Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: Robbery sentencing

I don't understand. Why do you think 17 years for armed robbery of a liquor store is too harsh?

Re: Robbery sentencing

In California, most felonies are punishable by three different sentences which are generally known as the low, middle and high terms. The judge is supposed to impose the middle term unless she finds that aggravating factors substantially outweigh those in mitigation (in which case she can impose the high term) or that mitigating factors outweigh those in aggravation (in which case she can impose the low term).

Where the defendant is convicted of multiple counts, the situation becomes a bit more complex. One of the crimes will be designated as the primary offense and the rest as secondary offenses; the defendant received the full sentence and (usually) one-third of the middle term on each secondary offense. The judge often has discretion to make these sentences concurrent or consecutive.

California law enhances the sentence in many situations. Use of a firearm is often treated as an enhancement, though not where it is an element of the crime.

Your question doesn�t go into much detail about the facts, so I can't say what enhancements might have been imposed here or what other crimes might have been committed. The lack of a prior record is often considered a mitigating factor, but it has less of an effect where the first offense is as serious as armed robbery.

The fact that the victims of this robbery were drug dealers does not matter much. Everyone is equally entitled to the protection of the law, and criminals should not get a break when the people they victimize are also criminals. It is not up to individual citizens to decide they can victimize someone they believe has broken the law.

If anything, the fact that the victims were drug dealers makes the crime more serious because the robbers had more reason to believe the robbery would escalate into violence -- placing themselves, the victims and innocent bystanders in grave danger.

Your friend's refusal to identify his cohort is an aggravating factor in anyone's book. Had he cooperated that would have been considered a strong mitigating factor, but instead he chose to help a dangerous criminal remain free. If I were the judge I would count that very heavily in my sentencing decision (and I say that as someone who does a large amount of criminal defense work at the appellate level and who thus believes strongly in the rights of defendants and of convicted criminals).

Advance planning is also usually seen as an aggravating factor, and the fact that two people cooperated in this crime suggests that it was indeed planned ahead of time.

Seventeen years is a harsh sentence, but armed robbery is a serious crime and it should be punished accordingly. Add in an enhancement or two and some aggravating factors, and seventeen years sounds like a legally correct -- and even reasonable -- sentence.

Re: Robbery sentencing

A 17 year sentence for a robbery indicates that there is more to the story than you provided. To obtain an evaluation of the sentence you should take a copy of the police report, court transcripts etc to an attorney for a review and evaluation. He has 60 days from the date he was sentenced to file a notice of appeal.