UPDATE: Should He Now Serve His Sentence?

[Tennesseer]

Man who never served prison sentence on clerical error awaits fate

'A Missouri man who avoided a 13-year jail sentence because of what state officials called a clerical error will learn Tuesday if he will have to keep fighting to avoid being incarcerated.

In 1999, Cornealious “Mike” Anderson was convicted of armed robbery after taking money from a Burger King manager who was making a bank deposit. He was sentenced to 13 years in jail, but after he posted bond and went home during the appeals process, he was never forced to serve his sentence."

He then waited and waited and waited for the Missouri Department of Corrections to give him a date to surrender and begin his serving his sentence,’’ Anderson’s attorney, Patrick Michael Megaro, told TODAY. “That day never came."

The state mistakenly believed Anderson was already in prison serving his sentence, when in fact he was living life on the outside."

He got married, had children, opened a successful business, coached youth football, (and) joined a church group,’’ Magaro said in a report from NBC's Joe Fryer. “Did everything that you would expect a normal person to do because in his mind, he believed that maybe the courts had changed their mind."'

Rest of article here:  Man who never served prison sentence on clerical error awaits fate

The article does not mention it, but it reads like he stayed out of trouble those 13 years and built a successful life.  So should he now go to prison after all these years?   I suppose some may say he should have checked on his status some time during those years.  

If it was me, I am not sure I would have checked.  Let the authorities come to me when it is time.

[djAdvocate]

this goes back to a question i asked on the DP thread: is the goal of prison to punish or reform?

if it is to reform, then it seems like this guy is reformed, to me.

[Deleted]

Good point! What about "you do the crime you do the time"?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2014 11:46:39 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

Good point! What about "you do the crime you do the time"?

like i say: that is a punitive view of prison.  and i am not calling it invalid.  in fact, i think it is the prevailing view.  if that is your view, then he should be sent to prison.

does that seem right to you?  i am not mocking here.  i mean the question sincerely.

[Deleted]

I haven't pondered the subject at length so I can't say what my view is with conviction. That saying was the first thing that popped into my head when I read the story. 

[The Captain]

This is a tough one.

I would hope we (as a society) would take it pretty seriously when someone threatens to harm another with a gun and steals from them.

Prision should be for reform when possible and it appears this guy straightened himself out, but IMHO this was a pretty serious crime.

Since he's already proven he can turn himself around, I believe restitution and community service would be appropriate in this case.

[mmhmm]

If the money he stole wasn't returned, I believe he should be required to return it to the Burger King from which it was stolen.  Beyond that, I don't know that I'd do much else.  Seems like he learned his lesson.

[resolution]

Would any sort of statute of limitations apply in this case? Seems to me like it should.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 15, 2014 12:10:22 GMT -5 resolution said:

Would any sort of statute of limitations apply in this case? Seems to me like it should.

Resolution-he was convicted of the crime.  He was awaiting the appeal process/decision. So I am not sure the statute of limitations would apply here.  

[EVT1]

I'm with DJ- what is the goal here? I would think the AG has to take into account all of the relevant information- including how society would benefit by spending money to incarcerate this person and pretty much wreck their life possible ending up with a return to crime in the future.  Problem is he has already been sentenced and I am not sure how this even gets worked out.

But no help from this freaking moron:

     Nearly 14,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org asking for Anderson’s release, but the current St. Charles County prosecutor disagrees.

     "I believe that if we allowed somebody to avoid an incarceration sentence, it's just a slippery slope,’’ Tim Lohmar told TODAY.

How the hell is it a slippery slope? For whom?  The one person this has happened to recently  

I think the state had 13 years to lock him up- not his fault they didn't have him in custody so I'd say times up you had your shot- he wasn't a fugitive.  Errors are supposed to work against the state.

[Deleted]

He was convicted, he should serve his time as sentenced.   His social activities after the fact have no consequence to the crime previously committed.  The wrong of his crime + the wrong of the delayed incarceration do not make a right.

[kent]

On one hand, you could argue he should serve his mandated sentence. On the other, what does it actually accomplish at this juncture?

The state screwed up, he didn't hide out and apparently led a responsible life over the thirteen years. He's got four kids that would be deprived of a father and that probably wouldn't work out well in the long run and even the guy he robbed thinks he shouldn't serve time.

Paying back the money and serving community service sounds reasonable to me. It's not like he killed someone.

