Showing posts with label States: New England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label States: New England. Show all posts

Monday, May 2, 2011

Immigrant Rights Group Calls on New York Governor to Extend Pardon Panel

According to Democracy Now, immigrant rights advocates are calling on New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to formalize and expand an immigration pardon panel established last year under former Governor David Paterson.

The panel was designed to allow immigrants the opportunity to defend themselves from being deported. Since major changes in immigration laws in 1996, millions of immigrants have been deported for minor crimes and crimes they were already punished for. Mizue Aizeki heads the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Power of the Governor or the Governor's Boards and Commissions (the Governor's of all other States have the same authority with the exception of the State of Georgia):
  • A pardon from the State of New York can prevent deportation or permit reentry to the sovereign State of New York or the United States.
  • People who wish to service in the New York State Defense Forces (cannot be federalized), the New York National Guard, or any branch of the United States armed forces must have a pardon from the State of New York.
  • A pardon is also required from the State of New York for people who wish to travel to foreign countries. 

    According to democracynow.org:

    Mizue Aizeki, Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights: “You’re funneling people into a system where they have no way to get out. It’s a mandatory deportation. And this is a system that needs to be examined very critically, and so we’re calling on Governor Cuomo to institute this pardon panel that would allow at least many immigrants a second chance to be like, 'Look, this is my life. I’ve rehabilitated. Would you please give me another chance?' And I think it’s important to remind people that this is basically a premise of our society: that you should not be punished doubly for something that you’ve already done your time.”

    Andrew Cuomo assumed the office of Governor at 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2011, succeeding David Paterson. Governor David Paterson granted over 20 pardons before leaving office to prevent deportation alone.

    > Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

    Wednesday, February 16, 2011

    New Rhode Island and Providence Plantations expungement laws effective

    Before leaving office, two-term Governor Donald Carcieri (R) (pictured) of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations signed new expungement legislation into law on June 25, 2010.

    The new law allows the Expungement of Deferred Sentences five (5) years after sentencing. In Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, a motion to expunge is required to expunge a Criminal Conviction.

    This law will allow anyone with a Deferred Sentence in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations to expunge their criminal record after 5 years, so long as they remain criminal activity free (not arrest for a criminal offense) during the five (5) year period.

    Previously, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Courts were regularly allowing the expungement of Deferred Sentences. However, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations ruled that a person had to wait 10 years after completion of the Deferred Sentence in order to be eligible for expungement. The new law signed by Governor Donald Carcieri (R) (pictured) essentially nullifies and overturns the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Supreme Court ruling.

    Every State or Commonwealth has their criminal code and definition of expungement, seal, pardon, or expungement after pardon. In the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation, expungement is defined as: "Expungement of records and records of conviction" means the sealing and retention of all records of a conviction and/or probation and the removal from active files of all records and information relating to conviction and/or probation. G.S. § 12-1.3-1.

    Like most States, the conviction of a felony may be grounds for revoking or refusing to issue a professional license. Examples include: Private Investigator (R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-5-3(2), Private Security Guard Business (§ 5-5.1-8(a)(3), Pharmacist (§ 5-19-18), and Veterinarian (§ 5-25-14(1) amoung others.

    Rhode Island has a registration requirement for sex offenders. R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-37-16.

    Rhode Island and Providence Plantations was the first of the thirteen original colonies to declare independence from British rule and the last to ratify the United States Constitution.

    > Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

    Tuesday, November 16, 2010

    New Jersey Supreme Court rules that expungements do not negate bans on public employment

    Public workers who commit crimes are barred from future public employment when the infractions involves their jobs — even if they later have their records expunged, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on October 27, 2010.

    "When a person is convicted of an offense that 'involves and touches upon' that person's public office, the obligatory forfeiture of public employment provisions of (state law) are triggered," Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto wrote for the majority. Those provisions say a person "shall be forever disqualified from holding any office or position of honor, trust or profit" in the state.

