Speaking of contracts and leaglly binding documents............

[Trinity]

I have a question..........

If someone were arrested for a crime say back in 2002, went to court, took a plea deal, and was sentenced. Wouldn't that be considered a contract with the courts?

Now what if the laws were changed? Does that then change the contract? Even after the fact that the convicted person had already done everything they were legally bound to do, and had almost completed, or completed the terms of the plea deal?


Sorry that should have been legally.

[PostmodernProphet]

I would say it would NOT be considered a contract.....a contract is a mutually negotiated agreement with consideration.......

the criminal courts don't deal with agreements, they deal with orders....in fact one of the things the judges here say when accepting a plea is "has anyone promised you a particular result or decision in exchange for this plea".....and if the defendant says yes, the court rejects the plea......

[Yurt]

I would say it would NOT be considered a contract.....a contract is a mutually negotiated agreement with consideration.......

the criminal courts don't deal with agreements, they deal with orders....in fact one of the things the judges here say when accepting a plea is "has anyone promised you a particular result or decision in exchange for this plea".....and if the defendant says yes, the court rejects the plea......

what about unilateral contracts?

[Yurt]

I have a question..........

If someone were arrested for a crime say back in 2002, went to court, took a plea deal, and was sentenced. Wouldn't that be considered a contract with the courts?

Now what if the laws were changed? Does that then change the contract? Even after the fact that the convicted person had already done everything they were legally bound to do, and had almost completed, or completed the terms of the plea deal?


Sorry that should have been legally.

certain california cases have held that a plea agreement is a binding/valid contract with the state...not the courts. if the terms/conditions are changed, in california, it would most likely be a breach of contract.

[Trinity]

I would say it would NOT be considered a contract.....a contract is a mutually negotiated agreement with consideration.......

the criminal courts don't deal with agreements, they deal with orders....in fact one of the things the judges here say when accepting a plea is "has anyone promised you a particular result or decision in exchange for this plea".....and if the defendant says yes, the court rejects the plea......

But.......If they in fact (Prosecutor) did not have much evidence, and the Defendant that was charged did not want to have to go through a court trial due to what ever reason and they mutually prosecutor and defendants lawyer reach an agreement. Wouldn't that be considered a negotiated agreement?

[Trinity]

certain california cases have held that a plea agreement is a binding/valid contract with the state...not the courts. if the terms/conditions are changed, in california, it would most likely be a breach of contract.

Bingo....That's what I thought. So it is in some cases considered a binding/valid contract with the state. So if this is the case in some cases, why not all?

Next question............ what happens if the federal government decides to step in and implement new laws which would then change the terms of those binding/valid contracts with the state and defendant.

[Yurt]

OTE=Trinity;357462]Bingo....That's what I thought. So it is in some cases considered a binding/valid contract with the state. So if this is the case in some cases, why not all?

i answer generally so as not to give specific legal advice. :)


Next question............ what happens if the federal government decides to step in and implement new laws which would then change the terms of those binding/valid contracts with the state and defendant.

usually, this is called interference with a contract and is not allowed. one might also want to look at ex-post facto issues as well, since new conditions/terms might increase punishment.

[DannyR]

Now what if the laws were changed? Does that then change the contract? Even after the fact that the convicted person had already done everything they were legally bound to do, and had almost completed, or completed the terms of the plea deal?

I don't know anything about contracts, but changing the consequences for a crime and applying them to people who have already served their time is termed an ex post facto law I believe. Supposedly this would be a violation of one's rights as listed in the Constitution (Art 1, Sect 9)

However there are a number of ways to get around it.

The primary example that comes to mind are sexual offenders. Even if a sexual offender has done his time, served his probation, new laws have been put on the books basically adding to their punishment by putting them on various lists, saying where they can and cannot live, etc.

I've always thought this would probably be found to be illegal, but I believe the Supreme Court said such lists are not actually considered "punishment" and thus its not an ex post facto law. Not certain how kicking someone out of their home isn't a punishment, but who knows. Sexual predators aren't high on anyone's list when it comes to worrying about their rights.

