Then on Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2014, he was getting ready for another day in the sky, installing glass windows in buildings high above the city. His cell buzzed. He didn’t recognize the number. The woman on the line said she was from the Denver public defender’s office. She didn’t understand it all herself, not yet. The prosecutor was saying that his release from prison five years and eight months earlier — a lifetime ago, a life he’d managed to mostly will out of his mind — had been a mistake. A clerical error. A judge just signed off on the order. He had to go back.
For the longest time, he had no words. Finally, he managed a question.
Is this even possible?
Officers came to get him that day. They let him hug his young boys one last time, and then cuffed him out of their sight. And at a hastily arranged hearing, it was all confirmed. Rene Lima-Marin’s next chance at freedom would be in 2054, when he would be 75 years old.
|
The man, Rene Lima-Marin, had been sentenced at age 19 to 98 years in prison for two armed robberies. While in prison, he was told by his lawyer that there had been change to his sentence that would allow him to serve his sentences concurrently rather than consecutively, so his sentence went from 98 to 16 years. He said that he viewed the unexpected good luck as a chance to redeem himself. He became a model prisoner and was paroled after 10 years.
His life after his released would seem to indicate that he indeed is a reformed man. He's a married father of two who hasn't been in any kind of trouble since leaving prison. First of all, his original sentence seems ridiculously harsh - 98 years for two armed robberies? Lima-Marin says that he was ready to accept a plea, but the offer from the prosector was 75 years. Even his trial judge expressed reservations:
| Judge John Leopold seemed to sympathize: “I am not comfortable, frankly, with the way the case is charged,” he said as the two men stood before him. “But that is a district attorney executive-branch decision that I find I have no control over.” |
Second of all, what purpose is served by putting a man who has become a productive member of society, who has committed no further crimes, back in prison, depriving children of their father? This story echoes another similar one recently, one recounted at the link:
| And in another case, a Missouri man named Cornealious Anderson was sentenced to 13 years for armed robbery in 2000 but never received information on when and where to report to prison. He started a business, got married, had kids, and volunteered at his church before the error was caught on July 25, 2013, just as his original sentence was supposed to end. Anderson was sent to prison to serve out his sentence but was released on May 5, 2014, the judge calling him a changed man. |
Link - (
New Window )
Seems more then just two armed robberies
That does seem to be the appropriate action given the facts of the case.
Later that night, it all happened again, this time at a Hollywood Video around the corner. But with another slight variation from the script. Two clerks were in the store, not just one. Lima-Marin and Clifton brought them both into a back room, forcing one onto the floor and the other to open the safe. “They put a gun to the back of my head and said, ‘This is where you’re going to die,’” one of the employees, Shane Ashurst, later recalled. The men took $3,735.
And since I know someone will say it, yes, this was a serious crime that demanded punishment. But he WAS punished. He served 10 years in prison. It's not as if he got off scot-free. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, I cannot fathom how anyone can endorse sending him back to prison for decades with the glee of the prosecutor in this story. The guy couldn't sound like more of a dick if he was trying his hardest.
I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't that mean that every single armed robbery would also be considered a kidnapping? Most robbers aren't amenable to victims simply excusing themselves from the scene.
So you believe 98 years is an appropriate sentence? And you don't think that his life since his release (which was the state's fuckup, not his) should alter the perception at all?
Seriously, I don't get how anyone can read something like this and not see that our prison/judicial system is in need of serious reform. Especially considering the life he has led since leaving.
Where can this man even turn? I would say request a new judge.
Sure he was let out on a mistake but he took that blessing of being released and turned it into a good thing...should not have been sent back to prison..
There ar epeople running the streets that are free that deserve that jail cell 100 times more than he does..
Schmuck.
If the judge is being forced to currently enforce a non-current statute, then I think a good lawyer might be successful requesting a fresh set of eyes, so to speak. The case is so unique that I think the defense has the luxury of poking at every option. One of them could potentially stick since much is open to interpretation here. Though like you, I'm no lawyer.
Awesome...life in black and white...with no shades of grey.
However, hopefully his lawyer can appeal and bring up his crime free life after release and get this turned over. He now has a wife and two kids without a father and placing them in a desperate situation. It appears the system worked and he was reformed. Why undo that?