    The case involves a former detective, identified in court papers only as D.H., who worked in the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office from 1985 to 1999. In June 1999, according to the decision, a local employer called and asked D.H. to conduct a criminal background check on a job applicant. D.H. checked the Criminal Justice Information System and found the prospective employee did have an arrest record.

    The following month, representatives from the prosecutor's office and State Police questioned her, and she was charged in September 1999 with the disorderly persons offense of purposeful and unauthorized access of a computer. D.H. pleaded guilty and agreed to forfeit current and future public employment, the decision said.
    Considering D.H.’s "unblemished past" and agreement to give up her job, a trial judge sentenced her to pay $110 in costs and penalties.

    In 2008, D.H. sought to have her conviction expunged, according to court papers. In granting her request, a trial court noted "the purpose of expungement is the elimination of the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction imposed upon an otherwise law-abiding citizen," determined forfeiture of public employment was a "collateral consequence" and voided that disqualification as well.

    The state lost an appeal when an appellate panel sided with the trial court. On October 27, 2010, New Jersey's highest court agreed D.H.'s record should be expunged, but a majority of five justices found her disqualification from public employment is a separate matter that stands. Justice Virginia Long dissented, saying the expungement also should have voided D.H.'s disqualification from public employment.

    D.H.’s attorney, Robert Donaher, said his client committed "a minor infraction." He said the computer lookup was done for a "former member of law enforcement."

    "She no longer has a criminal record," Donaher said, noting D.H. had no plans to seek a public-sector job.

    "From a practical standpoint, she's vindicated."

    Judge Edwin Stern did not participate in the case.

    Source: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/nj_supreme_court_rules_record.html

    > Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

    Monday, March 29, 2010

    New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signs new legislation broadening the state's expungement statute

    The Honorable Chris Christie, Governor of the State of New Jersey recently signed new legislation broadening the state's expungement statute. Governor Christie signed the legislation into law after it passed both houses of the New Jersey Legislature; the General Assembly and the Senate earlier this year.

    CHANGES TO NEW JERSEY EXPUNGEMENT LAWS:
    • Citizens with convictions for third or fourth degree drug distribution convictions on their record may be expunged.
    • The new legislation also reduces waiting periods for the expungement of indictable (felony) convictions. Under the old law, a citizen had to wait until 10 years had passed. Under the new expungement statute, certain indictable convictions will be eligible for consideration after a period of 5 years. There will be a series of factors that the court will consider when deciding if an early expungement should be granted. The important thing is the application can be filed, in most cases, 5 years earlier than before.

    The changes to New Jersey's expungement laws include other provisions, but the ones listed above are the most beneficial for people who need an expungement. For additional information, contact Records Removal Services today! Don't let your criminal history haunt you for the rest of your life!

    > Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

    Sunday, November 8, 2009

    What do states owe the exonerated?

    This month, two men – both freed last year after DNA evidence exonerated them of the crimes for which they'd been in prison – received drastically different news about how they might be compensated for those lost years.

    Connecticut legislators voted to award $5 million to James Tillman to help him get his life back on track after 18 years behind bars for a rape he didn't commit.

    The Florida Legislature, on the other hand, denied Alan Crotzer's request for $1.25 million and let a bill die that would have standardized a compensation system for victims of wrongful conviction.

    "I felt so disappointed," says Mr. Crotzer, who served more than 24 years in a Florida prison until DNA evidence cleared him of rape and kidnapping charges. He's been working odd jobs that pay less than $300 a week since he got out. "The bottom line is, I don't think I could ever put a price on freedom…. But they've got to put a system in place. [This issue] isn't going away."

    Last month, the 200th person was exonerated due to DNA evidence, but the majority of those released have gotten nothing but an apology – and sometimes not even that.

    "We are exonerating people who did not commit crimes, spent two decades in prison or time on death row, and when they get out, there are fewer reentry services for these people than for individuals who actually committed crimes," says Barry Scheck, codirector of the Innocence Project at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, which is dedicated to exonerating the wrongfully convicted. "It's a measure of decency."

