Suicidal drug addict gets 15 years for trafficking

While waiting for a domestic violence sentencing to be called in Judge Tim Shea's courtroom today, I watched with incredulity as the judge was required, by Florida Statute, to sentence a man to a minimum mandatory 15 years in the Department of Corrections for Trafficking in Hydrocodone.

I agree that drug dealers ought to be held accountable for dealing drugs - especially when they target children. But Todd Michael Hannigan, age 42, was no drug dealer.

Assistant Public Defender Robert Power reminded the Court that Hannigan had been suicidal when he was picked up in a park for an open container violation in November, 2009. He had stolen 31 pills from his mother (24.5 grams) and was planning to ingest them. His original intent was to commit suicide at his ex-girlfriend's home (she had recently ended the relationship), but she came home and kicked him out. Law enforcement had been called, and because he was on foot, he was quickly located at a nearby park with a bottle of partially consumed beer.

As one officer was putting him under arrest, a witness in the park notified another officer that the defendant had dropped something on the ground. The second officer retrieved a bag of pills.

A sensible person would think "that's only Possession - not Trafficking!" But the quantity of pills involved has been deemed by the Florida Legislature to assume that if you have that many pills on you without a prescription, you're a dealer.

Mr. Power tried unsuccessfully to argue mitigation. But there was a jury verdict and a minimum mandatory sentence that tied the judge's hands. Apparently, the legislators in Tallahassee have it all figured out. By removing any discretion from the judge's ability to sentence this defendant based on the circumstances of the case, Mr. Hannigan loses his freedom for the full 15 years (no gain time permitted) and the taxpayers will foot the bill.

I would say it's a lose-lose situation all the way around.

Florida Statute 893.135(1)(C) states:
Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of any morphine, opium, oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, or any salt, derivative, isomer, or salt of an isomer thereof, including heroin, as described in s. 893.03(1)(b), (2)(a), (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance, but less than 30 kilograms of such substance or mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in illegal drugs," punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the quantity involved:


a. Is 4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $50,000.

b. Is 14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $100,000.


c. Is 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 calendar years and pay a fine of $500,000.

There's got to be a better way to handle cases of this nature. A judge's hands should not be tied by Tallahassee when mental health issues are involved. Send this blog to your senator and representative in the legislature and ask them to re-visit this part of the Statute.

Finally, CourtWatch wonders what compelled the State to go for the jugular on this case.

At the conclusion of today's hearing, the defendant stated "all I wanted was treatment - this won't help me at all." Judge Shea showed obvious concern for the defendant and was clearly frustrated with what the law required him to do.

A Notice of Appeal was filed on his client's behalf by Mr. Power.  But unless the law changes, it looks like Mr. Hannigan is stuck with the full 15 years.

_______________
PS: Mr. Hannigan's sentencing scoresheet totaled 91.6 points, 74 of which belong to this offense. Were it not for the minimum mandatory sentence, he would have scored 47.7 months (with eligibility for gain time). Previous convictions were primarily theft related. Defendant has no convictions for crimes of violence.

PPS: It would seem to CourtWatch that the legislature never took into account that someone with mental health issues might use a large quantity of drugs to commit suicide. Dr. Jeffrey Danziger was prepared to testify that the defendant suffered from clinical depression, but because there was no opportunity (by law) to hear mitigating factors, Judge Shea did not hear his report.

Whatever Happened to . . . ? #15

Back in November, the Orange County Clerk's office underwent a conversion to improve the availability of information in its computer system. As with any computer conversion, the road gets a bit bumpy at times. One enhancement is the ability to view document images as pdf files without having to pull the actual hard copies.

Unfortunately, however, important information on the myclerk public access is currently limited. Sentencing information is not as readily available as it once was.

CourtWatch has had to rely upon the efforts of staff members at the Clerk's office to aid us in obtaining this valuable information. Our deepest appreciation goes out to all those who've assisted us.

