he claims that a neighbors testimony that was suppressed, claiming that there was previous exposure, was pertinent to the case.
he claims that by exercising his right to not submit to the psychosexual evaluation the court unnecessarily made his sentence harsher.
he also says his term of confinement is too long.
the court upheld all rulings.
previous exposure was not pertinent information because it was not sexual in nature. also, he failed to submit proof in the allotted time.
with no additional information to work with, the court had to rule "harshly."
sentencing subject to standard unless none is available.
he has 21 days to appeal again, and probably will.
No comments:
Post a Comment