    As DNA exonerations become more plentiful – and more publicized – some states are moving on the compensation front. Of the 200 men who have been exonerated based on DNA evidence, about 45 percent have received some sort of compensation, according to the Innocence Project, with amounts that range from $25,000 to $12.2 million.

    Twenty-one states, along with the federal government and the District of Columbia, now have standardized compensation laws on the books – offering exonerees amounts ranging from $15,000 total to $50,000 per year of imprisonment. Thirteen states have introduced bills this year to either create or improve compensation for the wrongfully convicted. Some of those bills, like the one that gave Mr. Tillman $5 million, dealt only with individual prisoners, but other states are trying to standardize the compensation.

    Crotzer – as much as he would have liked to see his own petition for compensation filled – favors the latter, as do most advocates of the wrongfully convicted. "It's like I've got my hand out begging," he says of the process he went through. "It makes me feel bad."

    Texas, where 13 men have been exonerated in Dallas County alone, is considering a package of bills that would, among other things, raise the compensation amount from $25,000 to $50,000 per year of incarceration.

    Vermont – which hasn't yet had a prisoner exonerated by DNA evidence – has passed a comprehensive bill that would provide between $30,000 and $60,000 per year of incarceration as well as access to healthcare and reintegration services. It's currently awaiting the governor's signature.

    That's a trend that advocates at the Innocence Project hope they see more of. They note that in addition to monetary compensation, most of the wrongfully convicted leave prison with few skills and desperately need access to education, mental-health services, medical care, and job training. Currently, most exonerees don't even have access to the same sort of services that parolees get, since they're not being paroled.

    "In Florida, if you're a parolee they give you $100 and a bus ticket," says Michael Olenick, the Tallahassee attorney who represented Crotzer pro bono. "Al Crotzer got no bus ticket, and no $100."

    He also didn't get access to counseling, and he says he's struggled with some things since his release: He still wants to turn his light off at 11:47 every night, for instance, and he keeps everything in his room neat enough to pass a cell inspection.

    Crotzer recently married a woman with two children and has worked a series of low-skill jobs ranging from street cleaning to janitorial duties. He's in the process of moving to Tallahassee, where he has an offer to work as a dishwasher. But he's hoping for a job at a nearby sheriff's office working with at-risk youth, and he's trying to stay sanguine about it all. "I kept my self-respect by not becoming the monster they wanted me to be," he says of his years in prison.

    Neither Mr. Olenick nor Crotzer can be sure why the request for $1.25 million failed, especially after the Florida House unanimously approved it. Senate leaders said they didn't have the money – a common reason that states cite in not providing compensation. In Crotzer's case, some also suggested that lawmakers didn't want to grant any more individual compensation bills, but instead wanted to pass a "global" bill that would address all cases. However, the three such bills that were introduced in past years didn't go anywhere.

    Some believe Crotzer may also have been hurt by the fact that he was convicted of a beer store robbery when he was 18 – a fact that would have excluded him from compensation under one of the laws proposed in Florida.

    Olenick says he'll keep fighting and will refile the claim for next year's session. "When you handle a case like Al's, he becomes locked in your heart," Olenick says. "Until he gets compensated, I'm not going to stop."

    > Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

    Sunday, June 15, 2008

    Romney denied pardons in Massachusetts, even from war veteran

    A lot of people have probably read this article by now because it was reported by the Associated Press and featured on Yahoo! News, USA Today, CNN, and several other major media outlets.

    How does he expect people to find employment and/or housing?

    BOSTON (AP) — A decorated Iraq war veteran, convicted as a boy for a pellet gun shooting, seemed like an ideal candidate for a pardon from then - Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. But Romney, now a U.S. Republican presidential candidate, said no — twice — despite the recommendation of the Commonwealth's Board of Pardons.

    At age 13, Anthony Circosta was convicted of assault for shooting another boy in the arm with a BB gun, a shot that did not break the skin. Circosta worked his way through college, joined the Army National Guard and led a platoon of 20 soldiers in Iraq's deadly Sunni triangle.

