You may be surprised to learn that Arizona abolished parole for murderers in 1993. What’s even more surprising is that defendants continued to be sentenced to “life with chance of parole” after 1993. Arizona Republic reporter Michael Kiefer wrote an excellent article called “The Myth of Parole in Arizona” that can be found at AZCentral. All facts and quotes come from his article. In 1993, the Arizona Legislature passed a Truth in Sentencing law that abolished parole and disbanded the parole board. The Arizona Board of Executive Clemency was created to take its place. The sentence was changed from “life with chance of parole after 25 years” to “life with chance of release after 25 years. As Mr. Kiefer explained:
“Life with chance of release, in effect, is a mitigated sentence, meaning it is imposed when there are circumstances that render the crime less horrible than a murder that calls for natural life or death. Life sentences also may be imposed for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, sexual conduct with a child, and in certain cases where a repeat offender is deemed incorrigible.” Originally seen published on http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/03/19/myth-life-sentence-with-parole-arizona-clemency/99316310/Although the sentences sound similar, the change meant that the only chance for release was to obtain a pardon or sentence commutation from the governor:
“But under the new system, there is no automatic hearing. Instead, the prisoner has to petition the Board of Executive Clemency, which would likely require a lawyer. The board can then choose to hold hearings on the prisoner’s likelihood to stay out of trouble and make a recommendation to the governor. Rather than parole, the prisoner needs a pardon or a sentence commutation. Only the governor can provide those.” First see on http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/03/19/myth-life-sentence-with-parole-arizona-clemency/99316310/Only four people were accidentally sentenced to “life with parole” in 1994 and 1995. The Arizona Republic reviewed relevant sentencing minute entries between January 1, 1994, and January 30, 2016, and found that 248 offered a chance of parole which contradicted the law. 175 of those sentences were imposed in Maricopa County Superior Court. Of these 248 sentences, 90 came about through plea agreements. Apparently, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges never informed defendants that parole had been abolished and their only hope was to try to obtain a pardon or sentence commutation by filing a petition with the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency. Mr. Kiefer interviewed several prisoners who informed him that they were never told that parole didn’t exist and that they relied on the chance of parole when they decided to enter into plea agreements. The first prisoner will be up for illusory parole in 2019. Arizona politicians have not addressed the issue. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery stated that he thinks the solution is just to admit that the sentences were in error and correct the paperwork. Kathy Brody, Legal Director of the ACLU of Arizona, remarked: “It’s a contract. It’s a deal. How can you say it’s a knowing and voluntary decision (by the defendant) if it’s an incorrect sentence?” Judges thought that the issue would have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis or even in federal district court. Unfortunately, no one mentioned reestablishing parole in Arizona as a possible solution. It will be interesting to see what happens in two years. If you or a loved one has been charged with an offense where you are facing 25 years with a chance of release, you need an experienced attorney on your side. Attorney Robert A. Dodell has over thirty years experience. Call him today for a free initial consultation.
Parole in Arizona: A Legal Illusion is republished from Law Offices of Robert Dodell Parole in Arizona: A Legal Illusion first appeared on:
DUI Attorney Scottsdale - Scottsdale Criminal Lawyer | Robert Dodell Law Offices
10601 N Hayden Rd, #I-103
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(480) 860-4321
A person who is convicted of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible for probation according to A.R.S. § 13-901.01(A). The definition of “controlled substance” is the same as that found at A.R.S. § 36-2501 pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01(J). As a condition of probation, the court shall require a person placed on probation to participate in and pay for to the extent of his or her financial ability an appropriate drug treatment or education program administered by a qualified agency or organization that provides programs to persons who abuse controlled substances pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01(D). A person who the court determines has violated probation shall have new conditions established by the court under A.R.S. § 13-901.01(E). The court shall select additional terms it deems necessary, including intensified drug treatment, community restitution, intensive probation, home arrest or any other sanctions except a term of incarceration unless the court determines that the person violated probation by committing a drug offense or imitation substance or drug offense or an act in violation of a court order related to drug treatment. If a person is convicted a second time of personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, the court may include additional conditions of probation it deems necessary, including intensified drug treatment, community restitution, intensive probation, home arrest of any other action within the court’s jurisdiction according to A.R.S. § 13-901.01 (F). If a person on probation fails or refuses to participate in drug treatment, the probation department or the prosecutor may petition the court to revoke the person’s probation according to A.R.S. § 13-901.01(G). If the court finds that the person refused to participate in drug treatment, the person is no longer eligible for probation and shall be sentenced under the relevant A.R.S. criminal code section for drug offenses found in Title 13, Chapter 34. Personal possession or use of a controlled substance under A.R.S. § 13-901.01 shall not include possession for sale, production, manufacturing or transportation for sale of any controlled substance pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01(C). The following persons are not eligible for probation under A.R.S. § 13-901.01 and shall be sentenced pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 34:
Pull over safely, using signals to indicate lane change, and come to a complete stop in a safe place. This action demonstrates your alertness and focus on the things that are happening around you and is not necessarily an admission of guilt. When you pull over safely, you’ll have a better chance of figuring what went wrong and what you need to do next.
A stepparent can only obtain imposable parental rights over a stepchild through legal adoption. Sometimes, the biological parent will refuse to agree to a stepparent adoption, but the adoption is still possible if legal conditions exist for a termination of parental rights through a severance trial. However, when all involved parties cooperate, the process is much easier. First, the biological parent needs to hand over their parental rights to the would-be stepparent for a successful adoption. Once the biological parents give consent to the adoptive parent, their parental rights are consensually terminated. In the end, the stepparent will have full parental rights and will be responsible for providing for the child’s financial, medical and emotional needs, inheritance, and other privileges.