Can the court charge a person and give them probation over a thought!?

Question

I had a friend that was charged under the penal code 290 or known as (P.C. 290) which he said the DA mentioned "Well he thought of it" And this was true, this DA should of had been arrested too, cause she was sitting there having bad thoughts about him!

However, the point is, he now is on 3 years probation and have this charge of this P.C. 290 case on him for the rest of his life.

Far as I can see, not knowing anything about the law; But it seems like to me this was absolutely a injustice case; although I know you have 30 days to file an appeal; but this had happen to him over 6 years ago now!

Since this charge is on him for the rest of his life, what can he do about this injustice case today? They also mention that they do not no longer have his reporter's transcript?

How can a person be charged for something for the rest of their lives, and there's no record kept on it? He needs this reporter's transcript in order to help him reopen his case.

What should he do?

Answer 1

I'm not a law expert, but it seems to me that's a bunch of crap. We'd all be in jail for thinking about doing bad things. Even people who are being set up, for hiring someone to kill somebody else, have to actually pay the "killer" before that criminal can be arrested. They can't take them to jail for just thinking about hiring somebody. I don't see how someone can go to jail for thinking about a crime.

Answer 2

Since the appeal period is over there is very little that your friend can do. He can try to appeal to a judge to get his record expunged, but that will have a very small chance of happening. He either plead guilty or was found guilty in a court of law and that ends the case. An appeal can only be successful if some error was made during the trial. A judge only expunges a record if there is a clear “miscarriage of justice” and proving that will be very hard to do.

I don’t know of any democratic nation that has Thought Police or telepathy, so you can’t be found guilty on the basis of what you are thinking, but if your friend uttered a threat then he can be charged with that. A threat to someone like the President of the US is illegal and the person who uttered, wrote, or otherwise signaled that threat can be arrested and tried. The central issue to this case is the intent. If I made a threat to the President as an example of things to NOT do then I wouldn’t be found guilty. But, if I bought a gun, started following the President around or did other actions then there is a clear intent and I could be found guilty for INTENDING to kill the President.

In the case of your friend he must have had a thought, communicated that thought to someone else, and showed some sign of intending to do the deed. This would require a written document or a witness, and some clear act that showed your friend had intent to do the deed. Since there is no transcript of the trial or any other thing that can show the trial was done in error there is almost nothing that can be done to help your friend, he waited too long. It may not seem fair to you that he has to carry around this offense on his record for the rest of his life, but that is what happened and he can’t go back into the past and change it.

Answer 3

That's a rub, ain't it?
My friend was just sitting in his truck listening to the radio after a beach party.
He had the keys in the ignition to play the radio.
He wasn't driving; didn't even have the engine started.
A cop came by and smelled beer on his breath.
They said he had the "intent" to drive, and charged him with DWI, just for sitting in his truck listening to the radio waiting for his wife to drive home.
This is insanity! But...
Even though no WMDs were ever found,
and no link to 9-11 was ever established...
Iraq had the intent to hurt us, so that justified killing them off by the thousands.
It's a police-state...
An insane asylum where the inmates are in charge.
They do just whatever they feel like,
and are accountable to no one.

Answer 4

Not exactly. He can be found guilty due to his culpable mental state. If he thought about it, then he either knew of the possible result or he intended the result. That's what convicted him. If he'd merely been reckless and NOT thought about it, he'd probably have been convicted of a lesser charge.

Answer 5

If he did think of doing what ever he did befor the crime was commited and the court can prove this, then yes he can be convicted, it is called premeditation!

Answer 6

They are referring to premeditation of a crime. NOT waht they Thought he was thinking about. In other words, if they can show that before he comitted the crime, he "planned" the crime before it happenned, then there was "premeditation". The opposite of that would be that he comitted the crime without firt planning it or thinking about it.