Orange County deputy accused of domestic violence

Orlando Sentinel (2/24/10): Ex-boyfriend accuses Orange deputy of domestic violence

While it is always distressing to see a member of law enforcement allegedly engaging in domestic violence, the story told by Deputy Bryan Villella's ex-wife and subsequent partner are frighteningly similar.

What is most concerning is that the judge in this case, Judge Sally Kest, read this injunction request and despite there being a prior history, use of a weapon and physical violence, she merely granted a hearing, without an accompanying temporary injunction. I have been told that the victim is terrified and is currently in hiding.

In his petition dated 2/18, Mr. Carrion alleged that during their 4 year relationship, Deputy Villella battered him numerous times, held a gun to his head while forcing him to clean up his own blood, tased him, coerced him into group sex, dislocated his shoulder, threatened to kill him and his daughter, and threw him out of the home.

And Judge Kest set the case for a hearing on March 2nd WITHOUT granting a temporary injunction?

It appears as though there is a bias of some sort at work here.

Because it is a same sex relationship? Or because it involves a member of law enforcement? Or perhaps because the petition did not allege exact dates and times of the incidents, but was submitted as nearly 7 pages in a narrative fashion, rather than in a more orderly fashion? Judge Kest's response:

The Court finds that the facts, as stated in the Petition alone and without a hearing on the matter, do not demonstrate that Petitioner is a victim of domestic or repeat violence or that Petitioner has reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence. Therefore, there is not a sufficient factual basis upon which the court can enter a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Domestic or Repeat Violence prior to a hearing. . . . Petitioner may amend or supplement the Petition at any time to state further reasons why a Temporary Injunction should be ordered which would be in effect until the hearing scheduled below.

Mr. Carrion submitted a supplemental affadavit on 2/22 to his petition in an effort to secure a temporary injunction pending his hearing. It was trimmed to 2 pages and included dates of some of the offenses, the most recent one being May, 2009. It was denied. I would assume because it has been several months since the last physical act of violence.

While it has been 8-9 months since he was physically attacked, the Petitioner wrote that he is terrified because Deputy Villella's conduct is finally being investigated by the Orange County Sheriff's Office as a result of an unrelated incident in June 2009 (see Sentinel story). And Deputy Villella knows about Mr. Carrion's attempt to get an injunction - something that could result in Villella losing his job.

Mr. Carrion is wise to remain in hiding.

It is more than disappointing that his allegations, when presented to OCSO last year, were not thoroughly investigated. Mr. Carrion wrote "I cannot count on the police. I went to them for help and got nothing but a reprimand for shaming one of their 'valiant.' After all I told them and proved to them, Bryan was given an award....He is Deputy of the Year.....I am terrified."

And Judge Kest found that Mr. Carrion didn't demonstrate that he had reasonable cause to believe that he was in imminent danger?

Mr. Carrion is very wise to remain in hiding.

Whatever Happened to . . . ? #12

Jose L Torres
2009-CF-008384-A-O
Cause Bodily Injury During Felony; Possess Firearm by Convicted Felon; Shooting From Vehicle w/in 1000' of a Person; Leave Scene of Accident w/Injuries
Defendant was charged with striking 2 children with his car as they were playing along the street and subsequently attempting to shoot their father after he confronted the defendant about the accident.
Defendant pled no contest and was adjudicated guilty to all four counts.  He was sentenced to 10 years (minimum mandatory sentence) in prison.

David Padilla-Rivera
2009-CF-007348-A-O
Kidnap w/Intent to Commit Felony; Aggravated Assault w/Deadly Weapon; Sexual Battery w/Deadly Weapon; Battery.
Defendant was charged with the assault of a 16-yr old girl on the grounds of the Englewood Neighborhood Center as she walked home from a party at 5:00am.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of False Imprisonment, Attempted Sexual Battery and Assault. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison + 2 years probation, designated as a sex offender, ordered to not return to the scene of the offense, and to have no contact with the victim.

