[Vision2020] Ryan Lee Wright: Review of Retained Jurisdiction

[Sunil]

'In
 this particular case, the State and the Public Defender came up with an
 initial plea agreement for retained jurisdiction with probation only.  
To his credit, Judge Stegner rejected that . . . although he 
subsequently accepted a woefully inadequate (IMO) plea agreement.'

I don't recognize this case, but that couldn't have been the agreement. Since there is probably confusion about terms, I'll explain what they are and why this could not have been the case.

If the agreement had been for straight probation, the term retained jurisdiction wouldn't have been used; it would be 'probation.' Yes, the judge is retaining jurisdiction, since s/he keeps control over the defendant, but we don't use those words in this instance. While a  prison sentence is ordered, the defendant is not sent to prison but  will almost certainly serve local jail time.

When the judge sentences the defendant to prison and then retains jurisdiction (called a 'rider'), then the defendant is sent to the prison system for up to a year, and the judge retains jurisdiction for that period. That means the judge will bring the defendant back before that one year period expires, and based on his or her performance on the rider, the judge can then place the defendant on probation, or will send him/her to prison.

Do well on the rider and you will likely get probation; do poorly and you will go complete your sentence. In the first instance the judge retains jurisdiction; in the latter, the judge relinquishes jurisdiction, and you now belong to the Idaho corrections system.
 
So the agreement would not have been for a retained jurisdiction with probation only. It may have been for probation only, and J. Stegner may have rejected that for the rider. Maybe that's quibbling, but in Idaho's criminal justice system, 'retained jurisdiction' has a particular meaning: a rider is ordered. It's mutually exclusive with being placed on straight probation.

Sunil
From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
To: janesta at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:51:36 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ryan Lee Wright: Review of Retained Jurisdiction

