Recently a former NBA basketball player, Jayson Williams was convicted of charges stemming from the shooting death of his chauffer.

 

I thought the Graves law would have mandated he serve 3 years on top of any other sentence imposed.

Apparently the mandatory law was not applied in his case.

 

Does anyone know why the mandatory sentence did not apply to him?

 

Thanks

By the terms of the "Graves Act", if you are convicted of possession of a firearm with the intent to use it against another, or use or possess a firearm while committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing from certain enumerated crimes, the sentencing judge must impose a minimum term of imprisonment without parole eligibility for a period of three year or between one-half and one-third of the sentence imposed, which ever is greater.

 

 

It doesnt say on top of, which I am pretty against. Consecutive sentences seem harsh to me after everyone I have ever seen when I worked at the prosecutors office get concurrent sentences.

"Does anyone know why the mandatory sentence did not apply to him?"

 

 

He's rich and famous...

He made a plea agreement and sentencing is usually part of it. As long as he agreed to plea guilty to the aggravated assault the other charge will be dropped. Not unusual. speeds things through the system.

So you figure it was a plea deal which exempted him?

 

This case bought to mind a case I personally know of where a kid who had just months before turned 18, had absolutely no record of any kind, never been in any trouble but had a brain fart and decided to hold up a gas station with a bb gun. Go figure, what the heck he was thinking! He pulls the bb gun and the attendant pretty much walks away to call the police. The kid is picked up within an hour without incident. Judge said he regretted having to apply the Graves act based on the circumstances but the kid served just short a month or two of 3 years in Yardville. Last 20 years the kid has been on the straight and narrow.

 

So when I see a guy who killed another guy get exempted from this mandatory law I have to scratch my head. The kid should have been punished severely but not 3 years.

 

I wonder if anyone has stats on how many have escaped the Graves act. I'm not a fan of mandatory sentencing or for tossing so many in jail. Also how many have had the Graves act applied. How effective has the Graves act been?

 

People go on the taxpayers dole when sent to prison, too many there now that should be supporting themselves and doing 'restitution' rather than having us spending $40K a year to cage them.

 

More feel good laws we don't need.

 

Thanks for your replys!

never been in any trouble but had a brain fart and decided to hold up a gas station

 

Come on, deciding to hold up a gas station is much more than a brain fart!

 

Did the kid plea bargain? Was he prosecuted as a juvenile or adult?

 

We all did stupid things, some we might have been arrested for, but armed robbery is far from being a playful youth.

 

I remember a few years ago a bunch of guys were "fooling around" pulling up in their car and shooting people with a BB gun. They all got 3 years and deserve it AFAIC.

 

Most add on charges can be negotiated away with plea bargaining. It all depends on what the defendant's record is and how strong a case the prosecution has.

We all did stupid things, some we might have been arrested for, but armed robbery is far from being a playful youth.

 

 

Agreed, not a good example to use here at all.

By the terms of the "Graves Act", if you are convicted of possession of a firearm with the intent to use it against another, or use or possess a firearm while committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing from certain enumerated crimes, the sentencing judge must impose a minimum term of imprisonment without parole eligibility for a period of three year or between one-half and one-third of the sentence imposed, which ever is greater.

 

As I recall - and I have not studied the particulars of the Jayson Williams case, but I believe it was an AD/ND situation. That alone would preempt the Graves law as it was not "intentional".

As I recall - and I have not studied the particulars of the Jayson Williams case, but I believe it was an AD/ND situation. That alone would preempt the Graves law as it was not "intentional".

 

 

 

Absolutely correct. Of course, the stupidity and arrogance factor should compensate somehow.

 

Sure accidents happen, but this one was ugly from the beginning.

Absolutely correct. Of course, the stupidity and arrogance factor should compensate somehow.

 

And the attempt at a coverup...