Randall Spencer
Defendant pled in November, 2009 to the charges highlighted in red below:

• 2008-CF-005570-A-O (offense 9/20/08)
  Burglary of dwelling w/assault or battery; Burglary; Sexual Battery WDW/Physical force; Agg Assault WDW; False Imprisonment
• 2008-CF-016163-A-O (offense 9/24/08)
  Sexual Battery; Burglary
• 2008-CF-016419-A-O (offense 10/14/08)
  Kidnap w/Intent to Inflict Harm/Terror w/Weapon (2cts); Home Invasion Robbery (2cts); Att Sexual Battery w/Deadly Weapon/Force; Sexual Battery w/Deadly Weapon/Force (2cts); Kidnap w/Intent to Commit Felony (2cts); False Imprisonment (3cts); Possess Firearm by Convicted Felon
• 2008-CF-005571-A-O (offense 10/23/08)
  Burglary; Sexual Battery WDW/Physical Force; False Imprisonment

Sentencing was once cancelled because defendant was on suicide watch. After graphic testimony from several victims, the sentencing was continued to enable defense witnesses to testify. On 2/25/10, Spencer was sentenced to 2 LIFE sentences + 30 years + 15 years, to be served consecutively. Kudos to Assistant State's Attorney Ryan Vescio and to Judge Tim Shea for putting Spencer away for good.

Christopher Brannon

2009-CF-014511-A-O

Burglary w/Assault or Battery

We previously blogged about Brannon here. 

On March 12, 2010 he pled no contest to Trespass to an Occupied Structure, adjudication was withheld. He was sentenced to 12 days jail with credit for 12 days time served, 353 days probation, no contact with the victim, no return to scene of offense, pay restitution, and to complete the 26 week Batterer's Intervention Program.

Myrlaine Goudou

2008-CF-005958-A-O

1st Degree Murder

Defendant pled to killing her boyfriend, Quisnel Moise. She was sentenced to 30 years in the Department of Corrections.

Marcal Graham

2009-CF-008789-B-O

1st Degree Murder

Defendant was allegedly hired by Jessica Schambron to kill her boyfriend (robbery was allegedly the motive).

Graham was found not guilty by a jury on 4/13/10.

Charges were subsequently dropped against Schambron on 4/16/10.

Thank God no one was killed

Wade Edwards
2009-CF-015215-A-O
Charged with Attempted 2nd Degree Murder, Aggravated Battery w/Deadly Weapon, Attempted Manslaughter

In Judge Tim Shea's court yesterday, a nearly 4-hour Motion to Determine Immunity from Prosecution was heard. Defense Counsel Peter Zies asserted that his client's use of deadly force was acceptable as per the "Stand Your Ground" law that permits an individual to use force to defend their home or those within (see Florida Statute 776.013 and 776.031).

Zies claimed that Mr. Edwards was in fear for his safety when his daughter's boyfriend, a taller & broader young man, charged him in an effort to escape after Mr. Edwards walked in on them having sex in her bedroom.  Assistant State Attorney Nicole Pegues asserted that Mr. Edwards shot the victim out of anger, and not out of fear for his or his daughter's safety.

I am in complete agreement that a citizen has a right to protect their home, and the people within that home (under statutory guidelines), using deadly force if necessary.

I was very conflicted after hearing the testimony. Obviously I cannot include every tidbit I heard here, but here are what seem to be the most pertinent items:

• Daughter typically comes home from school and goes to her bedroom to do homework or take a nap. The home has an alarm system. On this particular day, her boyfriend (someone that her parents had never met, but knew about and had forbidden contact with) comes over. The rules of the house prohibited her from having anyone over without parental permission.
• Daughter and her boyfriend engage in sex in her bedroom.
• Dad has a concealed weapons permit and regularly carries a .45 Glock pistol. He typically checks the house when he gets home. On this particular day, the house was in order when the defendant got home and there were no signs of forced entry. The defendant heard noises coming from his daughter's bedroom and went to investigate.
• Dad finds the couple "in the act" with daughter on top of the boyfriend (it's at this point I think Defense was disingenious by saying the dad was in fear that his daughter was being sexually assaulted - she was on top).
• Dad shuts the door and retrieves his weapon from downstairs, claiming that he believed he and/or his daughter were in imminent danger.
• Dad returns to his daughter's room (the teens are scrambling to get dressed) with a gun, opens the door, and the boyfriend (with hands raised & asking the father to not shoot) charges towards him in an effort to escape. Dad fires 4 shots, simultaneously telling the boyfriend to get out of his house, and hits the victim in the legs and buttocks while still inside the house.
• Victim escapes and gets assistance from a construction worker 3-4 houses down and across the street.

There were several inconsistent statements by both the father and daughter as it related to the chain of events, many of which could be explained by the fact that everything happened in a matter of a few seconds, the scene was loud and confusing, and emotions were understandably high.

As one who has survived the teen years (both as a teen and as a parent), it's not surprising when a teen defies the house rules. It is generally expected that they will.