However, hopefully his lawyer can appeal and bring up his crime free life after release and get this turned over. He now has a wife and two kids without a father and placing them in a desperate situation. It appears the system worked and he was reformed. Why undo that?
It doesn't appear that this guy was a three-time loser, however.
Where can this man even turn? I would say request a new judge.
LoL - Request a New Judge -- can you imagine if all you had to do to change a legal decision was to request a new judge --- why hasn't everyone who's been convicted or didn't like their judge's decision tried this --
Your Honor -- I Request a New Judge !
Yes, clearly this is racial, so thank you for going there. they actually thought he was white and released him early and many, many years later somehow found out he wasn't really white and ordered him back to prison.
Glad you caught that.
Completely unnecessary.
Quote:
He's not white.
Completely unnecessary.
Look, the guy who said it is an asshole.... but if you told me a white man found himself in the same predicament as this guy, it'd only be fair to ask yourself whether not the outcome would be the same.
Again, this thread isn't about race so it was a stupid comment, but it wasn't necessarily an inaccurate one (unfortunately).
Meanwhile this just fits with the growing portion of Americans who believe that the criminal justice system in this country needs a massive overhaul.
Unfair sentencing is one issue. Inappropriate use of the death penalty is another. Massive overuse of solitary confinement, which is akin to torture and results in severely damaged minds, is a third.
Quote:
In comment 12238072 est1986 said:
Quote:
He's not white.
Completely unnecessary.
Look, the guy who said it is an asshole.... but if you told me a white man found himself in the same predicament as this guy, it'd only be fair to ask yourself whether not the outcome would be the same.
Again, this thread isn't about race so it was a stupid comment, but it wasn't necessarily an inaccurate one (unfortunately).
I'm on my phone so this will be short but the fact is race (unless you maybe want to look at the large sentence in the beginning) didn't play a part in this disaster... so why introduce it? There's more than enough racism in this world that, IMO, it doesn't need to be introduced as a 'what if' in every little story about unfair treatment. Again, just my opinion.
Meanwhile this just fits with the growing portion of Americans who believe that the criminal justice system in this country needs a massive overhaul.
Unfair sentencing is one issue. Inappropriate use of the death penalty is another. Massive overuse of solitary confinement, which is akin to torture and results in severely damaged minds, is a third.
See my comment to Mike mg.
Except that the judge in that district was the person who prosecuted the case years ago - that's how the issue of the early release was brought to light.
Bringing this guy back was a bad decision. Not only did he serve 10 years of his sentence, which is a typical amount of time he would've served in NJ for the same offense, but he was released on parole and completed his parole. He was already deemed suitable to be let back into the public by people evaluating his case. Re-imprisoning this guy is serving no purpose for anyone.
NM.
NM.
Agreed. Fuck New Mexico.
Why did he get 98 years in the first instance?
Armed robbery is a serious felony so guilt for two armed robberies should result in a heavy sentence. Twenty plus years would not have been surprising to me. There has to be some reason for the 98 years. Perhaps the Judge had other factors to consider and the legal leeway to go to 98.
Quote:
...is it for punishment or for rehabilitation? My feeling is the prison system should be for rehabilitation, not just a place to store people who have committed crimes. I'd rather they come out early and be productive citizens that do not commit crimes. Seems that happened in this case, so I see no point in sending him back.
We would all like to think that, but what is the reality? An estimated two-thirds (68 percent) of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of release from prison, and three-quarters (77 percent) were arrested within five years, per the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
The sentence was mandatory under the law at the time in Colorado. The judge didn't have the leeway to change it.
The reason these minimums exist in the first place is for a good reason, but a dated reason. With mandatory minimums, things like corruption, racist sentencing and incompetence was very easy to overcome. Every case is unique, but the unfortunate ones where mandatory minimums shouldn't be applied were worth the larger benefits that came with avoiding the potholes above.
But it's a different world now. First off, everything is stored electronically and social media has provided an extra level of public scrutiny when the justice system has a big swing and a miss. Judges would be less likely to take part in any corruption as there are so many more digital ways to get caught. We also thankfully are in a somewhat more enlightened time and I think it's fair to say judges are more likely to sentence evenly and indiscriminately than they were 30 years ago. For my money, the benefits of mandatory minimums no longer outweigh the costs. I think we're approaching a more personalized era of judgment again.