State Prison for Actor Lane Garrison: No Probation despite Court-Ordered Penal Code Section 1203.03 Diagnostic Study

Posted on: November 2, 2007 at 5:37 p.m.

This week, in Beverly Hills Superior Court, actor Lane Garrison was sentenced to 3 years 4 months in state prison. He was sentenced for a wreck he caused while driving intoxicated. He hit a tree in his SUV, killing a passenger and injuring two others. In court, at the time of sentencing, there were supporters of the actor, along with friends and family of the deceased victim. The court process provided a resolution to a highly emotional case.

Back in May 2007, Garrison's L.A. criminal defense lawyer persuaded the judge to agree to a diagnostic study pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.03. The actor pled "open" to the court to the charge of a vehicular manslaughter (deceased victim), along with charges of DUI causing great bodily injury (two passengers injured).

And "open" plea means it is up to the court to decide on the level of punishment, and is completely within the court's discretion. The DA is not part of this dynamic, and provides his arguments during the sentencing hearing. In this case, as the DA did not offer a plea bargain that the defendant agreed to, the only option from the criminal defense perspective, short of fighting the case at jury trial, was to ask the judge for an open plea and a diagnostic study.
Experienced Southern California criminal lawyers frequently use the diagnostic study provision, to sucessfully obtain probation for their client, instead of prison.

The statute for the Diagnostic Exam reads as follows: 1203.03. (a) In any case in which a defendant is convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, the court, if it concludes that a just disposition of the case requires such diagnosis and treatment services as can be provided at a diagnostic facility of the Department of Corrections, may order that defendant be placed temporarily in such facility for a period not to exceed 90 days, with the further provision in such order that the Director of the Department of Corrections report to the court his diagnosis and recommendations concerning the defendant within the 90-day period. (b) The Director of the Department of Corrections shall, within the 90 days, cause defendant to be observed and examined and shall forward to the court his diagnosis and recommendation concerning the disposition of defendant's case. Such diagnosis and recommendation shall be embodied in a written report and copies of the report shall be served only upon the defendant or his counsel, the probation officer, and the prosecuting attorney by the court receiving such
report. After delivery of the copies of the report, the information contained therein shall not be disclosed to anyone else without the consent of the defendant. After disposition of the case, all copies of the report, except the one delivered to the defendant or his counsel, shall be filed in a sealed file and shall be available thereafter only to the defendant or his counsel, the prosecuting attorney, the court, the probation officer, or the Department of Corrections.

In Mr. Garrison's case, a diagnostic report was prepared by the Department of Corrections, and a sentencing hearing was held with character witnesses, supporters for both sides, and family of the deceased. At the sentencing hearing, after reviewing the diagnostic report, the judge ordered Defendant to serve 40 months in prison, which means he will do an actual 20 months (receiving credit for good behavior), and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of about $250,000. The Defendant had no prior criminal record.

The Prosecutor argued that the Defendant should be sent away to prison for the maximum, 6 years 8 months. "A high school party," the DA said with disdain. "What's he thinking?" Garrison met the teenagers in line at a Pavilions supermarket, the prosecutor said. After buying them alcohol, they went to a party where he drank vodka and then went out to buy more alcohol with the teenagers in tow, the prosecutor said. The DA continued: "Before he gets in the car with these children, he's asked -- and everyone remembers this -- 'Are you OK to drive?' ...Before they leave, the defendant gives this answer: 'I'm from Texas. We can hold our liquor in Texas.' "

The police, after the crash, found Defendant to have a blood-alcohol level of 0.2%, more than twice the legal limit of 0.08%, and he tested positive for cocaine. Garrison filmed a tearful TV public service announcement about drinking and driving -- which did not come into consideration when the judge decided on sentencing, according to a court representative.

There were 3,600 signatures collected by friends of the deceased, parents, teachers and area residents urging the judge to hand down the maximum sentence. Heart-wrenching statements from family members and agonized apologies from Garrison were heard. Garrison explained: "This remorse is genuine and I've felt it every day," he said, telling the victim's family "how sorry I am that their son is never going to come back."

The judge did not hand out the maximum punishment, but refused to grant probation. "I think you are ultimately a decent human being who made a very bad mistake," Fox told Garrison. He commended him for taking responsibility and pleading guilty early in the court case. The judge also said that the public "has a right to know that conduct such as this, causing devastation such as this, needs to be punished."

