Each conviction carries a sentence. It is not unheard of for a particular conviction of many to be overturned on appeal, or for a sentence for one charge to be modified. In such a case, the remainder of the convictions or sentences remain in place.

There is a certain person who was recently convicted on 34 counts of fraud in New York State, and because of the "specialness?" of this defendant, the Supreme Court decided after the jury returned all those convictions that this defendant is immune from prosecution for certain kinds of crimes. This gives the defendant a ripe avenue to appeal those convictions. Some of those convictions may be overturned on the basis of that immunity ... but not all of them.

The same concepts apply to any convictions and any sentences, including the death penalty. Not only is it just to render consequences for each crime committed, it is also a safeguard to ensure that someone who is convicted of multiple felonies does not escape all consequence in the case that only some of the sentences change in the future.

This very case of Lekeith Smith is a perfect example. 30 years for felony murder, 25 years for burglary and theft, served concurrently. There is a fair argument for overturning that felony murder conviction; there is no such argument for overturning the burglary and theft conviction.

[–] Strykker@programming.dev 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I do recall hearing about either precedent or laws relating to being involved in a crime where if someone is killed all involved get charged with the murder regardless of who actually committed it, so that could be the reasoning here.

Though I don't recall any of the specifics.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Thats exactly what they are talking about, felony murder.

They are likely saying that there are solid arguments both ways on it though.