Justice or Injustice? Bring Home Marquise Jones...
0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
October 27th 2008 Marquise Jones was sentenced to 21 years in prison for aggravated assault. On numerous occasions we have filed motions for Marquise's release each one giving more hope than the last. February 27th 2017 a motion for Judicial release was filed. It was referred to adult probation on March 30th 2017. October 11th 2017 we filed the same motion again because his original motion filed in February was lost. November 16th 2017 we had a meeting with the Judge to discuss eligibility for Marquise's release. The Judge stated he needed more information on "stated prison term" but pending that new information Marquise's judicial was dismissed. The same day Danielle Kulik provided the information requested. (see below) After not hearing a response from the Courts we filed another motion to reduce his sentence on January 9 2018. Without a hearing the courts denied his motion and found it not well taken. All I want to do is bring my husband home before the end of the year. I would like to have Judge Hart look thoroughly at all this information and listen to us in a court setting. Hear the pleas of his attorney, of Marquise, of our family and friends. If rehabilitation ever worked Marquise is an example to use because he just wants to come home do the right things and show the world he is more than inmate A554678. Below I have listed information the Judge should consider
I. Marquise and another defendant who faced the same charges were the only 2 to go to trial. Judge Hafford stated he was sentencing the two identical for the crimes and is in the court transcripts. However that defendant was brought back to court and her sentence was reduced and Marquise's was not. Please see R.C. 2929.11(B) require that sentencing courts impose punishment and sentence "consistent
with the sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders." Consistency does not necessarily mean uniformity; rather, consistency has a goal of similar sentences for similar offenses. See State v. Battle, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-863, 2007-Ohio- 1845. As a result, consistency includes a range of sentences, taking into consideration a trial court's discretion to weigh the relevant statutory factors. Id. Even though offenses may be similar, "distinguishing factors may justify dissimilar sentences." Id. at ¶ 24; State v. King, 5th Dist. No. CT06-0020, 2006-Ohio-6566, ¶ 23. State v. McClanahan, 2014-Ohio- 5597, OT-14- 024, (6th
II.There is a signed and notarized affidavit of misconduct by then Detective Overmyer who is now serving time for corruption while employed at the Sandusky County Sheriffs office.
III. Allied Offenses: (State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403, 2016-Ohio-7658) R.C. 2941.25 prohibits imposition of multiple sentences for allied offenses of
similar import—When a trial court concludes that two offenses are allied offenses of similar import but then imposes a sentence for each offense, the sentences are void.
IV. Exhibit provided for "Stated prison term" State v. Jones, 2004-Ohio-3417, C.A. 03CA008370, 04-LW- 2840 (9th Dist.). “pursuant to former R.C. 2929.20(B)(5),which provided that: ‘If the offender's stated prison term includes a mandatory prison term, the offender shall file the motion within the time authorized under division (B)(1),(2), (3), or (4) of this section for the non-mandatory portion of the prison term, but the time for filing the motion does not begin to run until after the expiration of the mandatory portion of the prison term.’” State v. Scott, 2011-Ohio- 5527, S-10- 023, (6th Dist.). That case was not interpreting the statute but only quoting a former reading of the statute that
does not apply to the current statute. The nonmandatory time in the present case is 18 years. R.C.2929.20 reads that he must sit half of the stated prison term. Under the case law above the stated term does not include mandatory time. On the Ohio Department of Corrections website, they concur that Mr. Jones only has a stated term of 18 years. [Ex. A]. Therefore, Mr. Jones must only sit 9 years. He entered in 2008 and therefore he became eligible in 2017.
R.C.2929.20(C)(4) then comes into play to assure that no one with mandatory times is released earlier than 5 years after the expiration of the time. Herein, that would have been 2016. Therefore under R.C.2929(C)(5) the later of the two dates is 2017. Mr. Jones also had credit for time served in the amount 66 days. He entered the facility on October 29, 2008. [Ex. A]. Therefore, nine years was served on October 29, 2017 less the 66 days
made him eligible on August 24, 2017.
I am very respectfully asking the court to review this information above and asking our community to speak up for Marquise.
Today: Marquise is counting on you
Marquise Jones needs your help with “Judge Robert Hart Sandusky County Common Pleas Court: Justice or Injustice? Bring Home Marquise Jones...”. Join Marquise and 258 supporters today.