Mississippi Court Upholds 12-Year Sentence for a Man Who Unwittingly Had a Phone in Jail

[Steeleballz 7,550]

The court says 12 years was "obviously harsh," but hey, at least it wasn't 15.

 

When Willie Nash was booked into a Mississippi corrections facility, officers failed to confiscate his phone. For that, he was sentenced to 12 years behind bars. The state's Supreme Court acknowledges that proper booking procedure was probably not followed and that Nash did not seem to know his phone was illegal, but they nonetheless ruled Thursday that the sentence is fair.

 

https://reason.com/2020/01/13/mississippi-court-upholds-12-year-sentence-for-a-man-who-unwittingly-had-a-phone-in-jail/#comments

 

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

The court says 12 years was "obviously harsh," but hey, at least it wasn't 15.

 

When Willie Nash was booked into a Mississippi corrections facility, officers failed to confiscate his phone. For that, he was sentenced to 12 years behind bars. The state's Supreme Court acknowledges that proper booking procedure was probably not followed and that Nash did not seem to know his phone was illegal, but they nonetheless ruled Thursday that the sentence is fair.

 

https://reason.com/2020/01/13/mississippi-court-upholds-12-year-sentence-for-a-man-who-unwittingly-had-a-phone-in-jail/#comments

 

 

There has to be more to it. If someone got 12 years for only having a cell phone that is grossly unjust. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

There has to be more to it. If someone got 12 years for only having a cell phone that is grossly unjust. 

 

   That's pretty much the extent of it as far as I can see. More of an indictment on how out of whack the law is in the first place though. Actually got to this story by following a comment "trail" from the article you posted about flogging in Indonesia. Someone made a great point about "excessiveness" everywhere.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

15 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   That's pretty much the extent of it as far as I can see. More of an indictment on how out of whack the law is in the first place though. Actually got to this story by following a comment "trail" from the article you posted about flogging in Indonesia. Someone made a great point about "excessiveness" everywhere.

I googled around, cant find anymore to it than that. WOW

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

This one's tough..

 

He's a recidivist who already served a handful of years in prison for prior offenses. Given his last sentence was 7 or so years, I disagree that this strikes at the 8th (concerning cruel and unusual punishment) when paired with his misdemeanor and repeat offenses. I also don't see how he doesn't know, given his history, that there's no phones allowed in prison.

 

Nonetheless, but.. and it's a big "but" (👀).. logically, it makes little sense that he be sentenced for bringing a cell phone when he was allowed to bring it in, in the first place. Apparently he didn't try and hide it, it wasn't used as a weapon or for committing any other crimes (according to what I read), the cop who didn't adequately search him didn't even bother showing up.. who's the actual victim here necessitating such a massive sentence? 

 

It's not an 8th amendment issue, but I think this dude should be given clemency after serving his misdemeanor. Should not be anywhere near 12 years, let alone the 15 years max. I understand the reasoning of the sentence, but the judge also had a pretty wide window of 3-15 years. Unfortunately rules and laws can be made by people with little understanding of nuance. That this is paired with weapons and other things, demonstrates its a law that needs to be struck down and make state lawmakers re-write it with an ounce of logic.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

The court says 12 years was "obviously harsh," but hey, at least it wasn't 15.

 

When Willie Nash was booked into a Mississippi corrections facility, officers failed to confiscate his phone. For that, he was sentenced to 12 years behind bars. The state's Supreme Court acknowledges that proper booking procedure was probably not followed and that Nash did not seem to know his phone was illegal, but they nonetheless ruled Thursday that the sentence is fair.

 

https://reason.com/2020/01/13/mississippi-court-upholds-12-year-sentence-for-a-man-who-unwittingly-had-a-phone-in-jail/#comments

 

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/2020/2018-ka-01587-sct.html

Now as to the sentence, we have no idea if him having it was an accident or not.  Sounds like he had been in jail more than once before, and should have known the drill.  Did the booking officer fail?  Perhaps.  Did Willie work hard to hide the phone?  Impossible to say.  If he DID hide it, and then ask to charge it, pretty dumb on his part.  If he legit didn't know it was prohibited (hard to believe based on past history), then bad on the booking officer.  

 

I do find it hard to believe that the law groups cell phone ownership right up there with weapons and such, but a criminal having contact with the outside world via electronics is clearly not allowed.  Pretty sure we have all seen enough movies to know this.  Perhaps an extension to his misdemeanor sentence (which I cannot seem to find details about) would have been more in order?

