60 years for child sex abuse

PALMER — A superior court judge sentenced convicted child abuser Emmanuel J. Cancel to a 60-year prison Thursday at a hearing in a courtroom strewn with tissues and fallen tears.

Superior Court Judge Eric Smith said the Cancel case, in which Cancel pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual abuse of a minor, was among the worst of such cases. Authorities originally charged Cancel with 50 counts of child sexual abuse. Prosecutors consolidated them to three after he agreed to plead guilty to the charges.

“I keep a log of all the cases I have and all the sentences I do,” he said. “It helps me remember cases. I would put Mr. Cancel’s case in terms of the sheer horror of what he did (to the victims) with only two or three other cases that I have seen.”

Unlike those other cases, Cancel faced sentencing guidelines preceding Legislature-driven reforms passed since the charges were filed in 2011. Ultimately, Smith ultimately suspended 20 years as a result, though he said he was inclined to grant a prosecution request for at least 50 years.

Victims sobbed and sniffed, and more than one wept on the stand, as they described no longer feeling comfortable among family, and a childhood devoid of happy memories. One victim testified that he suffered from ongoing drug addiction as a result of Cancel’s actions.

“None of them deserve to go through that, none of them bear any blame for this at all,” Judge Smith said.

At one point, Smith addressed the victims directly, saying he could not imagine the challenges they had faced.

“I know it’s hard not to think that way sometimes, but it isn’t it your fault at all,” he said.

The sentence came at the end of protracted legal wrangling. Cancel first challenged his representation, then attempted to withdraw his previously entered guilty plea, saying that legal advice he had received did not match the instructions he received while entering his ultimate plea. Smith ordered a portion of that hearing re-played for the court, in which Smith instructed Cancel that aggravating factors in the confidential pre-sentencing report could lead to stiffer prison terms.

In a sentencing report, aggravators are facts of the case that lead to stiffer sentences, while mitigating factors are facts that point toward rehabilitation.

When Smith ruled his plea could not be withdrawn, Cancel challenged some of those aggravating factors, including an allegation that he used drugs to control at least one of his victims. The victim later testified that Cancel provided marijuana, crack cocaine, cocaine, and methamphetamine as a form of “bribery.” Cancel, who agreed not to contest the conduct as a result of his plea bargain, which reduced about 50 counts to the remaining three, testified that he had only shared marijuana with a victim one time.

Prosecutor Melissa Wininger-Howard question Cancel sharply over drug use.

“How did you get (the victim) to engage in sexual abuse?” she said.

“I’d like to plead the fifth on that, ma’am,” Cancel responded.

When Smith ruled the Fifth Amendment didn’t apply to the specific circumstances, Wininger-Howard tried again.

“How did you continue the sexual abuse of (the victim) for so long?” she asked.

“The accusations had nothing to do with that,” Cancel answered.

Those exchanges, in part, made things worse during sentencing, Smith said.

An appeal was likely, defense attorney Karla Taylor-Welchsaid.

Contact Brian O’Connor at 352-2269, brian.oconnor@frontiersman.com, or on Twitter @reporterbriano.