OC Judge Cuts 15 Years Off Mandatory Sentence of Man Convicted of Sodomizing Toddler

[Paendragon]

An Orange County Superior Court judge decided a Santa Ana man convicted of sexually assaulting a child should not have to serve the minimum sentence of 25 years to life in prison, saying that the sentence would be cruel and unusual punishment.

A jury found Kevin Jonas Rojano-Nieto, 20, guilty on Dec. 3 of having sexual intercourse with a child 10 years or younger and committing a lewd act with a minor under 14, according to a news release from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office.

Rojano-Nieto sodomized the girl, who was a toddler at the time, and forced her to touch his penis, according to the DA’s office.

The minimum sentence in the case is 25 years to life in prison, with a maximum sentence of 33 years to life in prison, the DA’s office stated.

However, saying that 25 years to life was cruel and unusual punishment under the U.S. Constitution, the court — despite the prosecutor’s objection — sentenced Rojano-Nieto to 10 years in prison.

“Although serious and despicable, this does not compare to a situation where a pedophilic child predator preys on an innocent child,” Superior Court Judge M. Marc Kelly said, according to a City News Service article posted by the Orange County Register. “There was no violence or callous disregard for (the victim’s) well-being.”

More here

Copyright April 6, 2015, by Anthony Kurzweil,

 

[Paendragon]

No disregard for the victim's wellbeing? What the fuck???

How does this happen?

 

[neci]

what was the evidence?

 

[sr71plt]

Wonder what, specifically, the act of sodomy was. Was it something separate from the touching of the penis?

Other thoughts were wondering if this judge's position was an elected one, whether he went to law school, whether he had been a moon child in the mid sixties.

 

[Balladeer08]

Wonder what, specifically, the act of sodomy was. Was it something separate from the touching of the penis?

Other thoughts were wondering if this judge's position was an elected one, whether he went to law school, whether he had been a moon child in the mid sixties.

It would be useful to have the judge's name.

 

[Paendragon]

what was the evidence?

He was convicted of sodomizing the toddler, and the judge does not dispute that. He just feels 25 years was too harsh because the toddler wandered into the garage instead of the offender going out and looking for him, and that it was not "brutal and violent".

Because you can rape someone in a non-violent way, obviously.

 

[Setanta84]

Wonder what, specifically, the act of sodomy was. Was it something separate from the touching of the penis?

Other thoughts were wondering if this judge's position was an elected one, whether he went to law school, whether he had been a moon child in the mid sixties.

Oh, you're showing an interest in jurisprudence concerning kiddie buggerers? How completely surprising.

 

[neci]

there is a man down the street.

a state registered pedophile.

just over a mile from the school.

4' fenced in property.

dogs.

young adults.

senior pedophile.

 

[sr71plt]

It would be useful to have the judge's name.

It was provided in the article:

Superior Court Judge M. Marc Kelly

 

[Paendragon]

It would be useful to have the judge's name.

It's in the OP.

 

[neci]

it's the unregistered ones i worry about.

they are everywhere.

 

[Balladeer08]

It would be useful to have the judge's name.

Here you go: Orange County Superior Court Judge M. Marc Kelly

Victim was a 3-year-old girl.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/...-had-not-meant-to-hurt-the-3-year-old-victim/

 

[neci]

He was convicted of sodomizing the toddler, and the judge does not dispute that. He just feels 25 years was too harsh because the toddler wandered into the garage instead of the offender going out and looking for him, and that it was not "brutal and violent".

Because you can rape someone in a non-violent way, obviously.

it is quite simple.

this man can not handle toddlers.

how long do you punish this crime?

 

[neci]

Here you go: Orange County Superior Court Judge M. Marc Kelly

Victim was a 3-year-old girl.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/...-had-not-meant-to-hurt-the-3-year-old-victim/

bloody diapers.

it is truth.

 

[Balladeer08]

It's in the OP.

Yeah, sorry, missed it. I was too busy seeing red.

I live in Orange County.

This does not please me.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Wonder what, specifically, the act of sodomy was. Was it something separate from the touching of the penis?

Other thoughts were wondering if this judge's position was an elected one, whether he went to law school, whether he had been a moon child in the mid sixties.

I was wondering a lot of that too. This doesn't add up. Judges, especially elected ones tend to be utter dicks. In fact there was a report a few weeks ago that showed that they hand out harsher sentences during election years so they can say "Look, I put away three drug dealers and gave them all consecutive 50 year sentences! I'm tough on crime!" Seriously judges should be appointed.

-snip-.​

Because you can rape someone in a non-violent way, obviously.

While I can't imagine how it was done in a non-violent way to a toddler of course you can rape someone in a non-violent way. Get em drunk which you don't even have set out with that as the goal. If a woman comes over to your house having a bad day and starts doing shots and ends up in your bed that's rape. Even if she drags you in there.

Blackmail or other forms of coercion are also rape. I have no doubt there are a fuck ton of girls in college campuses around the globe who get various versions of 'if you don't want to fail this class and get kicked out of program x you'll be here after school.

there is a man down the street.

a state registered pedophile.

just over a mile from the school.

4' fenced in property.

dogs.

young adults.

senior pedophile.

While I'd prefer to keep them away from schools without knowing where you live I can't say if that's a fair thing. In any neighborhood where you're going to get a job in So Cal you're probably within two miles of like seven schools. If we're going to make life impossible for them we might as well shoot them and be done.

And assuming he's an actual pedo the young adults are in close to zero danger. He has no interest in them. Now if he's not a pedo and you're just using the term to mean sex with people under 18 then they might have a problem.

 

[Setanta84]

If anyone has an in with the defense counsel, you might want to arrange a meeting for sr71plt. Purely so he can demonstrate his outrage and air his grievances, of course.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

It is listed in ocweekly.

Out of his mind, out to lunch, and soon to be pushed off the bench, I hope.

 

[Paendragon]

it is quite simple.

this man can not handle toddlers.

how long do you punish this crime?

Fuck. I wrote an entire paragraph and Lit hiccupped. All lost. That's what I get for being long-winded.

He should do the minimum 25 years that the law requires. That is the minimum. More heinous acts would receive stronger sentences.

We have no idea what this victim is going to go through for the rest of her life. Traumatic events can stick with children for a long time.

 

[SweetSam42]

So somehow because the 3 year old victim entered his space on her own, and he didn't go out looking to rape a child, the crime was less heinous? The judge is basically saying it wasn't really the predator's fault, not completely. She just was there, so he had to.

Sodomozing a toddler will leave life long emotional and likely physical scars, but he gets 10 years. And he'll likely serve far less than that.

 

[Paendragon]

Yeah, sorry, missed it. I was too busy seeing red.

I live in Orange County.

This does not please me.

Understood.

 

[Paendragon]

So somehow because the 3 year old victim entered his space on her own, and he didn't go out looking to rape a child, the crime was less heinous? The judge is basically saying it wasn't really the predator's fault, not completely. She just was there, so he had to.

Sodomizing a toddler will leave life long emotional and likely physical scars, but he gets 10 years. And he'll likely serve far less than that.

That's the gist, yeah.

So if a woman goes to a man's house for a party, and is raped, he gets a reduced sentence than the one the law requires because he didn't go out looking for her. She was just there.

Good to know, right?

 

[Que]

This judge has some obvious predilections himself. I am not being hyperbolic. His thinking is off in ways that would not be possible if he were appropriately socialized.

He is saying two things that are deeply disturbing. First is that a crime of opportunity and how the victim was obtained are somehow a different outcome from the victim. The fact that this was not stranger danger is worse, not more reassuring. Her trust in people is shattered, she cannot even trust relatives that seem friendly and accepted in her circle.

The other thing that goes to the judges understanding of human sexuality is he seems to think that these sort of urges can just inexplicably occur. There is no way that acting out in this way was not a long running well-rehearsed fantasy. The fact that the judge could relate to the defendants arousal as "just happening" is like saying that another victim should have expected to be raped given that she was dressed provocatively.

Non-rapists do not suddenly find themselves with rapey urges, regardless of the opportunity or stimulus presented.

This is really disturbing, not because, perhaps mandatory minimums encourage victims to be killed, provide for no judicial discretion for the degree of assault or any of it. It is disturbing for what the judge said and what it says about the judge. He needs to be removed from the bench and from any opportunity that would require that he safeguard children.

His argument about the degree of violence in the particular case is not so much under a judges discretion because of man/mins but I think usually should be. In this case however we are not talking fondling. In this case even if the judge had discretion (which he does not) he is arguing a substantive difference in violence between rape with a lubricated condom or rape without.

 

[Balladeer08]

So somehow because the 3 year old victim entered his space on her own, and he didn't go out looking to rape a child, the crime was less heinous? The judge is basically saying it wasn't really the predator's fault, not completely. She just was there, so he had to.

Sodomozing a toddler will leave life long emotional and likely physical scars, but he gets 10 years. And he'll likely serve far less than that.

Possibly the most revolting version of "she was asking for it" that I've ever heard. Certainly nothing worse comes to mind at the moment.

 

[neci]

Fuck. I wrote an entire paragraph and Lit hiccupped. All lost. That's what I get for being long-winded.

He should do the minimum 25 years that the law requires. That is the minimum. More heinous acts would receive stronger sentences.

We have no idea what this victim is going to go through for the rest of her life. Traumatic events can stick with children for a long time.

if toddlers are 25 years, what are prepubescent rapists?