[Nukeman]

Sexual predators aren't high on anyone's list when it comes to worrying about their rights.

Well considering what they call "sexual predators" these days I would be VERY conserned if I was a teenage boy. they have become WAY to loose with there determination and definition of what a "sex crime" is and how they punish the offenders... IMHO....

[DannyR]

Well considering what they call "sexual predators" these days I would be VERY conserned if I was a teenage boy. they have become WAY to loose with there determination and definition of what a "sex crime" is and how they punish the offenders... IMHO....Have to agree there. Some states differentiate between violent offenders, child predators and the like vs teens just on the wrong side of the statutory rape laws, but others do not.

[Trinity]

i answer generally so as not to give specific legal advice. :)



usually, this is called interference with a contract and is not allowed. one might also want to look at ex-post facto issues as well, since new conditions/terms might increase punishment.

Working on that one.

[Mr. P]

I have a question..........

If someone were arrested for a crime say back in 2002, went to court, took a plea deal, and was sentenced. Wouldn't that be considered a contract with the courts?

Now what if the laws were changed? Does that then change the contract? Even after the fact that the convicted person had already done everything they were legally bound to do, and had almost completed, or completed the terms of the plea deal?


Sorry that should have been legally.

What exactly is the problem, Trinity?

[Trinity]

I don't know anything about contracts, but changing the consequences for a crime and applying them to people who have already served their time is termed an ex post facto law I believe. Supposedly this would be a violation of one's rights as listed in the Constitution (Art 1, Sect 9)

However there are a number of ways to get around it.

The primary example that comes to mind are sexual offenders. Even if a sexual offender has done his time, served his probation, new laws have been put on the books basically adding to their punishment by putting them on various lists, saying where they can and cannot live, etc.

I've always thought this would probably be found to be illegal, but I believe the Supreme Court said such lists are not actually considered "punishment" and thus its not an ex post facto law. Not certain how kicking someone out of their home isn't a punishment, but who knows. Sexual predators aren't high on anyone's list when it comes to worrying about their rights.

Well I wasn't going to go there, I was going to keep this general. But since you went there, what do you think of this?

In a case likely headed for the Ohio Supreme Court, the state's 2007 law toughening requirements for sex offenders to report their address can be applied retroactively, an appeals court ruled Friday.


Even if the original time when offenders had to report has expired, the law is legal and still applies, the Cincinnati-based 1st District Court of Appeals ruled in a unanimous decision written by Judge Sylvia Hendon.

"By their voluntary acts (crimes), sex offenders have surrendered certain protections that arguably are afforded to other citizens. Their convictions of felony offenses put them into a class that has already been deemed to have no expectation of finality in the consequences of the judgments against them," the decision read.

Now let me pick this apart

"By their voluntary acts, sex offenders have surrendered certain protections that arguably are afforded to other citizens."

This is a statement that should scare everyone, SO or not. This court is saying if you fall into an unpopular class, you can be striped of your constitutional rights.

"Their conviction of felony offenses puts them into a class that has already been deemed to have no expectation of finality in the consequences of the judgments against them."

1. Who decided this "class" has no expectation of finality.

2. This judge put her foot squarely in her mouth with this statement. She is saying this "class" will never see an end to they're punishment.

[Mr. P]

A felony conviction or guilty plea to such will and does follow one the rest of their life.

Law changes as to registering or not, have no bearing on the original crime or plea.

[Yurt]

A felony conviction or guilty plea to such will and does follow one the rest of their life.

Law changes as to registering or not, have no bearing on the original crime or plea.

imo, they do have a bearing, however, courts have consistently ruled that registering or minor procedures such as this, do not "increase" punishment, hence no violation of ex-post facto laws.

[Trinity]

imo, they do have a bearing, however, courts have consistently ruled that registering or minor procedures such as this, do not "increase" punishment, hence no violation of ex-post facto laws.


