I have been so busy so had to wait until today to post this update on convicted molestor Mark Dare's appeal. I covered the case, the trial and every hearing in detail. I am not linking all those posts from the 2018 case. Dare should serve his total 46 years to life in prison. I read the opinion, I looked at California Code 1170 (b).
Just like convicted rapist Kailan Meserve who is occupying and holding up a Humboldt jail bed for months that could be used to jail another criminal and keepthem off the streets, selfish and unrepentant Dare will do the same.
The judgement was affirmed, the opinion states it is court discretion regarding the upper term even after change in case law and Court may resentence Dare. The trial judge was Judge Kaleb Cockrum. He took time and effort during the trial because Dare tried every stunt and there was going to be an appeal. You can search all the posts on the blog. Once again, Dare is wasting taxpayer resources, court resources and law enforcement time instead of accepting responsibility for his depraved actions in harming his stepdaughters and society.
On 04/28/2023, the First Apellate District of California published an opinion. You can read the entire opinion online.
This is an excerpt from the first page of the opinion.
"Defendant appeals from his conviction on several counts of felony child molestation, raising challenges based on (1) the admission and exclusion of certain evidence, (2) instructional error, (3) prosecutorial misconduct, (4) the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, and (5) cumulative error. Defendant also contends we must remand for resentencing in light of changes to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b) that became effective after his sentencing. We reject defendant’s challenges to his convictions, but conclude that remand for resentencing is required based on the recent statutory changes affecting the trial court’s imposition of an upper term. "
Last two pages of opinion.
California Penal Code section 1170(b). Text is from California legislature.
(b) (1) When a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
(2) The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial. Except where evidence supporting an aggravating circumstance is admissible to prove or defend against the charged offense or enhancement at trial, or it is otherwise authorized by law, upon request of a defendant, trial on the circumstances in aggravation alleged in the indictment or information shall be bifurcated from the trial of charges and enhancements. The jury shall not be informed of the bifurcated allegations until there has been a conviction of a felony offense.
Last two posts:
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2022/07/no-surprise-that-mark-dare-filed-appeal.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2021/10/defiant-unremorseful-mark-dare-gets-46.html?m=1
Related posts:
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2021/12/jason-miller-picks-up-another-case.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2021/10/dare-jury-got-it-right-watson-jury-did.html?m=1
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.