Given the fact that there was no testimony that the daughter was being assaulted against her will, I think Mr. Edwards overreacted to the situation in his use of deadly force. The girl showed no signs of distress when dad walked in on her. She was not crying, asking for help, or being restrained against her will. Remember, she was on top of her boyfriend.

I don't know how I would react given the same set of circumstances. Much would depend on the parent-child relationship. As a teen, I would be scared out of my wits about getting caught. As a parent, I would probably be shocked and angry at my child's conduct. I would most likely yell at the boyfriend to get out of my house. But I would not point a gun at him.

As the State argued, the danger has to be so real that a reasonable, cautious and prudent person needs to ascertain whether the "intruder" was a friend of the daughter before using deadly force. From the testimony I heard, the "intruder" and the defendant's daughter were definately friends.

The judge asked whether exigent circumstances such as this would truncate the period of time during which the homeowner can be expected to be prudent or cautious. The State answered that when children live in the home, a reasonable and cautious individual would attempt to determine the identity of a stranger, particularly when they're the same age as any children living in the home, before using deadly force.

CourtWatch empathizes strongly with Mr. Edwards' plight as he encountered this unsavory scene. But we still believe that a reasonable and prudent person would not shoot first and ask questions later, as was the situation in this case.

Nevertheless, Judge Shea granted the defendant's motion for immunity from criminal prosecution and from civil litigation as a result of this incident.

I do concur with the judge on one thing, however. His comment, "Thank God no one was killed."

Uncertainty causes cases to resolve?

In Orange County, where the cases are plentiful and the funds are tight, we have a judge who plays a kind of "Russian Roulette" with his trial docket and costs the taxpayers more money than is necessary.

Having worked in the prosecutor's office in a substantially smaller jurisdiction (population 120,000), the learning curve I experienced when starting this program was a bit daunting.

In Orange County, each judge has his/her own division where their cases are heard. There are 12 felony divisions, a similar number of misdemeanor divisions, plus several judges that do trial assistance for the divisions on a rotating basis.

To view a flow chart of the process a criminal case takes through the courts, click here.

During part of the calendar each month there are a couple of weeks where various motions are heard. These can include pretrial motions/hearings (e.g., bond motions, motion to suppress evidence, a motion to modify terms of pretrial release, etc.) or post conviction hearings (e.g., sentencing, violation of probation, etc.). Once a case has its "pretrial conference" during this period, all pretrial motions, depositions, and other matters are supposed to be completed. The trial period begins approximately 10 days later.

When you have a trial date, your case will be set for the first day of a 2 or 3 week trial period. Obviously, not all of those cases will be heard that day. The court does a triage (which is incredibly chaotic to those not familiar with the process) and determines which cases on its docket really will be going to trial during that 2 or 3 week period. The rest of the cases either get continued or resolved in some fashion - usually being "nolle prossed" (i.e., dropped) or pled out.

Here's where we get to the "Russian Roulette."

During Judge Tim Shea's trial periods, dockets are issued on a day-to-day basis, unlike other divisions who set trials by Thursday or Friday for the upcoming week. Dockets for his division during the non-trial period are distributed a week or more in advance.

An observer in his courtroom noted that both the State and Public Defenders have requested more than one day's notice for trial - giving them adequate time to prepare, to have witnesses ready, etc.

They were told by the judge that "uncertainty causes cases to resolve."

Uncertainty causes cases to resolve?

Does the judge prefer to have cases either plead out or dropped because a victim or other witness is unavailable at his whim? Are victims and other witnesses (both for the State and Defense) expected to drop what they're doing and be available at a moment's notice during the entire 2 or 3 week trial period?

What happened to providing justice to our citizens? Witnesses often have jobs and/or childcare for which arrangements need to be made. For out-of-town witnesses, the State pays exhorbitant transportation costs when all they have is one day's notice of trial.

Defendants, whose freedoms are at stake, are supposed to be represented by an attorney who is not as prepared as they could be with just a few extra days notice?

It seems as though Judge Shea enjoys creating uncertainty in his courtroom.

The citizens of Orange County deserve better.

Another Defendant Off the Hook

Once again, Judge Tim Shea let a defendant off the hook for domestic violence - not even letting the jury determine whether or not he was guilty.

Yesterday was Michael Dwayne Manning's day in court. He was charged with Aggravated Battery on a Pregnant Person for assaulting the mother of his unborn child. The victim had signed a declination of prosecution a few days after he was released from jail.

Assistant State's Attorney Eric Trabin, using a 911 tape, photos of injuries sustained, and testimony from law enforcement, demonstrated that the victim's injuries were the result of an assault by Mr. Manning on the date in question. 

