged parts of the state’s new supervised release law as excessive.
The appeal by Christian Phillips was the first challenge of criminal sentencing changes allowed under Legislative Bill 605, which was passed in 2015 to help reduce prison overcrowding and decrease repeat crimes.
Phillips was convicted of third-degree sexual assault of a child, a felony, in 2013. Upon his release he was required to report his address under the Sex Offender Registration Act.
When it was discovered that he was living in north Omaha instead of at the Papillion address he had reported, he was sentenced to one year in prison and one year of supervised release for failure to comply with the registration law.
Phillips, now 24, appealed, saying the sentence was excessive, as were the 26 conditions he needed to fulfill during his supervised release.
His attorneys argued that requirements that Phillips undergo alcohol and drug testing, attend alcohol or drug rehabilitation programs, wear an alcohol monitoring device, and pay for frequent blood tests weren’t justified because there was no evidence he had substance abuse problems. ..Continued..
No comments:
Post a Comment
We use the Disqus Commenting system, please wait for it to load. Also, comments are moderated, please stick to the issue of the post, as we are trying to have an intelligent, relevant discussion which develops the post. Comments deviating from topic of post will not be posted. Thanks