He also must pay $1,741 in fines and costs, abstain from drugs and alcohol and provide proof of full-time school, employment or a combination of the two. He has 60 days to pay the fine. Clark was sentenced under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, a program for first-time offenders under the age of 21. His record will be cleared if he complies with the terms of his probation. If he fails to meet those terms, he will be re-sentenced.Hopefully he keeps his nose clean and holds up his end of the bargain and puts this mistake behind him for good.
Frank Clark Sentenced to 1 year probation for stealing laptop
We don't have all the details here.
Pretty much any way you slice it, he probably did something pretty dumb.
That's a pretty serious sentence (warranted, if you ask me, which you did not). He may be in a different spot than I was but coming up with $1700 in 60 days would have been a serious undertaking for me back when I was in school. Maybe he and those who know him will better appreciate/understand the fact that its probably easier to buy a new laptop than steal someone elses . . .
Hey, don't make fun of a guy that got paid less to play better in college than he is getting to paid to play worse in the NFL. He has more portraits on billboards around here than he has TDs this year!
Who does? Who doesn't is a better question. But a "1" is better than a "0" amirite?
I think this is actually a light sentence in the grand scheme of things. He was charged under the Home Invasion statute. People go to prison for that. If someone broke into my home (whether it's a house or my dorm room) I'd definitely want that guy going to prison. Maybe the facts aren't the same as your stereotypical house burgalar, but Frank should feel lucky he gets probation and gets to keep this off his record. Hopefull he makes the most out of it.
You make a good point. I didn't realize he was charged for home invasion (which is obviously a felony). I thought it was more of a simple larceny charge. I feel the same as you and the law: home is our last place of defense (see, e.g., the "castle rule") and the place we are all supposed to feel safe. If that's violated, what else do we have??
Eh - he can probably sell a few laptops to generate the cash.
When I was living w football players they got a monthly stipend of, I think, $360 each month. Assuming that has inflated since its been a few years, then that is a good start. Remember every single meal is covered in training table in season so they don't need that money for any school related expense including groceries. As for the rest of the $ I don't know.
I know we don't have all of the details, but now that he has been found guilty in a court of law, I can't really condone keeping him on the team, no matter what "internal consequences" he has paid. In team sports, you have to be able to trust your teammate to have your back without wondering if he has any of your personal possessions, too.
I would expect that there are some very "frank" discussions happening behind the secnes right now.
It was my understanding that Hoke took care of Clark's football-punishment in the form of the suspension for the Alabama game (as well as other, non-public measures). You'd think that if Hoke's judgment was contingent on the findings of the court, he wouldn't have punished Clark prior to his conviction.
I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that he was not found guilty necessarily. Under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA) the charges are dismissed so long as Clark succesfully completes probation.
You have to plea guilty in order to get your case dismissed under Holmes. He had to go up in front of a judge and admit what he did. You just get the benefit of nothing appearing on your record if you behave yourself afterwards.
In my opinion, this is squarely in the dumb sh*t kids do category. It's unfortunate that the value of the object in question made this a felony, otherwise it's still just one poor decision (that we know of I guess). He's got a chance to redeem himself, and that's a win win for everyone. If he screws up again, I have no problem bringing the hammer of the law (and interwebs) down on him.
"dumb sh*t kids" cut a class period here or there. Hell "dumb sh*t kids" steal candy from the local candy store.
Irresponsible and morally vacant grown men illegally enter someone's residence and steal $1800 worth of goods.
I completely agree this is beyond "dumb sh*t kids do", but I'm not sure you can call someone "morally vacant" over a strange case where the pertinent facts aren't public record. You would have done much better sticking to irresponsible, IMO.
If you "know we don't have all the details" then why express an opinion contrary to those that have all the details? Climb down off the horse and notice there is a kids future at stake not just the rep of the university. Perhaps a kids future is deserving of all the details.
So what really happened? It can't be as bad as it appears. Maybe Pat needs to take his camera back to campus and do some real reporting ... at Stockwell.
I am willing to give a person another chance, although the individual must be punished. Personally, I do not find a one game suspension adequate (Assuming he really did, knowingly, steal that laptop). I would make Clark do some serious community service, including working with victims of theft. Now in the case of Stonum, see ya....fool me twice and shame on me....you are gone sir.
60 days to pay that!? Ouch. I'm sure it'll get paid but what if he/one doesn't have the funds to pay that in that time-span? Can he ask the Clerk of Court offices for a payment plan?! If not paid, does he suffer consqeuences/does he inherit the crime (versus getting it dropped once all of the above have been completed)?
If he doesn't pay in time, he's deemed to have violated his probation. That means a judge could toss him in jail or the crime might appear on his record (which it's not doing right now.) I bet Clark gets it all paid off somehow (cause you never want to take your chances with a probation violation) but usually a judge will give you a couple chances on probation before he really throws the book at you.
a court has the option to defer payment and/or set up a payment plan. It all depends on the individual's circumstances. A court may compel a defendant to get a job in cases where a defendant is capable of working and nothing, other than laziness, is preventing him/her from paying the bills. I have seen courts compel defendants to get pretty remedial jobs (pizza delivery, stocking, supermarket). The court ultimately wants the fine to be paid so it is not in the court's interest to lock the person up. The stick/jail time is utilized in cases where the defendant is just being completely flagrant about his responsibilities. I am not sure how it would work with Clark, given that he is a student athlete and, consequently, there may be limits in place as to how many hours per week he can work, if at all.
In my experience with my friends, as long as the judge sees that you are making progress in paying the fines and that you are a generally decent human being, they'll be pretty lenient with the payment plan. The Clerk of Courts will usually let them pay a minimum a month for an extended period of time (~6 months). Remember, the court is just happy to get their money and it costs them more to keep bringing the sucker in and potentially jailing him than simply waiting for the payments a little longer. Most people who are fined by the courts just brush it off and become "frequent flyers"... basically they won't pay the fine and don't care if you lock them up, so what is the court going to do to enforce it?
Mr Clark gets one year. Something has to be wrong I don't get it. I am definetly not a lawer so I can not tell you why the difference in probation time.
What is wrong is that Fitz got 10 months probation, not ten years.
10 years probation for a first time DUI offender is like, tribal council legislation. it's inhumane and such a punishment simply cannot exist.
Imagine being the kid who's Mac was lifted (at the most) still living in the same dorm as Clark or (at the least) seeing Clark on campus.
Obstaining from alcohol for a guy that age in college is no easy task. Not sure I see the relationship between alcohol and the crime.
Not knowing the circumstances, I can't say. In a typical case like this, it wouldn't surprise me if the defendant were drunk and/or high. However, it may also be judicial boilerplate.
Frank at least has control whether his record is clear in a year. I simply hope he learned a lifelong lesson and complies. Stonum proved the difficulty in walking the straight line for a year - which folks will likely remind Frank of.
I don't think Clark should have played a single down this season. Keeping him on the team is OK, but putting him out on the field is exactly the wrong decision in my view.