Opinion ID: 2534341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the vop sentencing hearing and order

Text: The trial court held a lengthy VOP sentencing hearing on March 30, 2005, and addressed Stang directly and frankly as follows: Despite admitting to the violation of probation, I don't believe that you've ever taken responsibility for this or that you have shown any remorse whatsoever, so while you admitted to it, you continued to blame shift and to um insist that you've been framed and it's some grand conspiracy, despite the fact that your criminal history stems back all the way to '74, involving crimes of dishonesty from shoplifting, non-sufficient funds, grand theft, and in fact, the history indicates that you have been arrested on approximately twenty-five separate occasions with crimes involving dishonesty. And yet you sit here today and show absolutely no remorse. You continue to insist that this is some grand conspiracy that some detective, who entered your life in 1990, some decade and a half after you began your criminal career of committing dishonest crimes, is responsible for your demise. I think you're a consummate con-man and unfortunately for you the time is up. I hereby sentence you in case number 95-3736, I find you guilty of the violation of probation and I sentence [you] in counts 44, and 65, to five years in the Department of Corrections, to be served consecutively. To count 72, to which I sentence you to five years in the Department of Corrections. On counts 78 and 48, I sentence you to five years consecutive in the Department of Corrections. On counts 70, 77, and 81, I sentence you to five years consecutive and in count 75, I sentence you to two years consecutive for a total of twenty-seven years in the Department of Corrections with credit for 1,915 days. Mr. Stang, I hope you learn your lesson and I wish you luck. (Emphasis added.) The trial court then took a brief recess and returned and, because the individual sentences did not add up to a total of twenty-seven years, clarified the sentence as follows: All right. For clarification, my intent is to give the top of the guidelines without bumping a grid for twenty-seven years. So, you're hereby sentenced to five years in the Department of Corrections on counts 44, and 65. Five years in the Department of Corrections on count 72, consecutive. Five years in the Department of Corrections on counts 78 and 48, consecutive. Five years on counts 70 and 77, consecutive. Five years on counts 81 consecutive. Two years consecutive on count 75, for a total of twenty-seven years in the Department of Corrections with 1,915 days credit. (Emphasis added.) Later that same day, the above oral pronouncement was transcribed onto a standardized two-page sentencing form, and the form was signed by the trial judge. On the first page of the form, the relevant blank was filled in with 1915 and the applicable box was checked off and a written notation was added (denoted below in quotations): It is further ordered that the Defendant shall be allowed a total of 1915 days as credit for time incarcerated prior to imposition of this sentence. It is further ordered that the composite term of all sentences imposed for the counts specified in the order shall run [x] consecutive to each other for a total of 27 years. On the second page of the sentencing order, another box was checked off, and one blank was filled in with 1915 and another blank was left empty: [x] it is further ordered that the defendant be allowed 1915 days time served between day of arrest as a violator following release from prison to the date of re-sentencing. The Department of Corrections shall apply original jail time credit and shall compute and apply credit for time served on case/count ______. (Offenses committed on or after October 1, 1989, but before January 1, 1994.) Because the above two pages were contradictory, DOC on June 6, 2005, faxed the trial court the following inquiry: Inmate Stang was sentenced to the department's custody March 30, 2005, upon revocation of probation to consecutive terms of 5 years and a consecutive 2 year term, for an overall twenty-seven (27) years state prison in the aforementioned counts. Based on the documentation attached in exhibit 1 [which is page 1 of the sentencing order], a total of 1,915 days credit was ordered on the overall 27 years. However, in exhibit 2 [which is page 2 of the sentencing order], the court is allowing 1,915 days plus the original county jail time and time served in the department's custody from counts 1 thru 3, 8, 30, 33, 34, 37, 39, 42, 51, 56, 60, 62 and 64, in accordance with Tripp v. State. The original term of this case was 5 years, or 1,825 days. To award the credit as provided in exhibit 2 would result in a potential immediate release. The department is requesting the Court to clarify within 3 working days as to (# 1) the Court's intention of the 1,915 days to be applied as reflected in exhibit 1; or (#2) in exhibit 2; and (# 3) is it the Court's intention to apply 1,915 days as violation of probation credit, original county jail time of 706 days and time served in the department's custody to each count. It appears the 1,915 days is 729 days violation of probation credit, 706 days original county jail time, 317 days time served in the department's custody and an additional 163 days jail credit. Thus, awarding the original county jail time and time served would duplicate credit. Your earliest and immediate attention in this matter is greatly appreciated. (Emphasis added.) The trial court on June 7, 2005, faxed DOC a corrected copy of page two of the sentencing order. On the corrected copy, the box that had formerly been checked off was now left blank, and the line that had formerly contained 1915 was also left blank. In light of this corrected page, DOC concluded that Stang's VOP sentence was twenty-seven years' imprisonment, minus 1915 days credit, for a total sentence of approximately twenty-two years.