Man tired of spending time in prison for failure to register seeks DNA to prove actual innocence
Don Johnson (not of Miami Vice fame), like some people, are on the registry not because of actual guilt but because they accepted a plea years ago to avoid the risk of trial and because they thought it would put an unpleasant experience behind them, not knowing a registry scheme would eventually be enacted that would make their lives hell.
Don plead guilty to a sexual assault in 1994 (his sentence was one year vs. potential life if he had gone to trial), before the enactment of the registry and he’s since been struggling with registration requirements, being imprisoned for technical registration violations. While in prison, Don sought to take advantage of a 2012 law that provided, “A person may file a motion for forensic or scientific analysis under this chapter if that person: (1) has been convicted of a criminal offense in a court of the commonwealth; (2) is incarcerated in a state prison, house of correction, is on parole or probation or whose liberty has been otherwise restrained as the result of a conviction; and (3) asserts factual innocence of the crime for which the person has been convicted.”
The District Attorney argued that Don wasn’t entitled to a DNA test because he was not in prison for the sexual offense, but for failing to register as a sex offender. The Massachusetts supreme court held otherwise!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We all know the Departments of Corrections across the U.S are a for profit entity and push back on any relief former inmates, probationers, felons etc. seek. The stats prove it.
The United States has the highest prison population in the world. More than 2.2 million Americans are incarcerated; 4.5 million are on probation or parole. ( Reference University of Virginia study )
As to “gain time.” Florida’s “gain time” is a myth! It isn’t what it appears to be. You mind your manners, behave, do what you’re told, keep the peace, don’t cause trouble so you can get “gain time”. Then, once you’ve served your time and are being released, you’re told that you have CRD which is actually you PAYING BACK the “gain time” you “earned” while incarcerated. You are not advised of this when being sentenced, just given the illusion that this will be given you if you behave yourself and make your incarceration time shorter. How do we successfully argue and win this unfair intimidation?
For those who have charges for certain sex offenses (most, not all) occurring on or after October 1, 2014 will not be eligible for gain time within the Florida department of corrections, period. This is started within the Chapter 33 book within the DOC. It can be accessed by inmates at their law libraries.
I’ve tried to find any reference of it on the Internet. Not surprising I have found nothing. Had I not read it personally I would be inclined to be doubtful of that information.
As far as those who are eligible for gain time and are placed on CRD as a result? That is solely within the FDOC’s discretion, not the Courts.
I’m not saying i agree with it mind you. It’s crap. Thought I might clarify so you are better informed.
Sc, I can verify what you read. My husband is incarcerated for a sexual offense, receives 10 days a month in gain time, but will have to serve 100% of his sentence. Even his defense attorney told me in January of 2018 that my husband would only have to serve 85% of his time, but that was incorrect information.
Yup. From what i gathered this rule was implemented without much of any notification, to anyone.
In Kansas earlier this year a man who spent 23 yrs in prison for a crime he did not commit, was released. DNA was used to prove his innocence. Even after the evidence was presented it took almost 2 yrs for him to be released. Because of that legislation was passed allowing for compensation for jail time spent and other things also. It determined $65,000 a yr. was fair for jail time. That man is now going back to sue for compensation. This is what accountability means. If other states would adopt a similar policy they might be a little more careful about throwing someone in prison at the drop of a hat.
Would DNA help in a case that where the aleadged vic says a crime was supposed to have taken place and where DNA should be present there was none found ?
DNA is not the only form of evidence available to convict.