Hi Janesta, I appreciate your interest in this topic even though you no longer live here, and thank you for being upset, too.  Sometimes, I feel like no one else outside my close circle gives a rip in any meaningful way about the victims and survivors – and their loved ones – of violent and sex crimes here in Latah County and in Idaho. I hope others – who perhaps know far more than do I – will contribute to the discussion, but my response to your inquiry about who is responsible for such insane sentencing is that there’s no easy answer. <sigh> At the most basic level, though, I think we the citizens of Latah County and of the state of Idaho bear ultimate responsibility.  Again, though, it’s really not that simple. I think it is simple to point fingers and say, “Well, it’s the prosecutor’s fault,” or, “Well, it’s the judge’s fault,” and while they bear some responsibility, I honestly don’t think it’s that simple, either.  After all, they are elected officials. Do I wish we had a more aggressive prosecutor when it comes to violent crimes?  Absolutely – how can anyone not think that when looking at some of the plea agreements the PA agrees to?  But . . .we the citizens of Latah County elect our Prosecuting Attorney, and if we elect a prosecuting attorney who gives away the store, so to speak, do we not give that management strategy our tacit approval for that? In this particular case, the State and the Public Defender came up with an initial plea agreement for retained jurisdiction with probation only.  To his credit, Judge Stegner rejected that . . . although he subsequently accepted a woefully inadequate (IMO) plea agreement. And, with respect to sentencing violent offenders, do I wish we had judges around the state willing to say, “I don’t care what IDOC says – I was elected by the people, and I’m going to hand down sentences I think appropriate for individual cases no matter what dictates come down from Above”?  Absolutely! But . . . we elect district court judges, and if we continue to elect judges who have participated in giving away the store, so to speak, then we are giving them our tacit approval for insane sentencing, yes?  But, do we have viable alternatives?  I don’t know.  With our most recent judicial elections, I took the time to look at the Idaho Bar Association survey, but it really didn’t address – at all – sentencing.  And, since defense attorneys with an obvious vested interest participated in the survey, I don’t think it was an unbiased survey, anyway.  Plus, think about how much – or how little – we know about the sentencing records of those running for or sitting as judges.  There certainly isn’t much news coverage, and I don’t think judges campaign the way virtually all other elected officials campaign.  When was the last time there was a debate between judicial candidates in Latah County, or when was the last time in Latah County a judicial candidate was at a public forum where voters could even ask questions?  I can’t recall either happening here – does anyone else? Where you won’t find me casting blame is towards defense attorneys.  Based on some comments made here on V2020, it seems to me (although perhaps I misunderstood the intentions)some people fail to recognize the crucial role defense attorneys play in providing a vigorous defense even for the most offensive crimes.  If the defense doesn’t make the State prove its case, then a vital check and balance of the judicial branch is absent.  Defense attorneys can’t secure sweetheart deals for their clients without the State and judges agreeing to those sweetheart deals, it seems to me. And, drilling down even further, we elect our state legislators in this overwhelmingly GOP dominated state.  Contrary to the pervasive opinion of those on the “other” side of the aisle, no one – including Democrats – wants to waste money.  In a very real sense, the GOP is responsible for these insanely lenient sentences for violent offenders by not adequately funding the state prison system so that we’ve got space for violent criminals.  But, honestly, can we be surprised that the “law & order” party doesn’t want to adequately fund the criminal justice system when they also don’t want to make sure the poor have food and medical care or that our kids receive a good education? So, have we-the-people made it clear to our legislators that we demand reform so that violent offenders are incarcerated?  I don’t know.  Given the responsiveness of legislators to even a whimper from some of their constituents who also happen to have lots of money to donate, I can’t imagine they can be completely tone deaf to the cries of outrage about insanely lenient sentences for violent offenders, at least in high profile cases.  But, perhaps because victims, survivors, and their loved ones tend to not have money to throw around, that tone deafness comes pretty easily to them? The last stats I was able to find were from May 2013, and it looked like less than half of those incarcerated by the IDOC were for violent (assault, murder, manslaughter, sex crimes) offenses.  If there are “no beds at the inns” for violent criminals, then perhaps we need to look at how we’re sentencing non-violent offenders taking up all those beds. So, perhaps we need to start demanding that our legislators start reforming the criminal code so that there is room for violent offenders in prison. And, we absolutely need to quit voting for the bums who created this situation. And, we need to start letting candidates know that we demand that they solve the problem if we give them our votes. Just my not so humble opinion and thoughts.  SaundraMoscow, ID Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.    From: Janesta [mailto:janesta at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 10:54 PM
To: Saundra Lund
Cc: vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ryan Lee Wright: Review of Retained Jurisdiction Well, I am far enough away from reading this... maybe, I can make sense without being so upset!WHO is responsible for this travesty?I can guarantee you,  if this man committed the crime in Arizona, he would have gotten serious time in the pen. Janesta(still upset) On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Janesta <janesta at gmail.com> wrote:*speechless* On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> wrote:Note:  while this particular instance of insanely lenient sentencing for a violent felony (nearly killing a baby) happened in Latah County, it could -- and almost certainly does -- happen all over the state.  According news reports, Idaho's Department of Corrections started calling for increased use of alternative sentencing in 2010 because there was no space in the prisons and to curb a growing prison budget.  (Personally, I cannot help but wonder how much of that budget growth was a direct cost of Otter’s utterly disastrous “privatization” love affair with the likes of for-profit Corrections Corporation of America.)
 
While I'm a huge supporter of alternative sentencing for non-violent crimes, and while I recognize there are exceptions to every rule, I'm not convinced short-term Rider programs have any place in the sentencing of violent felons.
 
So, for those who think sentences like the below are a travesty of justice, for those who consider themselves “law and order” types, for those who believe autonomy requires we appropriately punish criminals, etc., start asking the right questions when deciding who to vote for at the state level!  Don’t vote for “tough on crime types who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk by supporting prison sentences for crimes of violence.
 
 
Wednesday afternoon, I attended a hearing reviewing the retained jurisdiction of convicted felon Ryan Lee Wright prior to his release on probation.
 