Ok so if I am reading this right........ the courts are stating this is not punishment, but in fact civil, therefore the ex post facto law does not apply.

Doesn't it apply if it's civil, as the courts are claiming, based on the definition.



Dictionary of Legal Terms
Ex Post Facto

Literally, "after the fact." Ex post facto laws-prohibited by the constitution of the United States-are laws enacted after an act was done that: 1) impose a criminal penalty for the act where none previously existed; 2) impose a higher penalty than that previously applicable; or 3) eliminate a defense available at the time the act was done. The Ohio Constitution prohibits the enforcement of retroactive laws, whether criminal or civil, but gives effect to laws that establish a remedy or advantage not available when the act was done-that is, laws which put a person in a better place than he or she would have been under the law in effect when the act was done.

and the part in Italics what person are they referring to as "in a better place then he or she would have been under the law." The general public? or the person convicted of a crime?

[DannyR]

The Ohio Constitution prohibits the enforcement of retroactive laws, whether criminal or civilThis appears to apply only to Ohio, not nationally, but I'd think someone would thus have a case to contest such a penalty based on the inclusion of the civil prohibition there.


but gives effect to laws that establish a remedy or advantage not available when the act was done-that is, laws which put a person in a better place than he or she would have been under the law in effect when the act was done.Believe this refers to the convicted person. In other words, the legislator can pass a law saying the penalty for some crime has a maximum punishment of 5 years. If a person were previously convicted and sentenced to a 10 year punishment, they could immediately be released (if the law provided for retroactive enforcement).

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't know anything about contracts, but changing the consequences for a crime and applying them to people who have already served their time is termed an ex post facto law I believe. Supposedly this would be a violation of one's rights as listed in the Constitution (Art 1, Sect 9)



so long as the punishment was within the scope of what could originally have been included in the sentence and there was a legitimate reason for the courts to reexamine the original punishment (for example, probation violation) it would not be an ex post facto situation....you aren't changing the consequences of the crime, just changing which of the already permitted consequences will be applied to this particular person.....

[PostmodernProphet]

what about unilateral contracts?
I'm having trouble seeing how the relationship between a court and a defendant could be a unilateral contract.....is the court advertising for people willing to be sentenced?......

[Yurt]

This appears to apply only to Ohio, not nationally, but I'd think someone would thus have a case to contest such a penalty based on the inclusion of the civil prohibition there.

Believe this refers to the convicted person. In other words, the legislator can pass a law saying the penalty for some crime has a maximum punishment of 5 years. If a person were previously convicted and sentenced to a 10 year punishment, they could immediately be released (if the law provided for retroactive enforcement).

danny is right, as far as i know, ex post facto does not apply in civil cases, appears ohio made an exception....for federal law, it only applies in criminal cases.

the question, if i understand your issue here, is whether the federal law is ex post facto and if so, then the question would be does federal law trump state law through the supremacy clause. i would want to know if the conviction was federal or state. if it is the sexual predator issue, seems this si state to me, unless there is a federal statute that was violated.

[Yurt]

I'm having trouble seeing how the relationship between a court and a defendant could be a unilateral contract.....is the court advertising for people willing to be sentenced?......

you said that a contract is:


contract is a mutually negotiated agreement with consideration

was this you talking solely about the issue here and not defining contracts in general? because general contract law recognizes unilateral contracts which you know are not mutually negotiated.

i don't know about yoru state, but in ohio and california, plea bargains are a contract with the state, not the court....at least according to this:

In State v. Butts (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 683, this court recognized that "[a] plea bargain itself is contractual in nature and subject to contract-law standards." Citing Baker v. United States (C.A.6 1986), 781 F.2d 85, 90, cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1017.

[PostmodernProphet]

you said that a contract is:



was this you talking solely about the issue here and not defining contracts in general? .

this was me thinking about that part of contract law which was relevant to the question.....