Terrell Rivers
2009-CF-000672-A-O
Robbery w/Firearm; Use of Child in Sexual Performance; Extortion
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of the first two charges and not guilty of the third. He was sentenced to LIFE in the Department of Corrections and designated as a sexual predator.

Glenard Williams
2009-CF-013241-A-O
2nd Degree Murder
Defendant was charged with attacking his female roommate 9 times with a hatchet and claimed he blacked out.
Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

"He's 40 - She's 17!"

James Gilbert
2008-CF-018238-A-O
Solicitation of Minor via Computer (10 counts)
Click here for previous CourtWatcher blogs on this case.

Gilbert and his attorney, Neal McShane, were back in court on Friday, scheduled for yet another Motion to Dismiss.  Mr. McShane vigorously tried to convince Judge Lubet for the umpteenth time that the text messages sent to the defendant by the victim (who was 17 at the time) should be retrieved and be admissable at trial.

Mr. McShane wanted the judge to allow his computer expert to examine the victim's parents' home computer where the mother allegedly viewed the messages on their cell phone provider's website. The issue of invasion of privacy was discussed at length.

After listening to the attorneys argue, at times quite heatedly, whether or not the messages could (1) even be retrieved after nearly two years, and (2) even be admissable at trial, Judge Lubet denied McShane's motion. The judge, for the umpteenth time, told Mr. McShane that her texts to the defendant are not relevant because, as he emphatically stated, "He's 40, she's 17! It's still illegal!"

Judge Lubet would not permit a fishing expedition at the expense of the victim's family. He refused to impose sanctions (as requested by defense counsel) on the State for their lack of technical expertise in retrieving her texts when the charges came to light in 2008. As unfair as it might seem to some, because the victim was a minor, anything she wrote to Mr. Gilbert is not admissable at trial.

As the hearing reached the 60 minute mark, Judge Lubet asked Mr. McShane what his client was going to do - go to trial Monday or plead to the charges. When he replied that Mr. Gilbert hadn't decided yet, the judge informed him that "inaction results in other people making decisions for you." It was very clear that there would be no more delays.

Mr. Gilbert and his attorney went out to the hallway to discuss his options.

After taking about an hour while other matters were handled, the defendant returned to the courtroom to enter a plea of "no contest" to all 10 charges (each one could be punishable by up to 5 years in prison). There was no agreement with the State. Judge Lubet did indicate he would be willing to grant a bond for Mr. Gilbert while the case was appealed.

Sentencing was scheduled for April 19th at 1:30pm to give the Department of Corrections time to prepare a pre-sentence investigation.

Gilbert's fate will then rest with the judge.

Injunction Denied to Victim of Stalking - Stalker/Arsonist Granted Bond

With all the media attention focused on Judge Moxley's denial of an injunction request by Alissa Blanton and her subsequent murder earlier this month, I monitored a criminal case in Judge Marc Lubet's courtroom today that is equally frightening.

On December 1, 2009 19-yr old Tameka Hibbler requested an Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence against her ex-boyfriend, Tommy Lee Knight. Her petition noted five different instances of stalking behavior during the previous 4 days:

11/27/09: At her place of work, Mr. Knight was there from 7:00-9:45pm, crying and making a scene. He refused to leave after she asked him to leave her alone.

11/28/09: At the home she shares with her mother and 16-yr old brother, Mr. Knight repeatedly knocked and yelled  at the front door from 11:45pm until 2:00am.  When the Petitioner opened the door, he grabbed her by the arm and insisted she listen to him. He left after her mother threatened to call the police. Ms. Hibbler indicated that for the prior two days he had been repeatedly called her personal, as well as employer's, phone.

11/29/09: Mr. Knight followed her to her church and refused to leave her alone. She asked him to sit in another location, but he refused.

11/30/09: Mr. Knight waited at her place of employment for her to appear. Petitioner's co-workers advised her that he was there from 10:30am until 1:00pm.

11/30/09: Mr. Knight followed Petitioner to her friend's apartment and watched them from the bushes at the apartment complex. Her friend called the police to report Mr. Knight's behavior because they were concerned he might harm one or both of them.