[justme]

There was a recent headline in my area of a man was just arrested, something like 10 or 20 years after the murder occurred. Why should he have to go to jail if this other guy doesn't?

Apples and oranges. This guy wasn't just recently arrested for a crime he committed 13 years ago. He was arrested back then, charged, found guilty, and not reversed on appeal. The state just forgot to tell him when to surrender since it though it already had him. Vastly different than killing someone 13 years ago and the cops only just now finding you/a reason to arrest you (and then go on to have a trial).

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2014 13:32:24 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Not really... not if the guy from the article goes on the "but I've been living a good, productive, law abiding life" defense* to his sentencing 

What if the murder guy had been a productive member of society for the past 13 years?  Isn't that ultimately the same defense* I mean what's to stop him from pleading guility and saying but wait you let that other guy who was convicted not serve any jail time. We both have been living good, productive, law abiding lives for the last 13 years.  You've set precedent that it's okay to not serve jail time if you've otherwise stayed out of trouble. 


*Can't think of a better term to use

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374942/Marie-Walshs-double-life-escaped-jail-teenager.html

[justme]

Apr 15, 2014 13:32:24 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Not really... not if the guy from the article goes on the "but I've been living a good, productive, law abiding life" defense* to his sentencing 

What if the murder guy had been a productive member of society for the past 13 years?  Isn't that ultimately the same defense* I mean what's to stop him from pleading guility and saying but wait you let that other guy who was convicted not serve any jail time. We both have been living good, productive, law abiding lives for the last 13 years.  You've set precedent that it's okay to not serve jail time if you've otherwise stayed out of trouble. 


*Can't think of a better term to use

I'm not saying he shouldn't serve his time, I'm not sure what I think of this situation. I'm saying the two instances are completely factually different. The only reason he didn't serve his jail time was because the state screwed up - they thought they had him and it wasn't until 13 years later they finally realized their mistake. A guy not being arrested until 13 years after a murder is not necessarily the states fault (and if it is the states fault then those mistakes will probably hinder them) so it does not compare.

The current predicament he's in is entirely of the states own doing. He legally went out on bail, and was never told a time to surrender, and was never picked up.

[billisonboard]

Apr 15, 2014 13:32:24 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Not really... not if the guy from the article goes on the "but I've been living a good, productive, law abiding life" defense* to his sentencing 

What if the murder guy had been a productive member of society for the past 13 years?  Isn't that ultimately the same defense* I mean what's to stop him from pleading guility and saying but wait you let that other guy who was convicted not serve any jail time. We both have been living good, productive, law abiding lives for the last 13 years.  You've set precedent that it's okay to not serve jail time if you've otherwise stayed out of trouble. 


*Can't think of a better term to use

Nothing is stopping him from saying whatever he wishes to say during the sentencing phase of a trial. The jury or judge then takes whatever is said into account when determining the sentence. What is screwy about this situation is the jury/judge sentenced a person who has become a different person than the one standing before the court all those years ago.

[jkapp]

Well...if I didn't pay my taxes thirteen years ago, would I still owe them?

[billisonboard]

Apr 15, 2014 15:44:16 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Well...if I didn't pay my taxes thirteen years ago, would I still owe them?

When you owe money to the IRS, are you on the hook forever? Fortunately, the answer is usually "no." As a general rule, there is a ten year statute of limitations ... www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/time-limits-irs-collections.html

[Deleted]

the question it seems to me, is this

do we send people to jail to punish them?

or to rehabilitate them?

imo it is to punish now.....rehab went out years ago

so then, what is the practical punishment for this guy?

if this comes before me as a judge, i cant see letting him get away scott free

but i also cant see him serving a full sentence anymore

so....a fair compromise

6 months of weekend jail time.....just as a reminder that what he did deserves some time behind bars

3 years community outreach.....him donating his time and energy to make restitution to the neighborhood

and full monetary restitution of any monies stolen back then

i think it is getting off light.....but his good behavior over the last 13 years earned him that much in my eyes

[Tennesseer]

Apr 15, 2014 16:05:19 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

the question it seems to me, is this

do we send people to jail to punish them?

or to rehabilitate them?

imo it is to punish now.....rehab went out years ago

so then, what is the practical punishment for this guy?

if this comes before me as a judge, i cant see letting him get away scott free

but i also cant see him serving a full sentence anymore

so....a fair compromise

6 months of weekend jail time.....just as a reminder that what he did deserves some time behind bars

3 years community outreach.....him donating his time and energy to make restitution to the neighborhood

and full monetary restitution of any monies stolen back then

i think it is getting off light.....but his good behavior over the last 13 years earned him that much in my eyes

According to the article I linked to in the opening post, the guy has been sitting in jail since his arrest last summer.  Should that check off one of your three conditions?  I am okay with your other two.

