Judge Michael Murphy: "If I was the victim, I would not be happy"

"If I was the victim, I would not be happy," said Judge Michael Murphy as he pronounced the sentence at the conclusion of Patrick Macchione's 3+ hour sentencing hearing yesterday.

Macchione pled in December, 2011 to the following charges:

• (1) count of written threats to kill or do bodily harm; 
• (1) count of aggravated stalking after injunction; and
• (17) counts of violation of injunction.

Background

Macchione's victim's nightmare began in the spring of 2009 when she accepted a facebook "friend" request from the defendant after having briefly met him at UCF.  When the tone of his messages became increasingly sexual, she "unfriended" him. He then began his relentless pursuit of her with hundreds of emails and phone calls - directly and indirectly.

She asked him to stop, but the harassment continued.  Law enforcement told her they could not do anything because they didn't know where he was.

The victim filed for an injunction for protection in June, 2009 and was granted one for 10 years the following month.

Shortly after the imposition of the injunction, the defendant posted numerous YouTube videos of an angry, threatening, sometimes sexual, nature and sent the links to her friends (whose contact info he presumably collected while he and the victim were facebook friends), asking them to watch them.  Those friends, in turn, contacted her to advise her of their existence.

The videos that were played in court would leave anyone terrified for their safety. In them he is obviously delusional and mentally ill. He insults and degrades her, insists that he will make her happy, and repeatedly demands that she meet with him and look him in the eye. They progress to tell her it's up to her to meet with him in order to save her own life.

The victim testified about one video which was produced outside the restaurant where she worked. While he was filming that video, he saw her car drive by and he ran after her. No doubt, a terrifying thing to watch.

The last video, which he sent directly to the victim, had no words. Simply gestures of him pointing at the camera (i.e., the victim), pulling the trigger of an imaginary gun twice at the viewer, putting the same "gun" to his head and pulling the trigger again.

Assistant State's Attorney Michelle Latham then read a dozen or more profanity-laced and sexually explicit YouTube messages into the record. These detailed his intent to follow her home, imprison, sexually assault and torture the victim and his desire to make her his. Additional threats of self-mutilation and suicide were made.

Note: these videos and messages have been removed from youtube.

As if that weren't enough, he used Twitter to further terrorize her (@kaypee). Twitter messages are still online (warning: graphic language).


History of Prosecution
In March, 2010 Macchione's case went to trial before Judge Bob LeBlanc but was declared a mistrial after the defendant became extremely agitated and somewhat disruptive during the victim's testimony. The Sheriff's deputies and the public defenders who represented him at the time were concerned that he might harm himself with writing utensils that were on their table. The defendant attempted to plead to the bench during the middle of his trial. He was then committed to DCF to undergo mental health treatment.

After competency had been restored, he pled guilty to all charges before Judge Murphy in December, 2011.

Sentencing Hearing
Dr. Jeffrey Danziger testified that the defendant was psychotic when he was admitted to the hospital. Macchione was diagnosed with schizophrenia and medications were prescribed that restored his competency last year. His mother testified that prior to his having been sent to the hospital, she felt that her son had been lost to her. She detailed numerous pre-diagnosis behaviors that Dr. Jeffrey Danziger described as precursors of schizophrenia.

His mother told the Court that there was a history of mental illness, drug use, retreat from society, eruptions of anger that escalated (dating back to age 7 when he chased an older brother through the house with a kitchen knife), and verbal abuse.  Her son also suffered from a serious auto accident at age 17 wherein spinal injuries paralyzed him for several months. For a short while, he did well as a student at USF, but after transferring to UF he dropped out of school, gave away his belongings and became homeless. She testified that after he received the proper medications at the hospital, she began to see a dramatic improvement in his condition and she had hope for the first time in many years. She told the judge that it has been comforting to know that he's safe in jail and offered a heartfelt apology to the victim and her family for the hell that they've endured.

Macchione's attorney, Michael DiCembre, did an effective job of showing the judge that, in the words of Dr. Danziger "this was mental illness, not evil doing." He also provided witnesses to testify to post-incarceration treatment programs that would be suitable for his client.

The State provided documentation to the judge that DOC is equally capable of providing the treatment that the defendant so desperately needed.