    In 2005, as he was serving in Iraq, he sought a pardon to fulfill his dream of becoming a police officer. "I've done everything I can to give back to my state and my community and my country, and my commonwealth to get brushed aside is very frustrating," said Circosta, 29.

    In his presidential bid, Romney often proudly points out that he was the first governor in modern Massachusetts history to deny every request for a pardon or commutation during his four years in office. He says he refused pardons because he did not want to overturn a jury.

    But critics argue that the blanket policy is an abdication of a key power given governors and the president — the ability to recognize how someone convicted of a past crime has turned their life around.

    During the four years Romney was in office, 100 requests for commutations and 172 requests for pardons were filed in the state. All were denied.

    While he refused all requests for pardons as Governor, Romney has said that could change if he is elected president. Asked in last week's debate if he would consider pardoning Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation, Romney said: "It's worth looking at that. I will study it very closely if I'm lucky enough to be president. And I'd keep that option open."

    During his first year in office, the Board of Pardons recommended 11 pardons and two commutations. After Romney decided against granting any, the number of hearings dropped dramatically. During the next three years, the board recommended just four pardons and a single commutation.

    His Excellency, Governor Romney rejected every one.

    > Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

    Tuesday, June 10, 2008

    Rhode Island House of Representatives OKs bill to destroy criminal records

    Despite objections from the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Attorney General, the State Police and the Governor, the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations House of Representatives voted 46 to 17 for a bill to quash and destroy the records of criminal cases in which the accused was given a deferred sentence, usually in exchange for sparing the state a trial by pleading no contest or guilty to a crime.

    The bill sailed through the House with no debate yesterday after a heated — but short-circuited debate earlier this week — in which proponents assured their colleagues it was aimed at helping people remove from their records youthful indiscretions that were keeping them from moving ahead in life, school and jobs, and opponents noted the bill goes much further than the state’s existing expungement law in that it is not limited to nonviolent crimes by first-time offenders.

    Beyond that, critics argued that it could be used as a legal club to try to prevent newspapers from publishing facts that the public already knows about crimes — or perhaps should know — if they involve candidates for a job, including public office. Current state law bars people with certain felony convictions from obtaining state licenses to work in nursing, social work and auto repair: this would provide a way around that.

    “So now we are rewriting history and telling the newspaper they can’t refer to something that everybody knows about?” Rep. Laurence Ehrhardt, R-North Kingstown, asked rhetorically.

    Current law already allows the expungement of a single nonviolent offense from the record of a first-time offender five years after he or she has completed a sentence for a misdemeanor, or 10 years after completing a sentence for a felony.

    Despite efforts over the years by the minority community, the criminal defense bar and the gun lobby to shorten the waiting periods, this law remains intact and was used to remove 4,360 misdemeanors and 625 felonies from the public record last year alone, and 28,417 criminal cases from the public record since 2000.

    Yesterday’s bill was sparked by a November decision by the Rhode Island Supreme Court on the treatment of cases in which the admitted criminal had been given a deferred prison sentence, as was the case in a number of high-profile cases involving accused stalkers, embezzlers, an admitted accomplice to a gunpoint robbery in Waterplace Park who traded testimony for a reduced sentence, one of the admitted co-conspirators in the Lincoln bribery scandal and at least one child molester.

    The court's decision centered on two admitted criminals foiled by a judge in their efforts to get their records expunged. One had pleaded no contest to second-degree robbery; the other to a drug-possession charge. Both received deferred sentences. They both appealed to the high court after a judge ruled them ineligible for expungement: the first because he had committed a violent crime, and the second because she got into further trouble.

    "Because they never were actually sentenced," their lawyer argued that "they had not been convicted of any offense and therefore all records involving their arrest and plea should be erased." But the Supreme Court disagreed. Since "a plea of nolo contendere is an implied confession of guilt," the court said "it follows that such a plea constitutes a conviction for purposes of weighing who is and is not eligible for expungement, even when it has been followed by a deferred sentence."

    > Posted by Records Removal Services. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.