Previous Story
High court reverses Bellas’ 10-yr jail term for kidnapper
|
Posted on Jul 30 1999
Thanks for the humanitarian concern, but a rule is a rule. Offenders of the law should be punished accordingly.
This could sum up the Supreme Court’s opinion which reversed the trial court’s decision to sentence a kidnapper with a term which was “less severe” than that contained in a plea agreement.
The plea agreement between the Attorney General’s Office and Ge Ai Ping provided that Ge, who pled guilty to kidnapping charges, would serve 20 years in jail “all suspended except for six years with credit for time served.”
Superior Court Associate Judge Timothy Bellas, however, decided to reduce Ge’s sentence to 10 years “all suspended except for first three years,” in consideration for her baby who was delivered during the period of her incarceration.
Bellas said his decision was not meant to condone Ge’s actions.
“I do this because I feel sorry for the baby. I think it’s sufficiently difficult for a parent to have to explain to a child why she had to be brought up for the first years of her life in a jail,” Bellas said during the sentencing.
Bellas pointed out that once the parties entered into a plea agreement “the sentence is up to the court.”
Ge has been detained since her arrest on Jan. 28, 1997. Aside from kidnapping, Ge was also charged with burglary, theft, assault and battery, all of which were dismissed according to the terms of the plea agreement. The prosecution offered to drop these charges if Ge would plea guilty to the kidnapping charge.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court.
In reversing Bellas’ decision, the high tribunal said that “the court may only accept or reject an agreement in its entirety.”
“If the court accepts the agreement, court must embody the judgment and sentence the disposition provided for in the plea agreement,” the high court said.
The Supreme Court cited a Ninth Circuit Court’s earlier ruling which said that the lower court may not modify plea agreements except in certain cases “where the sentence is plainly unjust or unfair.”
It also cited a court rule which “prohibits a district court from sentencing a defendant to a sentence less severe than that provided for in the plea agreement accepted by the court.” (MCM)