On 12/1/09, Judge Theotis Bronson denied Ms. Hibbler's petition, stating "the allegations are not sufficient for a domestic violence injunction." They certainly seem sufficient to CourtWatch. Actual physical assault is not the sole thing that can be considered when deciding whether or not to grant an injunction.

Click here for the Statute definition of stalking and tell me if you don't think the above allegations support a temporary injunction and a hearing.

It should be noted that Mr. Knight lived in the Petitioner's home with her mother and brother after his parents kicked him out of their home. Mr. Knight is 22-years old.

 

Mr. Knight was in Judge Lubet's courtroom today for a Bond Hearing.

The charges?

Arson 1st Degree of Dwelling/Building w/People Present (a felony) & Stalking (a misdemeanor).

Mr. Knight allegedly doused the doors and windows of the victims' home with gasoline and ignited a blaze at approximately 4:00am on December 2, 2009 - the day after Ms. Hibbler's injunction was denied.

Earlier that evening, some neighbors alerted the family to the defendant's presence in the neighborhood. His bike was seen nearby. The main breaker to their home had been turned off. According to the mother's testimony, the Orange County Sheriff's Department said there was nothing they could do unless someone witnessed a criminal act. This was not the first time they heard that from law enforcement.

Thankfully, Ms. Hibbler's younger brother was unable to sleep as a result of the events earlier in the day, heard and saw the defendant through the front door peephole with a gas can, and got the family out of the house safely when he realized it was on fire.

All three family members testified today that they are terrified that Mr. Knight will return to "finish the job" if he gets out of jail. The defendant's family and friends are allegedly pressuring the victim to drop the charges against him.

Judge Lubet commented that he was surprised that the State Attorney's Office had not filed 3 counts of Attempted Murder charges against Mr. Knight. Assistant State Attorney Shannon Corack indicated that it was being reviewed for possible upgrade. Had that been done, Judge Lubet indicated he probably would not have granted a bond at the hearing today. However, because Arson and Stalking are both bondable offenses, he was obligated to set a bond and conditions of release that accomplish two things:

1. Ensure the saftey of the community, particularly the victims.
2. Ensure the defendant's presence in court.

Considering the fact that Mr. Knight scores 46 months as a minimum in the Department of Corrections, with a maximum of 30 years, it is entirely possible that he would be tempted to flee. He has demonstrated by two earlier Violation of Probation charges that he has a problem with complying with court orders.

Ultimately a bond in the amount of $26,000 was set with the following conditions of release:

• Ankle monitor
• Home confinement - may only leave home go to work, school, meet with his attorney, or seek medical attention
• No contact with any of the victims - either directly or indirectly
• Stay 1000 feet away from the victims' home
• Possess no weapons or firearms
• Possess no flammable liquids

At this time, the family is in a confidential location. But my gut tells me they are far from safe, even with the conditions placed upon the defendant if he does manage to make bond.

Update: Child Killer Gets 18 Month Sentence

As promised earlier this week when posting about this case, here is (as Paul Harvey would say) the rest of the story.
In speaking with Anna Valentini, the prosecutor who handled the case, I learned the following:

With the exception of a quick errand run when she left the home, Brian del Pino and his girlfriend had spent the entire day with 18-month old Cameron Andrews together. It was during her absence that little Cameron sustained the injuries that ultimately killed him.

Del Pino reportedly sought immediate medical attention for the boy, and was attempting to resuscitate him when emergency personnel arrived. The Defense was prepared to call two expert witnesses who would testify that the child's injuries were consistent with del Pino's version of events, wherein the child was injured accidentally, thus creating the potential for reasonable doubt in the minds of prospective jurors.

The mother and both grandmothers were present at the sentencing hearing earlier this month.

Finally, the defendant walked the straight and narrow for nearly 4 years while out on bond as he awaited trial.

As previously reported, del Pino will serve 10 years of probation after his release from custody, and is therefore subject to a potentially much lengthier period of incarceration if he fails to abide by those requirements.

Given the circumstances, particularly that he made every effort to save the child (unlike many defendants we see), CourtWatch believes the plea agreement was a good one.