The victim, however, testified that her injuries were 3-4 days old and were the result of an altercation with someone else. The victim claimed that she jumped on Mr. Manning first in an effort to prevent him from taking car keys out of her purse and leaving. She took 100% of the blame for his actions.

Testimony elicited by the State showed that, at the time of the assault, the crying victim told the 911 operator that Mr. Manning had jumped on her. The police officer testified that the victim related that Mr. Manning had choked her. The officer also testified that the victim's injuries appeared as though they had been recently inflicted - and were not several days old. The State also demonstrated that the victim is financially dependent upon Mr. Manning. Additionally, her baby is due to be delivered very soon. Mr. Trabin went to great lengths to demonstrate that the victim had made prior inconsistent statements and told the jury that they should take that into consideration when weighing her credibility.

The jury should have been allowed to deliberate on the evidence that had been presented. But they were not. After the State rested, Judge Shea granted the defense motion for Judgment of Aquittal (JOA) on the basis that the State was relying on the victim's prior inconsistent statements. From what CourtWatch saw, however, the State relied upon the victim's excited utterances (a 911 recording in addition to her statements to law enforcement) and demonstrated that the injuries were recent (using photos together with the observations of the police officer).

Judge Shea's decision to toss the case sends the message to Mr. Manning that the system is either unable or unwilling to hold him accountable for his actions in this incident. He has empowered an abuser to thumb his nose at the laws and the judicial system that is supposed to uphold them. Assistant State Attorney Trabin attempted to enforce the law in spite of the fact that the victim had declined to prosecute.

CourtWatch commends Mr. Trabin's efforts in this matter and appreciates the fact that he did what he could to hold Mr. Manning accountable to the law, in spite of the victim's lack of support.

Finally, in spite of feeling frustrated with the victim for not aiding in the prosecution of her batterer, I understand the reasons for her refusal to testify against him. Rather than criticize the victim, I think we need to criticize the System - in this case, Judge Shea - for not upholding the Law. This is the second case that CourtWatch has seen this judge toss a case when the victim refused to testify against her abuser (the first was a case that involved the discharge of a gun in the home).

PS: Mr. Manning, age 34, in spite of being acquitted of this offense, is still in custody for a drug case. In fact, a review of the Orange County Clerk's site shows numerous felony and misdemeanor charges dating back to 1992 (age 17). Most charges (20 total) are drug related or involve resisting arrest, although he has a couple of battery and weapons cases.

Sometimes That's Just the Way Justice Happens

I happened upon the final chapter in a tragedy that will be with two families for the rest of their lives. Kelvin Mutch, in August 2007, was 19 years old. He was convicted by a jury last month for 5 counts of vehicular homicide relating to an incident where he blew through a red light at over twice the speed limit, hitting a car driven by Brenda Whitaker and containing 4 of her family members who died at the scene or shortly thereafter. Ms. Whitaker, age 42, died approximately 6 months later in a nursing home. For more info, see http://tinyurl.com/nley6y

Assistant State Attorney Mark Graham presented testimony by two family members, one of whom lost her mother, two sisters, a cousin and her baby nephew (11 months old) in the collision. She begged Judge Tim Shea to impose the maximum penalty allowable - 15 years for each life - and she asked that each term be consecutive for a total of 75 years. Graham reminded the Court that the impact of the crash ejected 2 of the victims from the vehicle as it spun out of control. To demonstrate the ferocity of the impact, he reiterated that the baby was thrown 110 feet. Graham compared Mutch's driving to guiding a missile through heavy traffic without regard for the safety of others. The defendant had originally been reported by the press as fleeing pursuit by law enforcement, but that was not the case. Witness testimony at trial was that the vehicle was airborne as it went through the intersection and hit the victim's van. The family members and the prosecutor reminded the judge that the defendant had not shown one bit of remorse for his actions.

Defense Counsel Ismael Solis presented testimony by the defendant's mother and sister, both of whom mentioned that their faith in God is what has enabled them to endure this situation. His mother implied that it was somehow God's will that the victims died (stating that nobody knows when God is going to take them), and I took great offense at that statement. As I dealt with the tragedy of my own daughter's murder, I was sometimes subjected to well-meaning remarks of this nature. However, I quickly realized that her death, just like the deaths in this case, were the result of choices made by other people. God had absolutely nothing to do with orchestrating them.

