It's all about where you live, because I've had snow on a daily basis for the last week, with the exception of one day. For the past week, my kids have been getting a kick out of the daily comments like, "Wow, your car is covered with snow" and "you're so lucky" when I drop them off at school. My elevation is considerably higher than that of the school and the town I live in. My only complaint is that Portland news stations rarely cover my region (15 minutes SW of Dallas in the coast range) unless, of course, the Portland area is not expecting snow and the Portland news stations are in need of some "news" to report. However, this past week Portland has been expecting snow and, as a result, the forecast has been rather barren as to what I can expect in my area, at my elevation. Out here in my neck of the woods, I am my own meteorologist and I'm not that bad!
Cont....
Avera made the plea offer and Horner sentenced. The court couldn't have made factual findings to support the ORS 137.712 (d)(B) exception. From a legal standpoint, the defendants should never been sentenced to Robbery II, as a non-Measure 11 crime, but, they were. One wonders, how could this get by Horner? Horner for Avera?
In my opinion, this case was fast-tracked to clear the docket: Coincidentally, sentencing was February 23, 2010 and, on February 26, 2010, the county was hit with a 20 million dollar lawsuit, and there's no doubt they saw that one coming.
I've followed your concerns about Avera for Avera/Horner for Avera campaign. I feel you're on point, esp. as to Horner for Avera. Horner was the judge in the skateboard attack. In order for a defendant to qualify for a Measure 11 exception for Robbery II, the court must find: "ORS 137.712 (d)(B) That, if the defendant represented by words or conduct that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon, the representation did not reasonably put the victim in fear of imminent significant physical injury;"
The exception clearly failed: a) one of the defendants said "KILL HIM," as they continuously beat the victim w/skateboards; b) skateboard qualifies as dangerous weapon; and, c) the victim was in fear of imminent significant physical injury--he told detectives & DA's Ofc during the investigation phase that he thought the defendants were going to kill him & during sentencing he turned to defendants' families and said their sons tried to kill him. Cont....
I understand your concern with having only two judges serving on the bench possibly interfering with the obligation of a speedy trial. However, I have always felt a level of concern with the idea of a speedy trial, though it is a right afforded the defendant. My concern is whether a speedy trial allows enough time for the DA's Office to gather all the evidence, relative to a case, in order to fully and properly represent the people.
With that said, another concern of only having two judges on the docket would be are defendants fast tracked? Meaning, are defendants being offered deals involving lesser charges than that of which fits the crime, with the sole purpose of clearing the case load?
Electing Sally Avera for Circuit Court Judge would be a mistake. She is soft on criminals and that is not what we need for Polk County. Ms. Avera makes promises to victims and tells them she is hard on crime but when push comes to shove, she lets criminals "skate." Her plea offer of Assault II to 3 skateboarders who clearly attempted to murder the victim is indicative of her inability to prosecute criminals properly. She promised the victim if the defendants didn't accept Assault I, their cases would go to trial as Attempted Murder. However, less than 2 hours after making that promise to the victim, she offered Assault II. She waited more than a week (after the defendants accepted the offer) to notify the victim of the lesser offer. The cases did not statutorily meet the exception requirement to allow the defendants to be prosecuted outside of Measure 11, however, the defendants were not sentenced under Measure 11 and Ms. Avera refuses to admit and correct the sentencing mistake. Police reports show all 3 defendants thought they had killed the victim and that 1 defendant had instructed the other 2 to"KILL HIM." Is Ms. Avera really the kind of person you want behind the bench?
Oh my golly. I, for one, would never allow my child to go to the falls. It is not only dangerous, but a bad influence. Here are a few choices for those attending the falls: drinking, drugs, sex, the danger of breaking one's neck or damaging one's spinal cord, or drowning. However, I suppose if you don't value your child's life, these are great alternatives, as opposed to having to look after your child. I can't count the times I have seen children hanging outside the bar waiting for their parents so they can have some dinner. Oh, oh, I know, maybe if we obtain the falls, they will stop hanging out at the bar!
Read this week's article "Family Wishes Impact Statement" & you decide. Review ORS 163 & compare the 1st 3 counts in the article. The case is very similar to Fagundes' & it seems Fagundes had prior DUIIs. Britt's prior cocaine delivery charges aren't repeat offenses in that they were not assoc w/driving under the influence. What I find interesting is Britt's 6 initial charges, 1 victim to Fagundes 4 initial charges and 3 victims. Seems DA is inconsistent. Maybe this is already a "send a message case" as a result of the Fagundes controversy! Stay tuned.
Gazing into my crystal ball, Britt will plead out to equal to or less than Criminally Negligent Homicide and DUII and will serve approx. four years because the DA's Office will feel as if, after further investigation, they will not be able to prove the more serious charges the defendant was indicted on. Being only 24, the defendant also "deserves" the chance to turn his life around. Never mind that the victim is not afforded the same opportunity! But then again, the DA might just read this and decide it has to send a message to the unbelievers who've been following its shotty sentencing record. TOO MANY LUCKY DUCK DEFENDANTS IN POLK COUNTY!
Butterfield stated, "We believed that criminally neglect homicide was something we could prove."
The big difference between First Degree Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Homicide seems to be whether or not the defendant had 3 prior DUII convictions or a prior conviction of either Assault 1, 2 or 3. It sure would have been nice if the article covered that angle.
...but were gonna need your addy.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Company