I think such issues need to be addressed by the defendant and defense counsel. If the assault was such it could result in death then it should be considered during a plea bargain. But, ONLY during a plea bargain.
If the state is forced to go to trial and the defendant never takes responsibility, any further developments should be fair game if it results in one or more criminal complaints. But even if not addressed during plea bargaining, a plea deal is made in good faith on both parts that should be the end of any action against the defendant.
Once a plea agreement has been made, it has until the moment it is accepted by the court. It doesn't always work that way but that should be the moment the prosecution is bound by the agreement. Only a mitigating circumstance coming to light can allow for a change to reduce or dismiss the charge. Once accepted by the court, the level or number of counts cannot be increased.
I refer to the date of acceptance by the court as that would be the binding date for the plea. If left until sentencing, then too much flexibility remains due to the court's schedule. This would be akin to the offense date being the basis of what laws were in effect at the time of offense. Were it left to the date of conviction, it's a certainty some (not all) prosecutors would delay matters knowing a stronger sentence option will later be in effect.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying one should get away with murder, literally. But, when a plea bargain is made it should be adhered to. I really fault the prosecutors for not requiring a longer sentence to start with. They created this problem and now want to fix it by violating a properly negotiated deal with poor terms some six years later. They threw a small number at the defendant and he jumped at it. I'd expect him to.
The prosecutor got a conviction notch on their belt. Given such a short sentence for injuries obviously bad enough to ultimately result in death, that notch is apparently all they cared about, justice be damned.
It seems to me this could have been a charge of attempted felony murder. He was illegally firing a weapon with reckless disregard. A near-fatal injury occurs. I don't know the laws in North Carolina but had they gone after him with more appropriate charges, he'd still be in prison serving four to six times what he did receive.
In looking at the article on drunk driving resulting in death... the drinking is begun by a conscious act to take the first drink. That in no way should relieve one of responsibility of their actions beyond that point. Eight years for actions that led to the loss of two lives and injury to several others? Sorry, that's a crock.
About 1995 or 1996, a Gwinnett County cop had just written up a DUI driver and the driver was hauled away by another unit while the arresting officer waited with the arrestee's vehicle to be towed. While sitting there, along comes another drunk driver and hits the police car. The officer was killed.
Did the legislature act with stronger penalties? Hardly! A third DUI is only an aggravated felony resulting in a mandatory 120 days incarceration, $1000-5000 in fines and revocation of license for five years with possible reinstatement after two years. No work permit for driving is allowed for the first two years.
I'm of the opinion, a second and subsequent DUI should be a felony with a mandatory six-month jail sentence to be increased two-fold for each subsequent offense. The offender will suffer mandatory license revocation for a minimum of five years (also increased two-fold for subseqent offenses) with no chance of a work permit.
Should there be some chance of a fifth offense, beg for mercy. If one has made it to that many offenses, they are not safe to be around. I can't fathom that occurence but it DOES happen.
If death and/or injury occur as a result of DUI, those charges should be aggravated and a mandatory minimum should be in place for even a plea bargain; something more on par with twelve years per count. In that woman's case, it would be 24 years for the deaths alone.
Is that too harsh after taking a life because you wanted to have a drink?
Oh, I'd be in favor of a federal law that mandates states verify the existence of a pilot certificate after a DUI conviction. If one exist, documents showing conviction should automatically be forwarded to AMC-700. I would be just as in favor of that same statute mandating revocation of a pilot certificate to be a minimum of any revocation period of a driver's license... if not for life.