The Sentence
The State's original plea offer in this case was 5 years DOC + 10 years probation (this was prior to adding the most egregious charge while he was hospitalized - Written Threats to Kill, which carries a 15 year sentence). The maximum possible sentence for the charges to which he pled would have exceeded 35 years if all counts ran consecutively to one another.

The defendant, at time of sentencing, had already spent over 2 years in custody.

The judge, having found that the mitigating factor of mental illness allowed a downward departure from the sentencing scoresheet's recommended sentence, ordered:

• 48 months DOC with credit for the 2 years 78 days time served
• followed by (1) year of Community Control Level 2 (the most restrictive type that includes GPS monitoring)
• followed by (2) years of Community Control Level 1
• followed by (13) years of County Probation
• no contact with the victim
• comply with the injunction
• no use of computer with internet except under supervision while in DOC, allowing him to communicate only with his family

In addition to the standard conditions of Community Control and Probation, the defendant was ordered to:

• a residential treatment program as long as medically required or until further order of the court
• comply with medical/drug regimen prescribed
• random drug testing to assure compliance

When the judge asked Ms. Latham if there were any other conditions of release that ought to be included, knowing that she wanted more DOC time, she pointedly asked him to state the reason for the downward departure (of about 2 months). She pressed further and asked, "you find under the totality of the circumstances that you should do so?" 

He replied yes.

Judge Murphy noted that under the circumstances the sentence is appropriate for the duration of the time that the offenses occurred. That it was a first offense - albeit a serious one. He then admitted that "If I was the victim, I would certainly not be happy." 

He stated that the defendant satisfied the legal requirements for this sentence and that without the mental illness factor, Macchione would have likely been sentenced to 15 years or more in DOC for this case. He noted that even though many people in prison have psychological issues, that's not where they all belong, and that the defendant had responded to treatment in a positive manner.

Judge Murphy further noted that once he is released, he will be on the most restrictive level of Community Control. The judge commented that if Macchione is going to violate the terms of his release, it would most likely be during that first year when he's on GPS. The State could then prosecute him for Violation of Community Control and he would have the 15 year DOC sentence hanging over his head. He said:

"There is no possible way that the victim will be in harm's way during that period of time because they [Community Control] will let her know. Once she knows where he'll be residing she can make sure to make all efforts that she's nowhere around.  Or if she decides to be in the same general vicinity she'll be sure to be in constant contact with Community Control.  If there's any action by Macchione she will contact Community Control. 

"There's no way she's really at risk during that time.

No possible way that the victim will be in harm's way? No way she's really at risk during that time?

Two observations:

1. The victim must assume the burden of monitoring her perpetrator's actions, thus having to continue looking over her shoulder - probably for the rest of her life.
2. In spite of the extra precautions of GPS monitoring and the very restrictive conditions placed upon the defendant, nobody can guarantee this woman's safety. She could relocate and perhaps be physically safe from him. But what about the psychological reign of cyber-terror that she endured for several months? He very well could find her on the internet - living in the same zip code, living across the country or around the world.

I just hope that Mr. Macchione complies with every restriction that is placed upon him.

And I pray that Judge Murphy won't have to eat his words.

See report on CF News 13 for more
See report on WFTV-9 here

__________

There's a hero in this story too. He undoubtedly saved this woman's life.

I'll write more about him in my next posting.

The Price of Pretrial Freedom

I attended a Motion to Remove GPS Monitoring Device in Judge F. Rand Wallis' courtroom Friday. The defendant, Charlie Anthony Jackson, has a degree from FSU and works in a high paying MIS job that requires him to travel often. He is now living at a hotel in Jacksonville (previously having commuted to his job from Orlando), and claimed that the GPS monitoring device provided by Court Programs has malfunctioned in the past, once causing him to have to return to Orlando from a job in Arkansas to be replaced. In addition to claiming financial hardship (having to pay $84/week for the privilege of not being incarcerated while awaiting trial), Mr. Jackson expressed concern that the monitoring company could call him at an inopportune time, for example while he is conducting a training session or in an important meeting, that might cause him a hardship (though I guess embarrassment is more the issue).

I suppose that Mr. Jackson believes that the judge should try to minimize any potential for awkward situations he's made to suffer while awaiting trial.

