If You Thought Your Mobile Phone Contract Was Bad... This Guy Got 60 Years In Jail...

from the phones-in-jail dept

Mon, May 18th 2009 1:48pm — Mike Masnick

It's no secret that prisons are having a tough time stopping inmates from getting contraband mobile phones, which they use to communicate with others, and often to continue committing crimes. So, in an effort to send a message to prisoners, one Texas inmate who was caught with a mobile phone just had an extra 60 years tacked onto his sentence. It's unclear from all the reporting what the guy's initial sentence was, but no matter how you add it up, it's difficult to see how 60 years in prison for a contraband mobile phone fits into the confines of a sentence that matches the crime.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: jail, mobile phones

35 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish, 18 May 2009 @ 2:01pm

"It's unclear from all the reporting what the guy's initial sentence was..."

You should read the original article from the Palestine Herald, not the poorly written blurb from Gizmodo.

The original article makes it clear that this sentence was not "tacked on" to his prior conviction. But that this conviction for having a cell phone in a correctional facility was a completely separate charge.

Further, the reason why the sentence of 60 years was given was also clearly explained in the original article. The normal range of punishment for having a cell phone in a correctional facility is 2 to 10 years. However, because this particular defendant had prior felonies and was considered a habitual offender under the law, the sentencing range increased to 25 years to 99 years or life.

You might think that increasing the penalties on a person merely because he committed prior felonies is unfair. You may be right. But that's the law in every state in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 18 May 2009 @ 2:27pm
  
  Re:
  The original article makes it clear that this sentence was not "tacked on" to his prior conviction. But that this conviction for having a cell phone in a correctional facility was a completely separate charge.
  
  I read the original article, but I can't find where it says what the original sentence was. Am I missing it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 2:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    From the article:
    
    "In 1993, he was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to 25 years in TDCJ."
    
    Not sure if that is what he was still in prision for.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 3:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow, 25 years for car theft and now 60 for using a phone. God Bless Texas?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard Wilson, 18 May 2009 @ 3:28pm
        
        Anonymous Coward
        Wow, 25 years for car theft and now 60 for using a phone. God Bless Texas?
        
        Don't spit on the sidewalk.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 2:37pm
  
  Re:
  The original article makes it clear that this sentence was not "tacked on" to his prior conviction.
  
  Umm, Mike didn't that it was tacked onto his prior conviction, but onto his sentence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt, 18 May 2009 @ 2:44pm
  
  Re:
  agreed, the penalty is stupid from a financial perspective. For a guy who used cellphones we now have an additional expense of this individual for the rest of his/her life, and it will have 0 benefit from a correctional perspective.
  
  Sometimes people don't realize how much our laws need an overhaul.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 2:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    For a guy who used cellphones we now have an additional expense of this individual for the rest of his/her life, and it will have 0 benefit from a correctional perspective.
    
    You don't understand the Texas prison system. It isn't about corrections at all. Yes, it's called the Department of Corrections, but that's just Orwellian double speak. The prison system in Texas is about money, and the more people they have in prison and the longer they keep them there, the more tax dollars they can justify taking to keep it going.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard Wilson, 18 May 2009 @ 3:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The only law that needs over hauling is to be able to make an example and hang him. As for as benefits for correctional facility is maybe a little less drugs will get in or not have to worry if weapons are hidden outside somewhere.
    
    Been there, done that
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stuart, 18 May 2009 @ 3:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wrong. There is a HUGE upside for the correctional perspective. At least the Correctional Union perspective. You wonder why so many things get you sooo long in prison? Look at who is to benefit from it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 2:17pm

the difference between good source material and rumors and half stories from blogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 5:43am
  
  Re:
  And comments that prove nothing at all. If you want to toss such things around, how about giving proof? Specifically, proof of THIS blog doing that. Go ahead, we'll wait.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
richard, 18 May 2009 @ 2:23pm

it is insane
hey come on,60 years is too much. Taking everything from a person for communicating? Even killers might be getting less sentence.Laws are for making human lifes better and not taking it away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 2:46pm
  
  Re: it is insane
  Even killers might be getting less sentence.
  
  This is Texas, where killers often get significantly less time than non-violent drug offenders. The criminal justice system is big business in Texas and they'll use any excuse they can to feed it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luís Carvalho, 18 May 2009 @ 2:23pm

I would like to read the oppinion of those with life sentences to that punnishment...

Wait, I can hear it... LOL LOL LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 3:03pm

I don't know about Texas, but here in Maryland a prisoner was just convicted for using a smuggled cellphone to order a hit on an informant. Illegal cellphones have become tools used to continue criminal enterprises while the leaders are incarcerated.

It's gotten so bad here that our governor is trying to get permission from the FCC to jam cellphone signals inside the prisons!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2cents, 18 May 2009 @ 3:25pm

Just a thought
These are criminals, why should they be given the privilege to communicate via cell phone. They are suppose to be punished for breaking previous laws not put up in a free ride with extras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 11:49pm
  
  Re: Just a thought
  Actually you are incorrect, the reason you put criminals in a jail is not to punish them. The purpose is to hopefully one day rehabilitate them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Spavin, 18 May 2009 @ 3:59pm

if everything's bigger in Texas...
...how come Texan judicial minds are so tiny? Have they lost their perspective? 60 years for possession of a cell phone is just crazy. I live a long way away from the US but I look in bewilderement at a judicial system that can impose such a silly sentence and see that it's only a generation away from being as unbalanced as the regimes of the mad mullahs who impose Sharia law on unfortunates in the middle east.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouAreWrong, 18 May 2009 @ 4:04pm

the quote
Here you go Mike:

In 1989, Ross was convicted of burglary of a motor vehicle and in 1990, he was convicted of theft of an automobile. In 1993, he was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to 25 years in TDCJ.

Because Ross was found to be a habitual offender, the range of punishment for having a cell phone in a correctional facility was 25 years to 99 years or life. Normally the range of punishment would be 2 to 10 years.

After 30 minutes of deliberation the jury assessed his punishment at 60 years in TDCJ. The sentence is stacked on top of the one he currently is serving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 4:08pm

Only one good thing
Came from TX.. G. Bush!!! The village idiot has returned!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg G, 18 May 2009 @ 4:45pm
  
  Re: Only one good thing
  Thanks for speaking, thereby proving to all that you are an idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 4:59pm

Texas - Paradise of Rich, White People
He must have been poor, black, and retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tgeigs, 18 May 2009 @ 5:32pm
  
  Re: Texas - Paradise of Rich, White People
  No, then he'd have gotten the chair, no sponge.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 5:17pm

mike got lost reading it because there was no copyright or free music discussion in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 6:34pm

Of course what he is doing time for is what the plea bargain turned into ...it could have been vehicular manslaughter, it could have been drug running, kidnapping, there is no way to know what he actually did without going into the court records ...quite often a plea is reached for the maximum time on a lesser charge. As for cell phones in prison, what are the chances there is a perfectly reasonable reason that this person had to bribe, pay, cheat, bully or otherwise go to the immense trouble of getting a phone for a legitimate use? When I was a prison guard we had a company that made furniture and inmates working a help desk phone bank who constantly were in trouble for stealing credit card numbers, threatening people who testified against them, scheming to escape, getting people to fall for them and bring them contraband during visitation. Nothing good can come of inmates having access to unmonitored phones, but bless all of you for thinking that these are delinquents who would use these devices for harmless fun. Without you idealists the world would be a depressing place to live indeed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Anderson, 18 May 2009 @ 6:45pm

poor security practices at prisons make them $1.8 million for their
The prisons are loving this. Their security isn't good. They let a cellphone in, and they get a prisoner for 60 years. At 60 years x $28,000, the average price to keep a prisoner for a year in prison, that's about $1.8 million.

The prisoner who got the phone gets the time, and the prison that allowed the phone to get in gets the money. That's not fair! US taxpayers are the fools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 18 May 2009 @ 8:45pm

To hell with Texas session, we should expel Texas from the union for the good of all. Maybe when they evolve to civility we could reconsider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techsupoort, 19 May 2009 @ 12:41am

RE:
Wrong. There is a HUGE upside for the correctional perspective. At least the Correctional Union perspective. You wonder why so many things get you sooo long in prison? Look at who is to benefit from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiot Basher, 19 May 2009 @ 6:12am

60 years?
So, 60 years for having a phone. Let's look at that realistically. Rather he's a habitual criminal or not:

Check out these maximum sentence guidelines:

* Aggravated sexual assault of a minor - 20 yrs
* Possessing child pornography - 20 yrs
* Kidnapping 1st degree - 25 yrs
* Kidnapping with a firearm - 25 yrs
* Employing a minor in an obscene performance - 25 yrs
* 1st Degree Sexual Assult (Rape) - 25 yrs
* Murder - 60 yrs
* Felony Murder - 60 yrs

So killing someone is equal to having a phone in prison... um... SURE... and having a cell phone is worse than kidnapping, 1st degree kidnapping and having a kid do a porno movie?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tgeigs, 19 May 2009 @ 6:25am
  
  Re: 60 years?
  Actually, I would agree, except that you DO need to take into SOME account if he/she is a habitual offender. Because at some point you're no longer trying to rehabilitate, you're just keeping them off the street for the sake of the public.
  
  What I don't get is why the cell phone charge? Was that really all there was? Do they have evidence that he tried to contract a murder or other crime from inside prison? Because then you charge with Conspiracy to Commit murder/etc./etc., and the sentencing guidelines are accordingly long.
  
  If it was "illegal possession of electronics, you get 60 years", then yeah, that's ricockulous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 6:38am

60 year may be harsh, but you don't know where the guards had to search to find it.

Some people just shouldn't be walking the streets. They should be locked up forever. Are you sure this guy isn't one of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fishbane, 19 May 2009 @ 5:51pm

I don't know about Texas, but here in Maryland a prisoner was just convicted for using a smuggled cellphone to order a hit on an informant. Illegal cellphones have become tools used to continue criminal enterprises while the leaders are incarcerated.

OK. How about convicting people for conspiracy to commit murder, and not concentrate on the cell phone?

If someone hurts someone else by dropping an air conditioner on them, do you want to legally target air conditioners, or the behaviour?

Alternately, if contraband is a problem in prisons, why not look at the most likely vector of contraband: the guards. Assuming that the source of drugs, alcohol and cellphones isn't the guards has to rest on the assumption that they're both perfectly honest and also completely incompetent at searching visitors, vendors, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
porno izle, 25 Jun 2009 @ 8:42am

Re:
The prisons are loving this. Their security isn't good. They let a cellphone in, and they get a prisoner for 60 years. At 60 years x $28,000, the average price to keep a prisoner for a year in prison, that's about $1.8 million.porno izle,sikiş izle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
contract fun, 18 Oct 2009 @ 2:53pm

fair contract?
Isnt there enough people in jail already. Would a fine not have been sufficiant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]