Quote Quoting cbg
View Post
What makes you think you are entitled to an early termination? How is it unfair for you to have to complete your sentence?
I think you're missing the part that I'm questioning. As I said I knew it was at the court's discretion to release me early or not. If they just said no, they don't think it would be a good move then I would live with it and that's it. At this point I'm not arguing that I'm entitled to early termination, but more that from my perspective my case was viewed in an unfair way, that the decision of my case was decided before I even filed the motion, by a party that is not involved in the case.

Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
You won’t get the conviction overturned for this. You either plead guilty to the DUI in a deal with the DA or you were convicted by jury at trial (very, very few criminal defendants that go to trial have the case decided by a judge, it is very unusual for both defendant and prosecutor to go for that). Either way, the judge did not decide your guilt. You can ask your lawyer if her comments might enable you to challenge her sentencing decision and in particular the decision not to terminate probation early, but I think that’s a long shot. Understand that many judges, though they will not say so explicitly, do consider the public impact of their sentencing decisions along with many other factors. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; the community has an interest in ensuring that cases are decided properly and that sentences are fair. Focusing on just one segment of the community (MADD in this case) — and explicitly saying that in the hearing — is unusual and raises more of a concern but still may not be enough for an appeals court to say the judge abused her discretion in denying early release from probation. Your lawyer will be able to review the entire transcript of the hearing and advise you of that might be done.
You are correct about not changing the conviction status, I should have worded the title different, I'm not trying to change the conviction but more so bring the sentence and they way the sentence was decided into question. Thank you though for including that and explaining it as well in your answer. From what it sounds like is I'm SOL on this matter with my case which I was half expecting. As a follow up question is there a way to bring this type of practice into light? My reasoning is that it seems really unfair to defendants that an outside party should have any kind of influence on how a defendant is convicted/sentenced, especially when that defendant has no idea the outside party is influencing the decision at all. Isn't the point of the court process to determine if your guilty or not and sentence you based on the law, not based on whether an outside party will like it or not? As I said, if the outside party went through the process of making the law stricter beforehand then that's one thing, but to be sentenced based on a possibility that an outside party will not like it seems crazy to me. I've been trying to look up a similar situation to this and other than allegations on news sites, I can't really find much on it. I realize that my case in particular is unlikely to change now, and that's not what I'm after, I'm looking to see, if there is no law for or against this practice, if there is a way to question this practice in court, not just about my judge but for all. And yes I realize it's likely nothing will come of it, I'm still curious anyways.