Week 5 Summative Assesment CJS251
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Phoenix *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
CJS/251
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
3
Uploaded by UltraComputer10055
Issues with Sentencing, Post Conviction Relief, and Due Process
University of phoenix
Zed Hernandez
Week 5 summative Assessment
10/16/2023
Issues with Sentencing, Post Conviction Relief, and Due Process
Introduction
In this paper, we will discuss Brice Cook's criminal trial as well as his sentencing,
post-conviction remedies, and due process. Throughout this procedure, we will discuss the
legalities of each aspect.
Crime Model
The due process paradigm of punishment was applied in Cook v. State of Tennessee.
After being tried for and convicted of first-degree murder, he was sentenced to life in prison.
Cook filed a post-conviction remedy of poor counsel during his trial when his appeal was
dismissed (www.tncourts.gov/news, 2020). I cannot agree with his appeal that he was misled by
his legal counsel, nor can I agree because every individual charged with a crime has the right to
due process and the opportunity to appeal if they believe they have not been adequately
represented.
Sentencing
Cook was charged with first-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison. In
Tennessee, the state's attorney must make the opening statement to the jury. If found guilty, the
jury must decide whether to inflict the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of
release in a separate sentencing hearing. Cook claimed that his attorney did not represent him
fairly during the sentencing process. There was some uncertainty about the witness's testimony
and the testimony of one of the police officers who examined Cook's girlfriend, who testified that
Cook was really the one who committed the murder. In my judgment, there was insufficient
evidence to raise the issue of punishment in this case, nor should there have been any
disagreement regarding the eyewitness interview with the police officer.
Post-Conviction Relief
Issues with Sentencing, Post Conviction Relief, and Due Process
Following the dismissal of his direct appeal, Cook applied for post-conviction relief,
claiming that he was not adequately represented by his attorney. Cook appealed to the Criminal
Court of Appeals with both his original petition and his new claim that the post-conviction judge
was biased against him. Despite the fact that it was determined that his motion was not filed in a
timely way, Not only should the judge have disqualified himself owing to his bias and failure to
file in a timely way, but he should also have disqualified himself due to comments he made
during the hearings. Cook stated in his appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court that because of
the judge and the statements, he should be entitled to a fresh hearing due to judicial bias and
that the judge had a duty to save himself from the trial. Despite the fact that the state claimed
that Cook's original petition was not available in post-conviction procedures,
The distinction between Post-Conviction Relief and an Appeal They are as follows:
Post-Conviction Relief allows a defendant in a criminal case to present more evidence and raise
more problems in a case when and after a decision is made inside the post-trial.
To secure a
fair trial in a case, there must be a valid basis for this. Such evidence must include DNA that can
help prove one's innocence, jury misconduct, prosecution misconduct, post-verdict changes in
the law, and being inadequately represented by your attorney (Megaro, Halscott, 2020). In order
for the case to be considered and for the appellate court to hear a direct appeal of a criminal
conviction, the defendant must file a motion to appeal within the necessary time period. There
are limitations to what events from the preliminary court trial can be heard by the appellate
courts (Spatz Law Firm, 2018). Although each state has its own time restriction, all cases must
be filed on time with adequate evidence to be heard again. To hear these types of cases, one
must have good, solid evidence that somehow, somewhere during the procedure of the trial,
there was misinformation given or that they have solid evidence such as DNA that can prove
their innocence and win a new trial.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help