Both the defendant's mother and sister seemed unable to admit that he was at fault, and both (not surprisingly) spoke about what a wonderful son/brother/father he was. His sister admitted that they have not yet told Mutch's 4-yr old son that his daddy is in jail (and has been for over a year). All he knows is that daddy is at work or at school. I think the toughest part of being a CourtWatcher is forcing myself to refrain from offering advice after I hear something that I know is so terribly damaging to a child. That little boy needs to know the truth, and I hope the family quickly gets counseling to help them tell him in an appropriate manner so that he feels safe and secure. Because when he learns his family has been lying to him, I suspect he will be angry and unable to trust them.

The defendant spoke briefly, but didn't have the guts to turn around and look at the victims' family in the gallery as he did so. He offered his condolences to them and said he was sad about missing his own son. His attorney told the judge that his client never intended to commit these crimes, that he is remorseful and that he understands the pain the victims' family is feeling (but unless you live it yourself, you truly cannot understand that kind of pain). His words seemed hollow in light of the devastation that was inflicted.

Judge Shea offered his sympathies to both families, and noted that Mutch scored a minimum of 560.85 months (=46.7 years) in the Department of Corrections. He imposed a sentence of 11 years for each victim, to be served consecutively, for a total of 55 years. There was an feeling of resignation on both sides of the gallery - neither side was satisfied. But they can all now close this chapter and hopefully move on (except for the appeal that will follow). There were no harsh words or tears in the hallway afterwards when both families waited for the elevators.

Sometimes that's just the way justice happens.

The Case of the Disappearing Murder Case

On New Year's Eve, Nichole Hammond plunged to her death from a balcony at the Marriott World Center. Her boyfriend, Jonathan Justin Speegle was arrested in January and was granted a $50,000 bond by Judge Tim Shea, who also ordered GPS tracking (see Orlando Sentinel articles dated 1/24/09, 5/13/09, and 5/15/09).

In working on the Watchlist this week, we discovered that neither the case number (2009CF1037), nor the defendant can be located on the Orange County Clerk's website. Sometimes we run into "missing" cases when people have had their files sealed (which can only happen after the case has been closed out and judge grants a motion to do so). But this is a brand new case, and we were able to look it up and obtain a case number after his arrest on January 23, 2009.

I hope for Nichole's family's sake that this case hasn't fallen into a black hole.

9/9/09: This case is now visible on the Clerk's site.

You Don't See This Every Day, Part 2

The jury came back with a verdict of Guilty on the False Report of Child Abuse/Neglect and Not Guilty on the charge of Stalking (which encompasses a course of conduct designed to harrass another person).

Judge Shea sentenced Thomson to 3 years CONSECUTIVE to the other case, ordered NO CONTACT with Ms. Latham, and ordered restitution be paid to the State for expenses incurred to prosecute the case.

Kudos to Judge Shea for making the sentence consecutive rather than concurrent to the other case (the maximum possible for the charge was 5 years). I hope that Mr. Thomson gets the message that he's in the Department of Corrections because of HIS behavior and that he'll cease blaming others for his conviction. I won't hold my breath though.

You Don't See This Every Day

One of the more unusual cases I've monitored started in Judge Tim Shea's courtroom on Wednesday. The defendant, William Rawlings Thomson Jr., was convicted last year of Attempted 1st Degree Murder, Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm), and Burglary in an incredibly brutal attack on his wife. He was convicted in February 2008 and sentenced in July by Judge Jose Rodriguez to LIFE + 30 years + 15 years (all consecutive). Assistant State Attorney Michelle Latham did an outstanding job of presenting the State's case. Defense Attorneys David Webster and James Disinger provided a vigorous defense. Judge Jose Rodriguez was extremely thorough as he presided over the case.


After the jury convicted him, Thomson began a letter writing campaign with a complaint to the Bar Association alleging that an improper relationship existed between Latham and Webster. When that complaint was investigated and determined to be unfounded, he turned to DCF to allege she was neglecting her child. Two DCF investigations were closed as unfounded - not without having traumatized her son, however. Thomson also wrote to Governor Crist to complain about Latham, his attorney, and the inadequate investigations done by the Bar & DCF. There were approximately 80 pages of letters and other documents introduced into evidence. Unfortunately for Thomson, he couldn't have picked a squeakier clean attorney to complain about that Ms. Latham.


Wednesday's witnesses included Ms. Latham, Counsel for the Florida Bar Association, DCF's Counsel, previous Counsel for the defendant (Webster & Disinger) and Judge Rodriguez. An overwhelming picture of harrassment was portrayed by State Attorney Erin DeYoung. The State rested its case at 5:00pm and the jury went home.

