In a unanimous opinion issued on Monday, May 23, 2016, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the decision of Judge Jack Alsop that convicted sex offender Gary R. Butler was not entitled to a reduction of his sentence.
According to the opinion, "In January of 2014, petitioner [Gary R. Butler] was arrested for viewing child pornography on a computer located at the Webster County public library. He was later indicted on seventeen counts of possession of material depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct and one count of a prohibited person in possession of a firearm." The opinion further states that "in May of 2014, pursuant to the plea agreement, petitioner pled guilty to three counts of possession of material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. In September of 2014, following his guilty plea, the circuit court sentenced petitioner to a term of incarceration of two years for the each of the three counts to which petitioner pled guilty, to be served consecutively, followed by thirty years of supervised release."
Butler then asked Judge Alsop to reduce his sentence, alleging he was an “adequate candidate” for probation and outpatient sex offender counseling, and that because of his medical condition that home confinement would save the taxpayers the expense of his medical treatment. Judge Alsop denied the reduction in sentence noting that Butler, prior to his Webster County crimes, was convicted in Maryland on three felony counts of sexual abuse of a minor.
By order dated April 1, 2015, Judge Alsop reasoned that public safety concerns outweighed concerns about the cost of petitioner’s incarceration and medical treatment, and denied Butler's request to reduce his sentence.
The high court ruled that "the circuit court clearly considered petitioner’s extenuating factors and determined that petitioner was previously convicted of child sexual offenses, placed on probation, completed sex offender treatment, and re-offended. The circuit court soundly concluded that its central concern was the public’s safety and determined that the parole board was “better suited to determine [petitioner’s] suitability for release.” Given the facts of the case, we find that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for a reduction of sentence.
Click Here for Full Text of Court's Opinion
According to the opinion, "In January of 2014, petitioner [Gary R. Butler] was arrested for viewing child pornography on a computer located at the Webster County public library. He was later indicted on seventeen counts of possession of material depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct and one count of a prohibited person in possession of a firearm." The opinion further states that "in May of 2014, pursuant to the plea agreement, petitioner pled guilty to three counts of possession of material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. In September of 2014, following his guilty plea, the circuit court sentenced petitioner to a term of incarceration of two years for the each of the three counts to which petitioner pled guilty, to be served consecutively, followed by thirty years of supervised release."
Butler then asked Judge Alsop to reduce his sentence, alleging he was an “adequate candidate” for probation and outpatient sex offender counseling, and that because of his medical condition that home confinement would save the taxpayers the expense of his medical treatment. Judge Alsop denied the reduction in sentence noting that Butler, prior to his Webster County crimes, was convicted in Maryland on three felony counts of sexual abuse of a minor.
By order dated April 1, 2015, Judge Alsop reasoned that public safety concerns outweighed concerns about the cost of petitioner’s incarceration and medical treatment, and denied Butler's request to reduce his sentence.
The high court ruled that "the circuit court clearly considered petitioner’s extenuating factors and determined that petitioner was previously convicted of child sexual offenses, placed on probation, completed sex offender treatment, and re-offended. The circuit court soundly concluded that its central concern was the public’s safety and determined that the parole board was “better suited to determine [petitioner’s] suitability for release.” Given the facts of the case, we find that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for a reduction of sentence.
Click Here for Full Text of Court's Opinion
No comments:
Post a Comment