Sua Sponte is a Latin term for an action taken by a court which is not requested by either the defense or the prosecution. For example, a judge may recuse him or herself from a case if there is a conflict of interest.
Conflict of Interest
This is where there is some aspect of the case that if a verdict or sentence set by a judge, is considered too lenient, and there is an investigation, it can turn out that a judge is good friends with the defendant’s father or another relative. Or a judge may have financial holdings in a company run by a defendant.
In other words, the judge may not be able to give a fair or appropriate sentence to a defendant convicted by a jury. It is a conflict of interest of some sort. A judge, in order that the state and/or the defendant have a fair trial, must recuse himself, so another judge can sit on the court trial.
In some cases, a court may take an action if the judge determines that the procedures for trying a defendant are not correctly done, if there was another alternative approach, then the judge may dismiss the case without notifying either side in advance. This term has also been used in certain cases with habeas corpus proceedings, when in fact, this would not be the correct procedure under which a defendant should have been tried.
This protects the defendant from inept attorneys as well who devised a certain strategy without doing enough research concerning the circumstances of the defendant’s issues in the case. Furthermore, courts have the right to act, such as a sanction against those who might make a “mockery of the court.” This may come from one or both sides wherein it is determined that there is fraud, unnecessary delays, or evidence withheld that would show the defendant innocent of a crime, for example.
Maintaining Court Integrity
In some cases, original sentences and subsequent orders that occur out of the sentencing of a convicted defendant, can be overturned, because evidence had not been known at the time of a subsequent order. In NICKOLAS v. San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, defendant Nickolas F. who was serving time in a California jail, found out he had been denied family reunification services that would allow him to take back his children once he was released from jail. Initially, the court saw that there was merit to Nickolas’s procedural objection and claim.
Nickolas claimed that the juvenile court erroneously modified the original orders for his right to family reunification services and noted that these services were available in his location. He was also ready to begin these services.
The facts of the case later turned out to show that Nickolas was, in fact, a danger to his children, based on interviews with family members and documentation of injuries to the children. The court after reviewing the new evidence, then determined that the juvenile court had not committed a miscarriage of justice, and Nickolas’s appeal for family reunification services was denied by the court.
If the facts of the case had been different, such as Nickolas was not a documented child abuser, he likely would have received the chance for family reunification services.
If you or a family member have been accused of a crime, call us at once for a consultation. We can help you. 619-234-2300.