Mr. Thomson, whose case I monitored last year, testified this morning. He emphasized that he only filed the complaint to DCF because he had the "best interest of the children" in mind (not knowing she only had one). DeYoung effectively pointed out that his first two complaint letters mentioned nothing about the child. She systematically went through the numerous letters and demonstrated that Mr. Thomson was fixated on punishing Ms. Latham for his verdict.

As he failed to have any sort of sanctions imposed against Ms. Latham, his stories and his demands for retribution escalated until the State filed formal charges in November. In addition to the "improper relationship" and child neglect, he alleged drug usage by his attorney and Ms. Latham, and bribery of the judge and Ms. Latham. He made complaints about the quality of the investigations by the Bar and DCF to the Governor's Office. He even testified that the Bar Association should have put Ms. Latham under surveillance (so they could see that she was indeed out clubbing every night and leaving her child unsupervised). Thomson asserted that he wrote so many letters because he did not get a reply to his complaints.

In his closing argument, Defense Counsel Sean Landers claimed this was a case of vindictive prosecution by the State Attorney's Office because the alleged victim was one of their own. Ms. DeYoung admitted that the nature of an attorney's job (whether a prosecutor or defense attorney) creates a likelihood that they will have to deal with complaints. Where Mr. Thomson crossed the line, however, is in attacking Ms. Latham's family. Because DCF was called, her son (a special needs child whom she adopted from DCF and who did not have a good experience in foster care) was put in fear that he would be taken away from his mother. That is why the State wanted Mr. Thomson held accountable for his behavior.

The jury is currently deliberating. I'll let you know what they decide.

Young, Stupid & In Jail

In monitoring Judge Tim Shea's court this morning, I saw two defendants that could be categorized as young & stupid. The first was Doreen Maynard, age 19 at the time of her arrest for 3 counts of DWI manslaughter. She pled no contest last month and was here to be remanded into custody while a PSI (pre-sentence investigation) is prepared. Several family members wept as this petite young lady had the handcuffs put on her. The primary thought that ran through my mind (after realizing that she is younger than my oldest daughter) was how foolish it is to drink and drive. She ruined the lives & families of 3 people who died. She ruined her own life. All because she was stupid enough to get behind the wheel after drinking. Her sentencing is scheduled for June 8th.

Our second "stupid" individual was scheduled for sentencing. Carlos Guzman pled to Robbery with a Firearm (which carries with it a 10-yr minimum mandatory sentence). Guzman is also 19 years old. He and a co-defendant severely assaulted a security guard who confronted them in a parking lot last July. The victim, a young man in his 20s, was pistol whipped in the assault. After hearing the victim's testimony, it appears as though Defense Counsel Kendall Horween's tactics with the victim could be construed at best as questionable, at worst as harrassment. The victim testified that Horween had repeatedly called him to discuss the case. The victim had to ask the State Attorney's office to contact Mr. Horween to ask him to stop calling. Horween's subpoena to depose the victim "accidentally" had the victim's name where the defendant's name belonged. When the victim called him for clarification, he got the victim to agree to request a "Youthful Offender" sentence of 6 years in exchange for cancelling the deposition. Even when he was testifying this morning, Judge Shea had to reign Horween in, stating that he was not going to permit the victim to be re-victimized at this hearing.

Perhaps Guzman was simply caught up in a situation where he & his buddy, because they had a gun, decided to act like tough guys. The defendant claimed today that he did not have a gun during the offense. If that was the case, his attorney did him a terrible disservice by allowing him to plead guilty last month (I don't think the judge bought that claim). In spite of my criticisms of Mr. Horween, I don't think he is incompetent. Perhaps Guzman's apology to the victim was genuine, but from where I sat, it was (as Assistant State Attorney Mark Graham asserted) a case of crocodile tears. The defendant committed this offense less than 2 months after being released from jail on a burglary charge. Perhaps we should believe his attorney's argument that the defendant entered the plea in order to spare the victim from having to testify in deposition and trial. Sorry, you're not going to sell me on that one either.

Thankfully, Judge Shea didn't buy the defendant's arguments and presentation of mitigating factors. He sentenced Guzman to the 10-year minimum mandatory sentence because the maximum he could impose under Youthful Offender guidelines would be 6 years, which he did not believe to be sufficient for the severity of the offense.

Two different defendants, two different offenses, same theme. Young, stupid & in jail.