[EVT1]

Two different situations- pre and post sentencing. I have no problem with him doing some time, restitution, probation- and even paying for his own incarceration on weekend time. But just to lock him away for the original sentence is ridiculous.  No winners at all in that situation.  

[billisonboard]

Apr 15, 2014 17:14:15 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

... But just to lock him away for the original sentence is ridiculous.  No winners at all in that situation.

Certainly not the taxpayers of Missouri.

[Spellbound454]

Prison is about reforming people so they get can back in to society...... but its also a punishment.

So, if he has committed a crime, no matter how far back.... he needs to go to prison.


What if someone was a murderer 40 years ago?......Are we to argue that its ok, he hasn't done it again... and he seems like a nice guy?
since when has "time passed" been a barrier for justice

[jkapp]

Apr 15, 2014 15:57:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 15, 2014 15:44:16 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Well...if I didn't pay my taxes thirteen years ago, would I still owe them?

When you owe money to the IRS, are you on the hook forever? Fortunately, the answer is usually "no." As a general rule, there is a ten year statute of limitations ... www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/time-limits-irs-collections.html

That's weird considering one of our clients back when I worked at the CPA firm was getting billed for taxes from 1989-1995 (and this was in 2007).  I wonder if the IRS was trying to skirt around this time limit?  I wouldn't put it past them.

But if the statute is true, then that's another kick in the nuts to the family members in the other thread who were being collected on for their parents/guardians' overpayment of benefits decades ago.

[billisonboard]

Apr 15, 2014 18:13:46 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Prison is about reforming people so they get can back in to society...... but its also a punishment.

So, if he has committed a crime, no matter how far back.... he needs to go to prison.


What if someone was a murderer 40 years ago?......Are we to argue that its ok, he hasn't done it again... and he seems like a nice guy?
since when has "time passed" been a barrier for justice

Is it "justice" or vengeance that you seek? I can very much see an argument being made for leniency in a forty year old murder case such as you describe. The weight that it might carry should be very open to the specifics involved with the case and the individual.

[Spellbound454]

justice" or vengeance that you seek

No justice system should be about vengeance....Its about paying the debt that he owes to society for his crime.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 15, 2014 19:28:27 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Apr 15, 2014 18:20:45 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Is it "justice" or vengeance that you seek? I can very much see an argument being made for leniency in a forty year old murder case such as you describe. The weight that it might carry should be very open to the specifics involved with the case and the individual.

Even if you were the victim's family. Would the fact that a murderer had lived a good life make you feel like they deserved leniency?  How about the mother they just found who killed 5 of her infants?  I haven't heard that she was a lawbreaker otherwise?  

To be honest I'm still playing devil's advocate to a point. 

But here's the thought that occurred to me and I don't know the answer to this, but did he ever go to the state DOC and say "ummm...you guys never called me. Am I supposed to be in prison or something?"  At some point he would have to had the thought...this isn't right. 

According to the linked article,  he was never notified as to the results of his appeal.  He assumed the appeal went in his favor.  Additionally, if the state wanted him, as he was out on bond, they knew were to find him.  

[Tennesseer]

Apr 15, 2014 19:40:53 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Apr 15, 2014 19:38:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

According to the linked article,  he was never notified as to the results of his appeal.  He assumed the appeal went in his favor.  Additionally, if the state wanted him, as he was out on bond, they knew were to find him.  

Oh the state screwed up for sure. But does a reasonable person not follow up on the status of their court case?  

I'll wait for the justice system to tell me when to report.  In the mean time, I have a life to live.  

[Jaguar]

I read that they did put him in jail.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 15, 2014 19:54:16 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Apr 15, 2014 19:43:47 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I'll wait for the justice system to tell me when to report.  In the mean time, I have a life to live.  

Well the justice system is telling him to report

Yea.  They are telling him to report at the time they were looking for him to release him.