THE COURT TRANSCRIPT — PART 2

Just as I did with the last post, I will add my comments to the proceedings in italics to differentiate it from the transcript.  It is easier than going back at the end and trying to remember what I wanted to say about a particular statement made by either the D.A. or the C.A. (cockroach’s attorney.)

At the end of my last post, I was just about to give my statement to the court.

 

“THE COURT:  Okay.  Anything from the victim, then, Miss Shriver?  Miss Shriver, is it okay if I use your full name?

Miss Shriver:  Sure.  (I had/have no problem with anyone or everyone knowing my name or what happened to me.  The girl who is called Jane Doe #2 did not want cockroach boy to see her face and chose not to come to court.  Me, I did not, nor do I care still.)

There is then the spelling of my name and some other, boring court business and then:

THE COURT:  Okay.  All right.  So we’ll be off the record for the recording of the statement that I have.  It’s entitled, “My Statement For The Court.”  Okay, go ahead.

Off the record.

THE COURT:  Okay.  Back on the record.  Thank you very much.  Is there anything else from the people?

D.A.:  I have provided the criminal protective order to the Court in Miss Shriver’s name.

THE COURT:  And you’re just requesting it as to Miss Shriver?

D.A.:  Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  Is there anything from probation?

D.A.:  No, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  Anything else?

C.A.:  Yes, Your Honor.  If the Court is inclined to grant — impose prison as opposed to a grant of probation, I would ask the Court to give him the low sentence of two years in state prison; not only based on the fact that he doesn’t have any adult (only because no one ever pressed charges and followed through.  He does have a juvenile record that was also entered into the record, so she really was trying to gloss over the actual facts of the case.  Imagine that!) criminal record, but also on the facts of this particular crime and all of the statements in mitigation that I — that I included, I’m sorry, in my sentencing memorandum.

Again, under the rules of Court this is less severe than other crimes that we see.  (I have to say here again that just reading this and typing it is pissing me off.  She could not possibly understand how severe it truly was and how can she even presume to compare it to any other case?  It is just infuriating.)  There was absolutely no planning (HA) or sophistication whatsoever.  (It may not have been ‘sophisticated’ and I’m not even sure how she would define this, but all I can say is there was no hesitation on his part.  Even if he had never ‘practiced’ this on a real person, he sure did practice it in his head.  I’ll say it again:  THERE WAS NO HESITATION AT ALL.)  It’s just the opposite, that he was drinking all night long with his friends and then just did this impulsive act.  (I would think that if an individual was, in fact, drinking ALL night long, he would reek of alcohol, and this was not the case.  I would believe that he was doing drugs all night, but no one tested him for that.)

I — after reading the probation report, I assumed that it was clear that cockroach boy has had a long history of mental health issues.  If there’s any doubt about that, I would be happy to continue this (Fat chance of the judge postponing, yet again, this case because of her incompetence and not getting the psyche evaluation done.  Oh, let me think about that–she had 9 stinking months to do her job, or if she did actually have it done, then it was so damning that she chose not to include it in the probation report.) and provide actual documents to the Court and to the District Attorney’s office.  They’re voluminous, and I didn’t think it was in doubt, so that’s why I did not attach them to the sentencing memorandum.  (Did she not think the judge could figure out what was relevant and what was not?)

And with regard to Static 99 (The Static-99 is a ten item actuarial assessment instrument created by R. Karl Hanson, Ph.D. and David Thornton, Ph.D. for use with adult male sexual offenders who are at least 18 year of age at time of release to the community. It is the most widely used sex offender risk assessment instrument in the world, and is extensively used in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and many European nations.), I put in my email the reason that I attached it was that it’s not — it’s not scientific.  It’s not something that we can rely on.  And even if we could, cockroach boy falls in the moderate to high, as analyzed by the professor.  (And which part of moderate to high is a good thing?  It wasn’t like the test said ‘slim to no chance’ of him doing it again.  The test said ‘moderate to high.’  That seems a huge risk to take, letting him back into society.)

I disagree with the analysis, but even if we were to assume the of four is correct, the high category starts at six, and is even worse at eight or ten.  So even if we were to use this tool, which I don’t think is effective, he still is not at hight risk even taking that into consideration.

And, again, the only way that things will change is if we offer his some solid, intensive supervision and treatment.  (Yeah, and he has to actually participate in the therapy/treatment, which in all the therapy and treatment he received prior to my attack, he clearly did not do.)

THE COURT:  Okay.  I’ve — first of all, let me say that I don’t think that the case is less serious than other 220 cases.  I think there’s room to say that it’s more serious than other 220 cases because 220 can be so –run the gamut as far as what that might include.

