State v. Thomas Maroney
2008-CF-010565-O
False Imprisonment; Battery
Maroney was a Sergeant with the Ocoee Police Department when he allegedly assaulted a woman at a party in July, 2008 by spanking her with a belt. He pled no contest to the false imprisonment and battery charges and the State dropped the Sexual Battery charge. Adjudication was withheld and he was sentenced to 1 year probation and required to permanently surrender his law enforcement certification in March, 2009.
Maroney was in court on 11/13/09 to request early termination of probation (having served 8 months of his 12 month sentence). Defense Counsel Mark Lippman argued that his phone-in status probation is not a good use of State resources, that he has successfully completed 2/3 of his sentence, and that his previous record as a law enforcement officer should speak for itself.
Assistant State Attorney William Busch concurred (to a certain extent), adding that having phone-in probation is not a hardship, agreeing that he has been successful thus far, and noting that a similar incident with a female cadet, the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation, also spoke for itself.
The "slap on the wrist" sentence he got in this case was at the victim's request because she did not want to testify.
Judge Jenifer Davis, after (in our opinion unnecessarily) congratulating him for being successful thus far, re-iterated that there was to be no contact with the victim, told him he would have to complete the full 12 months, and permitted him to transfer his probation to another county.
Showing posts with label William Busch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label William Busch. Show all posts
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
A Mom's Failure to Protect
I was in Judge Jenifer Davis' courtroom this morning for the sentencing hearing of Floyd Anderson (2008CF10385), a man who pled in February to the charge of Attempted Sexual Battery of a Child Under 12 Years of Age. In exchange for the plea, the State dropped a charge of Lewd/Lascivious Molestation of a Child Under 12. Last week, Mr. Anderson attempted to have his plea withdrawn, but Judge Davis refused to grant his motion. Mr. Anderson was supported today by approximately a dozen members of his family, some long-time friends, and the victim's mother (who actually walked in on him when he was assaulting her daughter!). Several supporters, including the victim's mother, asked the judge for leniency. Two young girls (one was his 11-year old niece) submitted letters on his behalf for the judge to read. The defense admitted that Mr. Anderson was severely intoxicated at the time of the offense and asserted that this incident was a one-time occurrence. He characterized the defendant's actions as having made a "mistake" while drunk. Numerous mitigating factors were presented in an effort to convince Judge Davis to go easy on him. He faced up to 20 years in prison.
For today's hearing, Assistant State Attorney William Busch had previously agreed to not present testimony or argument for a lengthy sentence, which utterly baffled me. I later learned that the victim's mother had threatened to "disappear" with her daughter in order to thwart the State's efforts to prosecute this man whom the victim called "Uncle." In researching Mr. Floyd's record, I learned that this was not a one-time incident, but that 2 counts of Sexual Activity With a Child were dropped in 2004 because of victim unwillingness to prosecute - a common situation that prosecutors face. I understand that there a numerous reasons why victims don't want to prosecute - most often they're either afraid of retaliation from the perpetrator or they're afraid of the court system.
Judge Davis told the defendant that she was fully prepared to sentence him to 20 years incarceration + 10 years sex offender probation before this hearing. She commented that in all her experience, both as an attorney and as a judge, she had never seen such a good job of mitigating factors presented. The overwhelming support for the defendant made a difference. She told him that the biggest thing that hurt him legally was his actions and his admissions and that he should not blame anyone for the 78-month sentence she imposed. She declared him to be a sexual predator, ordered 10 years of sex offender probation with electronic monitoring, and alcohol evaluation/treatment were ordered. She also told him that he was not to be in the presence of children if he was impaired (I guess she doesn't expect alcohol treatment to be effective).
I am appalled that the mother of this child worked against the State to this degree. My heart goes out to this child, who was not present today, that her mother valued her friendship with Mr. Anderson more than she valued her daughter's (or other girls') well being. Perhaps she should be charged with failure to protect by DCF, but that's unlikely. In spite of the circumstances, I am perplexed that the State agreed to not present argument or testimony in this hearing. Mr. Busch appeared to be frustrated with the situation to a degree I've not seen before.
Finally, I am glad that there are minimum guidelines in place for sentencing, otherwise Mr. Anderson might have been held even less accountable than he was for his actions.
For today's hearing, Assistant State Attorney William Busch had previously agreed to not present testimony or argument for a lengthy sentence, which utterly baffled me. I later learned that the victim's mother had threatened to "disappear" with her daughter in order to thwart the State's efforts to prosecute this man whom the victim called "Uncle." In researching Mr. Floyd's record, I learned that this was not a one-time incident, but that 2 counts of Sexual Activity With a Child were dropped in 2004 because of victim unwillingness to prosecute - a common situation that prosecutors face. I understand that there a numerous reasons why victims don't want to prosecute - most often they're either afraid of retaliation from the perpetrator or they're afraid of the court system.
Judge Davis told the defendant that she was fully prepared to sentence him to 20 years incarceration + 10 years sex offender probation before this hearing. She commented that in all her experience, both as an attorney and as a judge, she had never seen such a good job of mitigating factors presented. The overwhelming support for the defendant made a difference. She told him that the biggest thing that hurt him legally was his actions and his admissions and that he should not blame anyone for the 78-month sentence she imposed. She declared him to be a sexual predator, ordered 10 years of sex offender probation with electronic monitoring, and alcohol evaluation/treatment were ordered. She also told him that he was not to be in the presence of children if he was impaired (I guess she doesn't expect alcohol treatment to be effective).
I am appalled that the mother of this child worked against the State to this degree. My heart goes out to this child, who was not present today, that her mother valued her friendship with Mr. Anderson more than she valued her daughter's (or other girls') well being. Perhaps she should be charged with failure to protect by DCF, but that's unlikely. In spite of the circumstances, I am perplexed that the State agreed to not present argument or testimony in this hearing. Mr. Busch appeared to be frustrated with the situation to a degree I've not seen before.
Finally, I am glad that there are minimum guidelines in place for sentencing, otherwise Mr. Anderson might have been held even less accountable than he was for his actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

