Child molester goes free in plea bargain
Toolbox
By Patrick McArdle Rutland Herald - Published: January 11, 2007
BENNINGTON — When Andrew James walked out of court Monday after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting a 4-year-old boy, there was nothing preventing him from having contact with his victim or any other child.
That's because no one had filed the paperwork necessary to impose sexual offender conditions on him.
"There's nothing in the order to require him to stay away from the victim," David Miner, district manager for the Vermont Department of Probation and Parole in Bennington County, said Wednesday. "We will tell him to, for safety reasons. But this doesn't leave us a whole lot of authority."
Bennington County Deputy State's Attorney Andrew Costello learned of the lapse later in the day, when a reporter asked him why no sex offender order had been filed in the case. Costello said it was an oversight.
"If he's not under sex offender conditions, that's a paperwork error," Costello said. "That will be fixed immediately."
James pleaded guilty in Bennington District Court on Monday to a felony charge of aggravated sexual assault on a victim less than 10 years old. The 4-year-old victim, now 5, told police the assaults had taken place on at least 10 different occasions.
Costello said he agreed to the plea bargain to spare the victim the ordeal of a trial, and because the victim's age would have made it difficult for him to testify.
Bennington District Court Judge David Howard sentenced James to 30 months to five years in jail, but suspended all of the jail time. Instead, Howard ordered James to comply with three conditions: successfully complete sex offender therapy; refrain from criminal behavior; and pay a standard $22 court surcharge.
The maximum penalty for the crime to which James pleaded guilty is life in prison and a $50,000 fine.
It was not immediately clear Wednesday why James' file was sent to probation officials without an order requiring the imposition of sex offender conditions. Miner, the probation manager, said the error likely would have been discovered quickly.
The notice of plea agreement in James file contains an entry that reads "All Sex Offender Conditions." When he saw it, Miner said he would make sure the court was contacted to settle the question.
Under the terms of the plea agreement, James must undergo sex offender treatment in a group therapy setting. Miner said the program in Bennington County takes at least two years to complete.
If James successfully completes the treatment in that time, Miner said, the only restriction on his actions afterward would be that he report to the sex offender registry. However, because of the suspended sentence of up to five years, Miner said James would be supervised for at least that long.
Miner said James' case is unusual.
"I don't think we see a lot of this," he said. "The state waived the [pre-sentence investigation.] That's usually where we get involved as far as what's involved in the case. Then we would be able to make a recommendation."
The state agreed to waive the pre-sentence investigation as part of the plea deal.
While James' sentence bears some similarities to a controversial case from one year ago, there are also strong differences. In January 2006, Burlington County District Court Judge Edward Cashman sentenced Mark Hulett to serve a minimum of 60 days in jail. Cashman said he wanted to make a point about the lack of treatment available to offenders who eventually are turned out on the streets.
Hulett was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault on a 7-year-old girl.
On Monday, Howard sentenced James under a plea agreement that the state viewed as best for the child victim.
Howard said Wednesday he could not discuss James' sentence nor any specific case.
Contact Patrick McArdle at Patrick.mcardle@rutlandherald.com
42