At least for the moment.I spent most of the day yesterday in Judge Kenneth Barlow's courtroom yesterday for State v. Gabriel Rhenals (2009MM231E). Mr. Rhenals, age 23, was arrested April 30, 2009 for stalking his UCF professor after Judge Theotis Bronson had granted an injunction to her earlier that month.
The victim testified that Mr. Rhenals had been disruptive in class, behaved aggressively, followed her, hovered outside her classroom and office, slammed her door when he became enraged, said he was obsessed with her, and admitted to stalking her. He told her he was jealous when she spoke with anyone other than him. He was ultimately removed from her class and UCF.
When he was served with the temporary injunction, a UCF police detective interviewed the defendant. He told the detective that, in his mind, he thought there was a sexual relationship with the victim. The defendant admitted he knew it was inappropriate and said he felt she paid more attention to him than other students. He apparently did not feel it was inappropriate to violate the injunction and send the victim three emails, however.
As a result of Mr. Rhenals' behavior, the victim chose to quit her job and move out of state because she feared for her safety. It was a job she loved and worked hard to earn. In this day and age of jobs that are tough to find, I think that alone speaks volumes about the level of terror this woman was subjected to at the hands of her perpetrator. She has yet to find a comparable position in academia.
The defendant chose to testify in his own behalf, admitted his obsession, and was quickly convicted. The judge sentenced him to serve 30 days in jail, 1 year probation, 75 hours of community service, undergo psychiatric evaluation and counseling to address obsessive compulsive behaviors, and to have no contact with the victim.
Not a bad sentence for a first offense.
This morning there was an emergency hearing by defense counsel Alicia Peyton. The victim and her family were not present. The defendant's parents were. Mr. Rhenals appealed his sentence, although the motion did not enumerate the grounds for appeal. Judge Barlow granted bond in the amount of $5,000 with conditions of release that include a psychiatric evaluation with his current psychiatrist in Miami (who must present the Court with a report within 10 days), have no contact with the victim or anyone at UCF involved in the case, and return to Dade County where his parents live.
CourtWatch is concerned that Mr. Rhenals has managed to avoid being held accountable, at least at the present time. He goes home with mom & dad and goes back to the psychiatrist he's already seeing. It will likely be several months before this matter is resolved. By then, I wouldn't be surprised if he figures out some way to avoid doing his jail sentence.
As a parent, I understand the desire to take care of and help your child in any way you possibly can. We don't want to see our children suffer. But sometimes we get in the way of allowing "the world" to teach them lessons they need to know. I have no doubt that Mr. Rhenals' parents love him dearly. But helping him avoid accountability is not going to help him in the long run. He is 23 years old and needs to learn that "no" means no. "No contact" means no contact. Stalking someone is not acceptable behavior.
Appeals can take a long time to go through the process. At times this case moved as slowly as molassas because the attorneys and judge were picking through the evidence with a fine-toothed comb in order to make absolutely certain all the bases were covered. In order to give Mr. Rhenals his due process, his motion for bond was granted (the judge even noted that his sentence would be served by the time the appeal was resolved) even though the motion did not clearly indicate what the grounds were. What about the victim's right to see her perpetrator held accountable?
Oh, I forgot. The law doesn't seem to give victims that right.
For more information about stalking and to see how much you know about it, check out this quiz.
Posts
Unbelievable, this guy admits to doing something dangerous and "crazy", but gets out. Mr. Ward is accused of shooting his wife, but gets out, then in Seiminole County a judge jails a father for 90 days because he doesn't have the income or means to pay his wife's attorneys' fees! Unbelievable! THANKS COURTWATCH FOR KEEPING US INFORMED ABOUT THESE JUDGES!
ReplyDeleteVictims have no rights, that's the sad truth. Until the violence leads to murder...but then again look at the Ward murder. Shot in the face and the rich husband is out on bail. He'll probably be out trick-or-treating tomorrow night with his sister-in-law...you know the one that advised him to say it was an accident. The same sister-in-law that visited Ward in jail--laughing, joking and having a good ole time.
ReplyDeleteMr. Rhenals is very dangerous--he violated an injunction, terrorized his victim and minimized his own behavior. The court confirmed his crime was "no big deal".
I am a former student to the victim and former classmate of Rhenalds.
ReplyDeleteWhile he was a student at UCF both me and the rest of my peers considered him a credible threat to our saftey. I honestly still do not feel safe knowing that he is still walking the streets. I thought that maybe him going to jail would be the last we hear about that black mark in our lives, but apparently not.
