Teri Rhodes, who was sentenced to 9 to 18 years for killing her newborn baby in 2007 while she was a student at Mercyhurt College, has had her sentence overturned by a state Superior Court panel.
The panel said Judge William Cunningham had a “pronounced bias.” The sentence has been remanded, and another judge in Erie County will now have to re-sentence Rhodes, who has been living with her parents in Michigan during the appeal process.
You can read the full legal document here.
What’s your take on this? Fair? Was what Judge Cunningham did right or wrong?
She killed her child. Have we become so desensitized that we are going to let this be – This is wrong. Sad and wrong.
I believe it its the judge’s perogative to override a jury decision if he feels that it is improper. Teri Rhodes was given a whole lot more breaks and consideration by the DA than most other people would have received. I feel what Judge Cunningham ruled was very carefully thought out. Perhaps his forceful presentation when he rendered his sentence did not fit in with the mindset of some people, but the young lady seemed to know ahead of time what she was going to do, that it was murder, and she thought only of herself.
She should serve the original sentence handed down by Cunningham.
The sentence should not be overthrown! It was premeditated murder of an innocent child. She killed her baby! What kind of message is being sent to young girls now. That you can kill a human being and get away with it.
I still say tie a bag over her head and throw her in a shower.
The judge did have a pronounced bias, but his ruling was sound. I read the original ruling and she was clearly guilty and clearly sentenced correctly.
DanZ, I think you’re confused. The ruling was not sound – he was accusing and sentencing her for First Degree Murder, which was not the crime to which she submitted the plea (and which he accepted), not voluntary manslaughter. He also didn’t allow the defense to see police reports that he obtained, which the defense should have had access to. If he felt she had intent, he should not have accepted the plea deal, end of story.
No matter your feelings, that ruling was not correct. Justice can’t be served if the judge is imposing his own views and hiding documents from the defense. Teri Rhodes is not going to go unpunished, but this ruling was flawed without a doubt.
First degree murder is what she committed, however she was not sentenced as if she was–it carries a bit more time than 9-18, a sentence that falls under the aggravated range for the charge pled to.
The judge doesn’t have to accept the exact plea for the crime committed either. DAs make plea deals _all_ the time. People plead to lesser charges and judges accept them every day.
The judge issued a ruling with great detail the aggravating circumstances that occurred during the 9 months prior to the homicide. The woman committed premeditated murder. For that and other reasons the judge sentenced her within the Pennsylvania guidelines for the plea entered.
I don’t know anything about hidden documents so I can’t speak to that. Outside of that I fail to see where the judge acted improperly.
Maybe this time they’ll get it right. It should have been life, with no possibility of parole. It was 1st degree premeditated murder.
The liberals view this as no different than an abortion . The elimination of inconvenience is a nationwide epidemic . This girl truly has a mental disease .
Excuse me, but I’m (mostly) as liberal as they come, and what this woman did is nothing short of premeditated murder. Stereotype much?
I have a few questions.
#1 – Why is Teri sitting at home with her parents during the appeals process when thousands of inmates are sitting in prisons during their appeals process.
#2 – Do you think that her parent’s wealth has anything to do with her sitting at home rather than in prison? Do you think that her parent’s wealth has anything to do with the state Superior Court’s decision?
#3 – If she came from a poor non-white family would she be sitting at home with her family? I doubt it!