The defendant's wife, the victim in this case, was assaulted so severely in August that she literally thought her eye had come out of its socket when blood squirted from it during the attack. She has two facial scars and suffered facial fractures.  She testified that this was the fourth physical assault by her husband during their nine year marriage.  She obtained a 3-yr injunction immediately after the offense and the defendant was granted only supervised visitation with his child through Family Ties, which he has not yet exercised, even though it was ordered two months ago. She told Judge Wallis that knowing his movements are monitored is the only thing that has provided her with any peace of mind since the attack.

Jackson is charged with Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) and Domestic Battery by Strangulation. Defense Attorney Charles Willits did a good job of pleading his client's case, but Assistant State Attorneys Christopher Pasquale and Michelle Latham countered every argument with convincing testimony by a representative from Court Programs and the victim herself.  Additionally, Court Programs told the judge that if Mr. Jackson cannot risk being disturbed during an important meeting, they will refrain from contacting him during that pre-arranged time.

In the end, Judge Wallis denied the motion, finding that the defendant's concerns did not rise to the level of a hardship and that his issues had been alleviated by a newer device that does not have the same battery problems the older device had. 

CourtWatch commends Judge Wallis for maintaining this level of protection for the victim and accountability for the defendant while awaiting trial.

Like Father, Like Son?

Yesterday afternoon CourtWatch monitored a bond motion for 19-year old Winter Garden resident Christopher Brannon, who had been arrested on 10/1/09 for Burglary with Assault or Battery (a felony punishable by life in prison) against his ex-girlfriend, who is 17-years old.  Assistant State Attorney Michelle Latham did a thorough job of demonstrating the defendant's propensity toward violent behavior directed at the victim.

In addition to testimony about his stalking behavior, State witnesses testified about three separate instances of alleged vandalism to her vehicle (dents, a broken window, slashed tires), tearing a dress she owned (not while she was wearing it), gaining access to the home without permission, punching holes into interior doors, and making suicide threats.  The victim has repeatedly not wanted to pursue a criminal case. That is, until this assault on October 1st wherein he shoved his way into her home while her mother was at work, grabbed her, shattered her cell phone, and smashed the back of her head into a table - all because he just wanted to talk to her and she repeatedly begged him to leave.

This young man scares me. He looks like such a nice young man. In fact, that's what all the witnesses for the defense testified. They talked about how polite and well-mannered he is when he visits their homes. I wonder if they've ever seen him spend time with his girlfriend. His actions at such a young age demonstrate textbook Power & Control Wheel behavior.

This young man's father scares me too. He took pride in mentioning his service to our country as a Marine, and is now employed as an intelligence analyst for a defense contractor (something I admire & greatly appreciate). His demeanor, however, screamed "power and control" to me. He minimized his son's previous brush with the law (a petit theft charge), repeatedly stated "I can assure you..." or "I can state unequivocally..." that he would stay on top of his son should Judge Alicia Latimore see fit to grant a bond. He stressed the "Marine traits" of honesty, dependability, trustworthiness, and respect for authority as traits that he had instilled in his son. He testified that his son assumes the role of "man of the house" when dad travels for his job. Even though the attorneys and the judge questioned him several times about how extensively he travels, a clear answer was never given (i.e., how many nights per month he was out of town). I also wonder, is Mom not capable of running the household when her husband is away? Why would a teenager be given this kind of authority when Mom is there?

And then Judge Latimore commented that perhaps Dad had impulse control issues because he had to be ejected from the courtroom last week for losing his temper at a previous hearing. I'm sorry I missed that hearing.

Ultimately, the judge granted a $15,000 bond (which was $10,000 more than defense counsel Michael Lafay requested), home confinement in his parents' home (except when working or as otherwise approved by the home confinement officer), ordered no contact with the victim or her family, stay more than 1 mile away from the victim's residence and 1/2 mile away from her high school, and to possess no weapons.

I am unclear as to why GPS tracking was not ordered.  If the judge is going to permit Mr. Brannon to go to work, he needs to be tracked. The victim's home is only 4 miles away from his. And her high school is only 1/2 mile away from where he lives.

Both Brannons frighten me.

But what frightens me most is that a young girl is at now at risk because her ex-boyfriend in out of jail without GPS tracking to monitor his movements.

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.