|
The
fact that lower court judges apparently are not inclined to
crack down, even on repeat violators, came to light when
Delaforum reported that assistant
county attorney Jonathan Layton formally petitioned Justice of
the Peace
William T. Moser to "correct an illegal sentence"
and send a Claymont homeowner who has repeatedly refused to pay
fines and remedy violations to jail for 30 days
A
fine was imposed but suspended last March in a case involving Robert Bland whose
property on Lincoln Avenue has been the subject of complaints
for several years. The house is overgrown with ivy and,
according to the county, Bland unlawfully keeps an unregistered
motor vehicle there. It is the suspension of the fine to which
the county objects.
Bland
pleaded guilty in November, 1999, to several charges and
presumably was fined $621. In March, 2000, however, Moser
suspended that sentence although the violations continued and
Bland,
 |
according
to Layton, had made no effort to correct them. He also
did not pay the fine.
Moreover,
Layton said in his petition, Bland had four previous
convictions dating back to 1995 and had not paid
anything against a total of $2,087 in imposed fines. In
December, 2000, he again was taken into magistrate court
and pleaded guilty. Justice Laurence Fitchette has not
yet handed down a sentence in that case.
Layton
portrays Bland as a blatant scofflaw.
|
| The
Bland house on Lincoln Avenue as it appears after
repeated orders to correct property code violations. |
"The
record is clear that, for the past six years, the defendant has
ignored his neighbor's complaints about his property, has
ignored the code enforcement officers' commands to correct the
violations and has ignored this court," Layton wrote.
"On
each occasion this defendant has come before this court, he has
not even contested that he is in violation of the county's
laws," Layton said. "If there was ever a defendant who
appeared before this court who is more deserving of the maximum
sentence provided for under the county code, it is this
defendant."
What
raises the issue to a higher level is the county attorney's
conclusion that Moser's having suspended the penalty after the
1999 conviction reflects a perception that the property code is,
in effect, a sort of bluff.
Winslow
said that he and others recognize that, even though an
individual code violation might be regarded as a relatively
minor offense, "lack of strong action can have
consequences." He said a possible solution might be to
establish, within the magistrate system, a form of 'housing
court' that would specialize in such cases and thus be able to
view them in perspective.
Another
might be to give the lowest courts the ability to enforce
remedies in addition to imposing fines and short prison terms.
In any
event, he said he and state Representative Wayne Smith are
looking to establish a taskforce of legislators, county people
and justices of the peace to come up with specific
recommendations, possibly in time to take action during the
current Assembly session.
"We
realize that we have to do a better job for enforcing housing
laws," Winslow said.
The
applicable section of the county property code provides that violations are
punishable by fines up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to 30 days
or both. Delaforum could not determine whether the jail sentence
provision has ever been applied, but indications are that it has
not been.
"If
the defendant (and all defendants similarly situated) is not
punished for his admitted wrongdoing, the message the court is
sending is that citizens of this state enjoy no protection from
people who choose to commit crimes," Layton argues.
Lawyers
regard suspending a sentence as a device for bringing about
corrective action. It can be concluded in cases involving code
violations, that neighbors and the county want the offending
situation corrected more than they want a violator punished. If
the problem is corrected, that line of reasoning goes, everyone
is happy to have the penalty waived.
Under
state law, justice of the peace courts do not have the authority
to order an action to be taken -- a procedure referred to by
lawyers as granting injunctive relief. In that instance, a violator
who refuses to take action is subject to more serious and more
heavily punishable contempt of court charges.
The
county's only alternative now, according to Layton, is to file
criminal charges each day a violation continues. That, he wrote,
would be wasteful of both county and judicial resources. And, he
added, "the filing of new charges is only effective if this
court actually imposes a sentence that the law requires."
|