 

He's eligible for parole on 8/23/2022.  Here's hoping he's behaved himself and can manage to get out.  I'm really surprised some civil rights activist hasn't been able to get the sentence reduced or the case thrown out.  As NB said, there may be more to the story we don't know, like his prior offenses, or the misdemeanor for which he was being sentenced when he messed up.  Seems like he was doing well for 10 years when this happened.  It DOES seem harsh looking in from the outside.

Edited January 29, 2020 by ALFKAD

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

And it appears that he is still trying, and has support for, a reversal for the conviction.  Not sure how much of a chance this has in court, but at least someone is trying.

 

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/nash_v_state_-_motion_for_rehearing_filed.pdf

[Steeleballz 7,550]

13 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

https://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/2020/2018-ka-01587-sct.html

Now as to the sentence, we have no idea if him having it was an accident or not.  Sounds like he had been in jail more than once before, and should have known the drill.  Did the booking officer fail?  Perhaps.  Did Willie work hard to hide the phone?  Impossible to say.  If he DID hide it, and then ask to charge it, pretty dumb on his part.  If he legit didn't know it was prohibited (hard to believe based on past history), then bad on the booking officer.  

 

I do find it hard to believe that the law groups cell phone ownership right up there with weapons and such, but a criminal having contact with the outside world via electronics is clearly not allowed.  Pretty sure we have all seen enough movies to know this.  Perhaps an extension to his misdemeanor sentence (which I cannot seem to find details about) would have been more in order?

 

He's eligible for parole on 8/23/2022.  Here's hoping he's behaved himself and can manage to get out.  I'm really surprised some civil rights activist hasn't been able to get the sentence reduced or the case thrown out.  As NB said, there may be more to the story we don't know, like his prior offenses, or the misdemeanor for which he was being sentenced when he messed up.  Seems like he was doing well for 10 years when this happened.  It DOES seem harsh looking in from the outside.

 

    I doubt if he would have asked the guard to charge the phone for him if he knew he wasn't supposed to have one or if he had gone to great lengths to hide it in the first place. I would also not be sure he was aware based on his previous history. Many of us didn't use cell phones in 2001. 

 

   Anyway I wasn't posting this to speculate on assumptions. I understand why they shouldn't have cell phones, but I don't understand why he wasn't shown more leniency. The statutory minimum sentence would be 3 years with parole in one. I don't see anything to indicate he needed anything more than that unless intent can be shown. 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Steeleballz

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    I doubt if he would have asked the guard to charge the phone for him if he knew he wasn't supposed to have one or if he had gone to great lengths to hide it in the first place. I would also not be sure he was aware based on his previous history. Many of us didn't use cell phones in 2001. 

 

   Anyway I wasn't posting this to speculate on assumptions. I understand why they shouldn't have cell phones, but I don't understand why he wasn't shown more leniency. The statutory minimum sentence would be 3 years with parole in one. I don't see anything to indicate he needed anything more than that unless intent can be shown. 

 

Yeah, I agree with you.  The fact that it was a victimless crime, unless somehow it SERIOUSLY compounded his original misdemeanor crime, lends me to think it was excessive.  It seems more than a few at his sentencing felt the same way.

 

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/cellphonesentence.pdf

 

All worth a browse, but particularly paragraph 20 and onward starting on page 8.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

6 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

https://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/2020/2018-ka-01587-sct.html

Now as to the sentence, we have no idea if him having it was an accident or not.  Sounds like he had been in jail more than once before, and should have known the drill.  Did the booking officer fail?  Perhaps.  Did Willie work hard to hide the phone?  Impossible to say.  If he DID hide it, and then ask to charge it, pretty dumb on his part.  If he legit didn't know it was prohibited (hard to believe based on past history), then bad on the booking officer.  

 

I do find it hard to believe that the law groups cell phone ownership right up there with weapons and such, but a criminal having contact with the outside world via electronics is clearly not allowed.  Pretty sure we have all seen enough movies to know this.  Perhaps an extension to his misdemeanor sentence (which I cannot seem to find details about) would have been more in order?

 

He's eligible for parole on 8/23/2022.  Here's hoping he's behaved himself and can manage to get out.  I'm really surprised some civil rights activist hasn't been able to get the sentence reduced or the case thrown out.  As NB said, there may be more to the story we don't know, like his prior offenses, or the misdemeanor for which he was being sentenced when he messed up.  Seems like he was doing well for 10 years when this happened.  It DOES seem harsh looking in from the outside.

Well said.. concerning the law, the concurring judge criticized the fact that there was no distinguishing difference in the way the law was written between a phone and other things like a gun, knife, etc. I dunno about the movie analogy thing though.. silencers? 

 

I think it was a mistake to appeal the length of sentence and not the entire thing. This entire law should've been on trial.