Quote:
Originally Posted by AzOther1
IANAL, but I've had some experience being prosecuted (ahem), I think it could be up to 1 year for each count and I would bet that each session could be considered a separate incident (??), therefore separate counts.
Apologies if this has already been responded to, I seem to be unable to keep up with the flood of messages ITT.
I am a criminal defense attorney in CA. I've played on the Stones Live game, though not against Mike, and I've given this a lot of thought over the last few dsys.
The meat of the charges against Mike would be violations of Penal Code Sec. 332. That code says that cheating at a game to gain an unfair advantage over other players means that your winnings are fraudulently obtained, and it is punishable as larceny of the amount obtained.
Larceny is punishable as a misdemeanor (maximum 6 months in jail) if the amount stolen is $950 or less. It can be a felony, grand theft, if the amount is greater than $950.
I think there'd be a strong argument that Mike could not just be prosecuted for each individual session, as you speculate. You're right. He could and likely would be prosecuted for each individual session.
More than that though,
I think that Mike could face a distinct felony charge of grand theft for every single pot won where he profited more than $950.
The first grand theft charge he was convicted of could carry up to 3 years in jail. Each additional count could carry an additional 8 months.
That thought is really just an exercise in what-ifs though. He wouldn't ever be charged in that manner, because:
1. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he cheated during a session is significantly easier and less time-consuming than proving cheating in individual hands, and
2. At ~60 cheating sessions, that's more than enough potential jail time to throw around at the negotiating table, and easily enough to satisfy any reasonable opinion on what would be a just sentence.
Details that may be somewhat peculiar to California, if anybody cares (this is all assuming Mike doesn't just receive probation. I can't fathom that he would.):
- In this circumstance, sentences on individual counts could be run concurrently, in whole or in part. Going down on 60 counts doesn't automatically equate to a 40+ year sentence.
- Because of prison overcrowding in California, assuming that Mike has no prior serious or violent felony offenses, and isn't a registered sex offender, he'd serve the custody portion of his sentence in jail, not prison.
- Mike would be presumptively elligible for a "split sentence" on his jail time. A portion of his sentence would be served in custody. The remainder would be served on "mandatory supervision." He'd effectively be serving the rest of his sentence on probation, and could return to custody for some or all whatever time remains on his sentence if he violated.
- Assuming Mike didn't lose good time or work time credits for disciplinary reasons in jail, he'd only actually serve half of the custody time imposed. It's also possible that he could serve a portion of the custody time at home in an ankle monitor.
Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk