sqfreak t1_jdy19y9 wrote on March 28, 2023 at 12:45 AM

>Little, who is eligible for release to home detention in October 2026, is now attempting to back out of his plea deal. Court filings show that Little believes the 8 years he is serving for killing Salovesh should get a haircut for the additional 11 months he’s supposed to serve for some of those other crimes. He filed a motion in mid-December to have his guilty plea and sentence vacated.

The pro se motion he filed a year ago says he's just asking to be resentenced for the sentences (112 months on the manslaughter charge and 10 months on the violation of probation for possession of PCP) to run concurrent. Did the appointed lawyer broaden the request to vacate the plea in its entirely, or are you just basing it on the title of the Government's motion to extend time? I can't get CCO to show me the 23-110 motion filed by Mr. Clennon in December.

Also, for anyone who is looking on CCO for the case, it's 2019 CF1 005457.

[deleted] OP t1_jdy4km9 wrote on March 28, 2023 at 1:10 AM

To be clear, I already find the pro se motion highly objectionable—it’s not “just” anything in my eyes. This guy got extremely light sentences for his crimes, given the severity. And looking now to net your incarceration for killing a man against your incarceration for other crimes (which I recall involved PCP, resisting arrest and assault on an officer, and probation violation (relating to earlier drug and violent crimes, like the assault and domestic violence/sexual assault charges) isn’t right. He had the opportunity to understand his plea agreements when he signed them.

I’m also not yet able to get the full text of the December 14th filing by the new PD and am working off of the reference in the government’s motion to extend. He may only be trying to get a concurrent sentence. He may be trying to renege and renegotiate in full. I found the reference in the government’s response to the burdens they’re facing under the “Incarceration Reduction Amendments Act” to be troubling—though I don’t know much about this new law other than that you’re supposed to have been under 25 years of age and to have served 15 years before eligible for review. Given the significant press given to abuses under the Youth Rehabilitation Act (see the WaPo multi-part expose circa 2016), I don’t have any confidence that a leniency law might be improperly applied.