Keep in mind, there was no jury trial here! Garrison essentially asked for the sentencing mercy of the court. He got it in part, although he failed to receive probation (which is often granted after a Diagnostic Study is ordered). No one left the court feeling completely happy - however, it appears justice was served, and the judge acted fairly with due consideration to both the prosecutor and defense side.

Tagged as: counterfeit goods pc 350, vandalism pc 594, violent crimes defense

Comments:

mark on March 16, 2011 at 1:11 a.m. wrote:

This is your best topic yet!

Joe on March 15, 2011 at 11:48 p.m. wrote:

Great post, truly!

Anne Adams on November 7, 2007 at 12:56 a.m. wrote:

Sadly, I knew of this story on a deeper level then just hearing it in the news. The young teenage boy who died went to my cousins high school and they were close friends. She was devastated after the event, as was the rest of his friends, family, classmates and community. And sadly, this story represents a pivitol problem with our justice system, especially in terms of how well known celebrities and public figures receive different trials and verdicts. These such individuals receive more of a slap on the wrist then a punishment, therefore, making them think they can get away with it again. How many times have we heard a young female (Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Richie) get caught for drunk driving, but not be punished. Oh I am sorry, Paris did go to jail for 2 minutes. For some reason, our society puts these individuals up on a pedestal, allowing them bend the law of the land. I continuously question the true story behind the Kobe Bryant scandal. I question whether the assault truly happened or because that girl knew that he was such a celebrity decided to make up a story to get some of the lime light/attention and money. Or if Kobe did assault her and he was just able to pay her off. These celebrities have so much money that bail or charges arent necessarily a big deal, therefore, not a punishment. Garrison's case represents another instance where a person of fame and status commits a crime, actually two or three crimes, and doesnt suffer the consequences that a regular human being would. 20 months and $250,000 for taking human life and putting others in danger is pathetic and wrong. Unless our jury system starts to not take into account the fame of an individual, we will continuously bend the rules and laws which shouldnt be tolerated.

Gideon Goei on November 6, 2007 at 7:29 p.m. wrote:

Lane Garrison deserves some punishment. However, by pleading 'open' in the court, I believe that Mr. Garrison was given fair judgment and not given the maximum sentencing. He pretty much admitted fault and made the whole legal process easier. There should be reward for this. Despite being wealthy and of high popularity, Mr. Garrison should have the same right as any other individual. I also believe that just because the victims were high school kids, that does not mean that they were to at fault. Even though they were minors, they were doing 'adult' things. Still, I believe Garrison is at fault, and at least didn't get no punishment.

Raul Perez on November 6, 2007 at 7:13 p.m. wrote:

I find it a bit disturbing to think that the writer of the article believes that justice was served concerining Lane Garrison's sentence. Never in my wildest thoughts would I think that 20 months in prison would justify the life of someone. Is that really justice? (20 months = life?) If this were to happen to almost anyone else, especially a minority, I can almost guarantee that the very minimum would be the 6 yrs and 8 months, and that's if they were to get off easy. It never ceases to amaze me how much a celebrity status, not to mention money, can do for the outcome of a case. As far as justice is concerned, I also find it ironic that if the same thing were to happen in the Inland Empire, which is known for being really tough, the punishment would have been more severe. The system has to find an equilibrium when it deals with such discrepancies (Beverly Hills vs. Inland Empire), I just don't see happening any time soon!

Meghan Schoen on November 6, 2007 at 12:22 a.m. wrote:

I think that justice was not served in this instance. Many in support of our trial system would argue that because neither party was completely happy with the results that to some degree justice was served. However, in my personal view I believe that when a man makes an error in judgement that causes an innocent person to die, 20 months does not even come close to a just sentence. My perspective is not necessarily based on the application of the law; instead, it is based on the fact that morally it doesn't seem just that a man who ends someone's life will be able to continue on with their's after a relatively short period of time. No matter how famous or wealthy a person is they should be adequately punished. Similarly, I don't think it matters that he felt remorse. Remorse changes nothing! He should be punished for ending another's life, it could have been completely avoided if he would have thought at the time to make the right decision

Kamyar Amiri-Davani on November 5, 2007 at 10:52 p.m. wrote:

