Question: What was the penalty given to the defendant convicted of murdering his girlfriend in Cristina Gutierrez's 1993 case? 
Context: A criminal court may impose a "mandate" as part of a legal process on a person accused of a crime consisting of an obligation to engage in certain conditions or activities in exchange for suspension or reduction in penalty; such as, conditions of probation, conditional discharges, or other conditional sentences.  For example, a defendant convicted of driving while intoxicated or drug possession may be mandated to engage in alcoholism or substance abuse rehabilitation.  The term is paradoxical because acceptance of the "mandate" is a voluntary act by the defendant, who also has the option of serving what would most generally (though the relative weight is a matter determined by the individual's perspective and readiness to change) be viewed as a harsher alternative, such as incarceration.  In this sense, the mandate is not truly "mandatory", but is instead a type of legal fiction wherein the court assumes an illusion of power which, in actuality, is constrained by the defendant's free will. In field hockey, a penalty corner, sometimes known as a short corner, is a penalty given against the defending team.  It is predominantly awarded for a defensive infringement in the "penalty circle" or for a deliberate infringement within the defensive "23-metre area".  They are eagerly sought by attacking players and provide an excellent opportunity to score.  There are particular rules for that only apply at penalty corners and players develop specialist skills, such as the drag flick, for this particular phase in the game. Hae Min Lee (Hangul: 이해민 ; October 15, 1980 – January 13, 1999) was a Korean-American high school senior at Woodlawn High School in Baltimore, Maryland, United States, who disappeared on January 13, 1999.  Her body was found four weeks later in Leakin Park, the victim of murder by manual strangulation.  Adnan Masud Syed, her ex-boyfriend, was convicted in February 2000 of first-degree murder and given a life sentence plus 30 years. Maria Cristina Gutierrez (February 28, 1951 – January 30, 2004) was an American criminal defense attorney who represented several high profile defendants in the 1990s and the first Hispanic woman to be counsel of record in a case before the Supreme Court of the United States.  She was the initial trial attorney for Adnan Syed, the Baltimore area teen who was convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee in 1999.  The murder trial and conviction gained national attention in 2014 and 2015 after being the subject of the first season of the online podcast "Serial". The plaintiff, Paul Oliver, worked for Ananse systems where he created the first two versions of a Banking software alongside an ex- Banker, Samuel K. Boateng who was also engaged with Ananse systems.  The plaintiff went to the U.K and released the third version of the Banking software called The Rural Banker which was a comprehensive banking system and fully integrated into an accounting software he had also developed which was later succeeding by a 4th version called E- finance.  The plaintiff met the 1st defendant again, who at that time had left Ananse systems to try market the new version of the banking software that he had created.  The 1st defendant registered a business under the name BSL systems for that exact purpose.  The parties subsequently fell out with each other and a dispute arose.  The major part of departure and which was the fulcrum of the case was the authorship and ownership of the copyrights in the last two versions (4th and 3rd versions) of the banking software.  The plaintiff contended that the agreement that existed between them entailed the 1st defendant would market the software and the 1st defendant will in turn, license the software to the banks.  This was the same arrangement he had with Ananse systems.The plaintiff also claimed that he issued invoices to the defendants which the defendants sent him money as license fee in return and the defendants transferred the money because they acknowledged that he was the sole author.  The Defendants countered by claiming that the plaintiff had never been the sole author of the rural banking software in its various versions and that the 1st defendant pleaded that even when he was engaged in Ananse systems, he was there, “ with a view of developing the rural Banking software” because he was a professional Banker with vast working experience . Therefore, it was his ideas which constituted he sub structure for the Banking Software created by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff contributed only to the software by designing the software at the direction of the 1st defendant and just provided the source and object codes for this software.  The defendants therefore think that both the Rural Banker and E- finance were jointly authored by the plaintiff and the defendants after the formation of BSL systems, only sent the plaintiff money dubbed “licensing fee” because of Bank of Ghana regulations.  They subsequently transferred the money because the plaintiff retained the activation codes of the software and used it as a bargaining chip to compel the first defendant to pay him balances after the deduction of overhead cost.  The defendants continued to distribute the software without his permission after their relationship got terminated and the plaintiff’s first head of claim was a demand for outstanding license fee for distribution of the software without consent and for infringement of copyright. Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the interpretation of a federal statute.  18 USC §2252(b)(2) states that a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography is subject to a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence if they have "a prior conviction...under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward."  Avondale Lockhart, convicted of possession of child pornography, had a prior conviction for sexual abuse of his 53-year-old girlfriend under New York State law.  He was sentenced to 10 years in prison under §2252(b)(2).  He appealed claiming that the qualifier "involving a minor or ward" applies to the whole series, making his prior conviction not trigger the sentence enhancement.  In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the phrase only modifies the final item in the series, upholding the 10 year minimum sentence imposed on Lockhart. A sentence is a decree of punishment.  In law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function.  The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime.  Those imprisoned for multiple crimes will serve a consecutive sentence (in which the period of imprisonment equals the sum of all the sentences served sequentially, or one after the next), a concurrent sentence (in which the period of imprisonment equals the length of the longest sentence where the sentences are all served together at the same time), or somewhere in between, sometimes subject to a cap.  Additional sentences include: Intermediate or those served on the weekend (usually Fri-Sun), Determinate or a specific set amount of time (90 days) or Indeterminate which are those that have a minimum and maximum time (90 to 120 days).  If a sentence gets reduced to a less harsh punishment, then the sentence is said to have been "mitigated" or "commuted".  Rarely (depending on circumstances) murder charges are "mitigated" and reduced to manslaughter charges.  However, in certain legal systems, a defendant may be punished beyond the terms of the sentence, e.g. social stigma, loss of governmental benefits, or, collectively, the collateral consequences of criminal charges. In field hockey, a penalty stroke, sometimes known as a penalty flick, is the most severe penalty given.  It is predominantly awarded when a foul has prevented a certain goal from being scored or for a deliberate infringement by a defender in the penalty circle. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case.  The Court ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrists hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's future dangerousness and the likelihood that he would present a continuing threat to society in this Texas death penalty case.  The American Psychiatric Association submitted an "amicus curiae" brief in support of the defendant's position that such testimony should be inadmissible and urging curtailment of psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness and a prohibition of such testimony based on hypothetical data. Clawson v. United States, 113 U.S. 143 (1885) , was a case regarding a Utah territorial statute which authorized an appeal by a defendant in a criminal action from a final judgment of conviction, which provides that an appeal shall stay execution upon filing with the clerk a certificate of a judge that in his opinion there is probable cause for the appeal, and further provides that after conviction, a defendant who has appealed may be admitted to bail as of right when the judgment is for the payment of a fine only, and as matter of discretion in other cases, does not confer upon a defendant convicted and sentenced to pay a fine and be imprisoned the right, after appeal and filing of certificate of probable cause, to be admitted to bail except within the discretion of the court.
Answer: life sentence plus 30 years