This makes me sick; a dangerous man can bully and terrify an amazing professor and never see the repercussions of it.
PART 1/2
ReplyDeleteOn January 16, 2012, I submitted the letter below to the CourtWatch Board of Directors. Despite reiterating my request on January 29 to the Board of Directors' Chair, Ms. Laura S. Williams, so far I have not received any response.
LETTER TO THE COURTWATCH BOARD OF DIRECTORS
I request that Laura S. Williams' CourtWatch article, "Convicted Stalker Manages to Wiggle Out of Serving Jail Sentence," (dated Wednesday, October 7, 2009) be taken down from the CourtWatch blog. The article presents a biased representation of my trial, it is damaging to my reputation - as it is one of the top items to appear in a Google search of my name - and there are a number of other issues with this article.
To begin with, Ms. Williams’ article violates the principles stated on the CourtWatch website. CourtWatch reporters are supposed to be “impartial observers of the judicial system”. As I demonstrate below, her article is not the report of an impartial observer. In addition, the mission of CourtWatch is “Empowering the community to positively impact the court system’s handling of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse cases.” My case does not belong to any of these categories.
Ms. Williams makes the mistake of totally siding with the plaintiff, completely ignoring the defendant's testimony or the points made by the defense. This is not fair and objective reporting. The essence of being just and fair is to allow the conflicting parties equal opportunity to express their point of view. A flagrant example of how biased this article is can be seen in the use of the phrase “wiggle out” in the title of the article when referring to my right to appeal the case on perfectly legitimate grounds.
Ms. Williams fails to separate facts from allegations. As this trial dealt primarily with opposing testimonies alone, it's not an easy job, but a very delicate one, to label what is said as fact. I would like to respond to some of the "facts" cited by her:
1) In my testimony, I said that my behavior in class was "occasionally boisterous," not disruptive or aggressive.
2) I did not violate any injunction. The final injunction, after the initial 15-day temporary injunction, was never served, though it was thought by the plaintiff and the detective assigned to this case that it had been.
3) One of the more egregious statements made at the trial came from the detective. I did not say that, in my mind, I thought there was a sexual relationship with the plaintiff. The statement by the detective doesn't even make any sense. Obviously, if something takes place in your mind, it's happening for real. No one who truly believes something in their mind would make the distinction.
4) I never followed the plaintiff. There was an instance where we left a building at roughly the same time. But once out of the building, I did not follow her. In fact, we briefly smiled at each other when we encountered each other in the building’s lobby.
5) I never hovered outside her classroom or office.
6) I never slammed any door.
7) I never admitted that I was obsessed with her in the way someone who has romantic intentions would. I was simply lauding her work and achievements in the field of film theory.
PART 2/2
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the state of Florida defines stalking as "any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person…" During the trial, the prosecution failed to prove that my actions were in any way malicious, a critical component of the legal definition. There was no evidence of maliciousness. I never intended to do any harm to the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff stated, in a document she submitted to the court summarizing our interactions, that "the student has not crossed any lines in his behavior."
I was never accused of stalking by the plaintiff. The term was used for the first time upon my arrest, which happened because of the belief, by the detective and the plaintiff, that I had violated an injunction. I had not violated any injunction. The injunction charges would later be dropped.
I would also like to address a major lie by the prosecution. During the trial, the prosecutor stated that I had been expelled from UCF, and implied that I had been expelled due to stalking. This is grossly untrue. I was suspended for a year from UCF for harmful behavior/disruptive conduct.
Considering the above, let me reiterate my request that Laura S. Williams’ CourtWatch article, “Convicted Stalker Manages to Wiggle Out of Serving Jail Sentence," (dated Wednesday, October 7, 2009) be taken down from the CourtWatch blog because it is damaging to my reputation, it is a biased description of the trial and it fails to separate facts from allegations.
Sincerely,
Gabriel Rhenals
Ms. Williams-
ReplyDeleteAre you a watchdog, or an attack dog? Your opinion is undermining your legitimacy.
I know the blog depends heavily your identity as a victim's advocate - it would not exist at all without your traumatic experiences, I assume - but I think you'd get a larger and more diverse audience by simply letting the facts speak for themselves.
The only problem with that path is the possible realization that, in some cases, it may be best to simply write nothing at all. The only excuse I could see for this behavior is if you were paid to write these blog posts, paid to take this ideological position, and had quotas and deadlines and a livelihood to earn. But I don't think that's the case. Lucky you.
I'd love to see you take this blog beyond the bloated realm of self-righteous ideologues, upwards into the underpopulated region of tactful reporting.