The severity of alcohol related reckless driving cases, even those involving celebrity defendants, should be emphasized because of the substantial amount of drunken driving related deaths each year, as exemplified by the death of the teenager riding in Lane Garrison's car. Seemingly, the court's sentence was not light, for Garrison was unable to avoid serving time. However, his sentence, which will result in less than two years of jail time, in addition to many others passed in celebrity drunk driving cases, fall on the lenient end of the spectrum. Is this trend because of the financial ability of celebrities like Garrison, (whose short career is far from lucrative, thus how expensive of an attorney could he realistically afford), to hire high profile lawyers with greater courtroom experience? While I believe that more reputable attorneys can obtain better results for their clients, the ability of celebrities to avoid having the proverbial book thrown at them is instead more of a manifestation of our celebrity infatuated society. Another example of many of such light sentences given to DUI charged actors is Kiefer Sutherlands' 48 day jail sentence to be served on December 21 (30 days of which is for his BAC level, and the remaining 18 days for violating probation from a previous DUI). Not only was the misdemeanor charge for driving under the influence dropped by the court, but his absurdly forgiving plea agreement ensured that he would serve his reduced sentence around the filming schedule of the television series '24.' Society's consensus is that the crimes committed by these two actors, especially in Garrison's case, justifies a severe punishment, and yet the judge withheld the maximum punishment declaring an irresponsible, drug using, alcohol abusing man, (who was soliciting alcohols to minors, one of whom died because of his poor judgment), to be 'a decent human being.' If actors and actresses, as well as any other person of popular attention, are just regular human beings, then why is it almost unheard of for a famous person to receive the maximum punishment for committing a crime so detrimental to society's wellbeing? It is because our society views celebrities and public figures as superhuman beings, and whether they are sentenced by a judge or given a verdict by members of a jury, they have a level of immunity to our justice system.

Tyler Marik on November 5, 2007 at 9:50 p.m. wrote:

In this case I feel that indeed justice was served. It is interesting to note however for whatever reason that I felt sympathy for the defendant while reading the article until I discovered the terms of the crime. All the injured parties were high school aged teens. How shocking and emotional, for whatever reason I now feel that while indeed justice was served, a harsher sentence could have been justified. As far as the methodology for reaching the verdict, ultimately it was the judge who decided punishment, and that is a defendants right. If he felt so inclined to request to not have a jury trial, then as the old adage goes 'hes made his grave, now let him lay in it.' ...unfortunately against what the defendant claimed, apparently they don't know how to hold their liquor in Texas.

David Askander on November 5, 2007 at 2:03 p.m. wrote:

Lane Garrison made a huge mistake by taking the lives of three individuals and being sentencing to three years and four months is not justice. I remember seeing this event unfold when it came into the news. I said to myself how unfortunate that a man who has a great job (Prison Break) is going to ruin it by one night of having fun, which ended drasticly. My point is this; we are sending the wrong message to out future gennerations. That is, as long as you make a lot of money and are a high-profile individuals you can literally get away with murder (Lane Garrison, Phil Spector, OJ, etc...)This message that is being sent to so many young people these days, especially college students where drinking is such an active social event, is beginning to become a crippling effect in our society as one bad choice is followed by another.

Kestenbaum Eisner & Gorin LLP has been recognized as one of the best U.S. law firms, based on the experience, professionalism, and ethics of its criminal defense lawyers and attorneys. We aggressively defend clients in all Southern California courtrooms on state and federal charges, including DUI, DMV, misdemeanor, felony, juvenile cases, in the following communities and courthouses.

Los Angeles County, CA: Agoura, Altadena, Alhambra, Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Calabasas, Century City, Chatsworth, Compton, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, Downtown Criminal Court, El Segundo, East Los Angeles, Eastlake, Encino, El Monte, Glendale, Glendora, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Hollywood, Huntington Park, Inglewood, Los Angeles Lawyer, La Canada, LAX Court, Los Padrinos, Long Beach, Los Angeles Attorney, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Marina Del Rey, Newhall, Norwalk, Palos Verdes, Pasadena, Pomona, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Marino, San Pedro, Santa Clarita, Sherman Oaks, Sierra Madre, Santa Monica, South Gate, South Pasadena, Sylmar, Torrance, Universal City, Valencia, Van Nuys, West Covina, West Hollywood, Walnut, Westchester, West Hollywood, Westlake Village, Whittier, Woodland Hills, California. Orange County, CA: Anaheim, Anaheim Hills, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine Attorney, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, La Habra, La Palma, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Orange County Lawyer, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda, California. Ventura County, CA: Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, San Buenaventura, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village. San Bernardino County, CA: Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland.

Prior Criminal Law Posts

State Prison for Actor Lane Garrison: No Probation despite Court-Ordered Penal Code Section 1203.03 Diagnostic Study

Comments:

Add your comment!

Firm Fan Page & News

Our Criminal Defense Partners

Criminal Defense Resources

Prior Criminal Law Posts