Wright is a man who very nearly killed his infant son by shaking him on 4/3/2013.  According to the mother, the medical records indicate violent shaking was followed by a violent impact.  The baby will likely have neurological deficits for the rest of his life.  As I recall, mom was at work when she got a phone call that her precious baby had stopped breathing.  I cannot imagine the horror of her drive from work to the hospital.
 
The baby was airlifted to Sacred Heart in critical condition.  Because Wright was a typical lying criminal who didn’t immediately admit what he'd done, mom's contact with her critically injured baby was understandably restricted during the early investigation.  Mom spoke from her heart at the sentencing.   A baby who was born perfect now lives with neurological deficits as a result of his father’s horrendous abuse, and the baby will likely live with neurological deficits for the rest of his life.  I believe virtually everyone in the courtroom that day fought back tears hearing from the mom, some of us more successfully than others.
 
The eventual sentencing on 4/9/2014 --a year after the baby was nearly killed -- was what it was:  not what it should have been and not as lenient as it could have been <shaking my head>.  Much to his credit, Judge Stegner had earlier rejected an initial plea agreement reached by the State and Public Defender that called retained jurisdiction with probation only.  Mom -- and the rest of us present -- took some consolation that the final retained jurisdiction plea bargain called for six months commitment in a Rider Program.  Six months confinement isn't even almost  enough for nearly killing a baby with one's own hands, but as mind-boggling as it was, it could have been worse.
 
And I entered on my personal calendar to start checking the court calendar in early October to make sure there were no changes for the hearing scheduled for 10/20/2014 to review the retained jurisdiction.
 
The mother let people know last Monday that everything had been moved forward to last Wednesday, over two months early.  She felt she and her baby had been utterly betrayed by the criminal justice system, victimized for a third time.  Six months wasn't enough in the first place, but it was something.
 
She also mentioned that her baby boy has been terminated as a SHMC and their specialists due to outstanding medical bills.  Huh -- Wright was footloose, fancy free, and working at least some of the time (not to mention getting drunk, trading up his rig, etc.) for a year before going to Cottonwood, yet he apparently couldn't be bothered to start making payments towards the medical bills incurred as a result of him nearly killing his son.  I guess that new rig was far more important.  And it's not like he had to worry about massive attorney fees because we-the-taxpayers are footing that bill.
 
So on Wednesday, after lots of praise for doing a "very good job" at Cottonwood and “impressing” everyone in The System, Wright was returned to the community.  He had "virtually no violations" during his short stay at Cottonwood, and he managed to get a GED.  Restitution is ordered (I've seen how that works -- or doesn't work -- here), he'll be on probation for a decade (perhaps as little as five years if he behaves), and he's supposed to on-his-honor make a list of bad friends he's to avoid now.  If he doesn't follow the terms of his probation, he might go to jail for up to 30 days, although it doesn't seem like that happens very often here.
 
Those are the positives I can muster right now.
 
What's the negative, besides the fact that a baby born perfect will now have neurological challenges for the rest of his life?
 
When given the opportunity to address the court, Wright gushed by thanking the judge and shared what he learned during his short stay in Cottonwood, which according to Wright’s comments, apparently focused a lot on financial management and not spending money on stupid things <shaking my head>.  However, he failed to mention even once his son or what he'd done to his son's life and future.
 
Not once.
 
Nor did any of the court officials call him on that glaring omission.  Rather, there were lots of verbal pats on the back for him.
 
It was pretty clear to me that Wright learned well the lessons taught at Cottonwood about how to make a good impression when going to court.  It was pretty much the same spiel I've heard from convicts before, although Wright emphasized the personal money management  lessons to attain his personal goals more than I recall hearing before.
 
And, in fairness, I don't know what all the Rider Program teaches.  Perhaps the program just completely ignores the human victims/survivors and their loved ones of the crimes that land offenders at Cottonwood.  If that’s the case, that needs to be fixed.
 
Or, maybe that part of the program – if it exists -- simply didn't make an impression on Wright.
 
 Saundra LundMoscow, ID I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from cruelty of man.~ Mahatma Ghandi =======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================  
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140812/2baa60c9/attachment-0001.html>