But I do think that this case involved an attempted forcible rape.  I think that the victim and the D.A. are correct, that had the defendant continued and been able, had there not been a good Samaritan as to this victim nearby, that this would have resulted in a completed rape.

And considering one strike, considering the sexual offense statutes that exist these days, I don’t think that the — the–this is an unusual case as far as a 220.  I think that it’s more on the aggravated end as far as the 220 is concerned.

I think that the defendant also has — I believe the defendant also has two rather serious misdemeanor — I mean — not misdemeanor, juvenile offenses in his background.

And I don’t doubt that he has some severe mental health problems and issuers, but obviously alcohol and not taking his medication doesn’t help that.  And I don’t think it makes him less serious of a risk to society.  I think he represents a serious danger to women in our community.

I’ve considered whether or not he should be granted probation.  As I said, I didn’t see under 1203.65–or 12030.65 itself that 220 was there.  But even–even if he wasn’t a mandatory prison case, even if it was presumptive prison, I would not grant probation in this case for the following reasons:  the fact that I think that the case is very serious; the fact that the crime — as far as mitigates versus aggravates in this case, I find that the only mitigate really in the case is that he entered a plea in the readiness department.

But I note that he — the case against him appears to me to have been strong.  So I don’t think that he’s probation suitable regardless.  The case involves great violence, great threat of bodily harm, and I think for the facts themselves that he deserves prison.  And, therefore, probation is hereby denied.  (Huge sigh of relief here for me.)

As to the term of the offense, I am going to follow the Probation recommendation of six years.  I find that the mitigates are, under Rule 423 (B) (3), that the defendant acknowledged wrongdoing at an early stage.  However, I note that — as Probation does — he did receive sentencing consideration in return;  (I believe that he was originally offered a two-year sentence and, just guessing here, that his stupid attorney recommended he turn it down.) other counts were dismissed, significant counts.  (I may have said it before, but originally he was charges with 4 felonies:  assault and battery, sexual assault, attempted rape and confinement.  So, in the end, he was only charged with attempted rape.)

As far as the circumstances in aggravation that the court is considering, I consider under (A) (L) that the — under 421 (A) (1), the crime involved great violence and the threat of great bodily harm.  And that it would have resulted in — appears to have resulted and would have resulted in a completed rape had he not been interrupted by a witness.

But I also do find that the case involved planning, was sophisticated.  I find under Rule 421 (B) (1) that the defendant has engaged in violent conduct; that it’s — indicates a serious danger to society.

Under Rule (B) (2) that as a juvenile he sustained true findings for 422 and 242; that he threatened to blow up the school when he was only 12 years old.  And when he was 15 years old, that he was  apparently using drugs and hit his father at the time.  And he begins the instant offenses.  (Not quite sure what this means.)

Also, as to a dismissed count, he threatened to stab a former employee.  That did not result in a conviction, but I’ve considered that.  (Yea, Judge!!!)

I’ve also considered the fact in the case involving Jane Doe #2.  I’ve also considered as an aggravant under Rule 421 (B) (5) his prior performance on juvenile probation has been unsatisfactory; and under Rule 408, that other counts were dismissed for which he could have received a consecutive sentence.

Based on that, I find that the upper term of six years is the appropriate term.

Therefore, the defendant– as far as the case is concerned, probation is hereby denied.  The defendant is committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for the term of six years, with credit for 276 actual days, 41 2933.1 credits, a total of 317 days credit.  (So, six years less 317 days; of the sentence he has to serve 85%.)

The fines are $40 court security fee, the $30 ICNA fee.  The defendant is ordered to register as a sex registrant for the rest of his life.

A few other ‘housekeeping issues’ and then:

THE COURT:  All right.  You’re also not to have any contact directly, indirectly, personally, electronically, telephonically or written with Tamerie, T-A-M-E-R-I-E; Shriver,                    S-H-R-I-V-E-R.  You’re not to have any contact with her through a third-party except an attorney of record, not to go within 100 yards of her.”

 

A few more details and then his attorney asked that he remain locally, so that his family could visit him more easily.  I was sitting there shaking my head ‘no’ but the judge did grant that request.  And that was it.  It was over.  After a very long nine months, which he spent in the city jail, he would now be moved to the state prison that is down near the border.  As far as I was concerned, Alcatraz would have been more suitable, but I wasn’t asked for my input on the facility.

Next post I will tell you about what happened after court, when we walked out into the main area.  All I’ll say now is that I was accosted by his father and sister.

Advertisements

One thought on “THE COURT TRANSCRIPT — PART 2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s