My question involves criminal law for the state of: California
A couple years ago I was convicted of a DUI and sentenced to 3 years informal probation and some fines. I was also going into the military at the time and as you can imagine the probation interrupted this, my lawyer and I were trying to work out a deal with the DA on getting the probation removed but my lawyer said when brought up to the Judge, she said no and that she was going to make an example out of me. Whether that's exactly what she said or if my lawyer was just summarizing, I don't know. At the time I thought oh well I'll just deal with it and join the military afterwards.
Recently I reached the halfway point of my probation and I had met all other terms of the conviction the court assigned so I filed a motion to terminate my probation early. When called by the Judge, the same one that had sentence me prior, she almost immediately denied the motion which I understood was a possibility because this matter is up to the court's discretion. However what she said as her reasoning was what struck me as odd. Her reasoning was "Because of groups like MADD and she doesn't want MADD coming after her".
The reason I'm questioning this is because to my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, but something like MADD shouldn't have any effect in the court room, I'm not being judged by MADD, MADD is not my jury, so why did my Judge state that she is basing her decision on that group? Then this reminds me back to when I originally got my conviction, when my lawyer told me that the judge was trying to make an example out of me. Why was she trying to make an example out of me, because the group MADD influenced her decision?
Don't get me wrong, I believe a lot of what MADD does is good, the amount DUI checkpoint has been increased is great, people not drinking and driving is better and I did mess up. However I believe MADD should stay out of the courtroom. Its one thing if they want to appeal to the courts to make a law stronger or change the sentencing of a crime, but when it comes to a case and the courtroom, its to my understanding that they should have no influence there, you should be tried on the current laws at the time and sentenced based on those as well. Your sentence should not be influenced by an outside party.
I don't completely know how to phrase what I'm saying other than this: I feel that I am/was treated unfairly because my judge had a bias towards the outside party, MADD.

