Appeal denied for 3rd Houngues murder defendant

ANCHORAGE — The Alaska Court of Appeals is now three for three in slapping down appeals brought by people convicted in the murder of Terrell Houngues.

In December 2009, the appeals court ruled that Mario Page’s trial was fair, but did find a minor problem with the way he was sentenced. In June, the same court ruled Tommie Patterson got a fair shake at trial.

On Friday, the court announced that the third defendant, Kira Gray, did not have her constitutional rights violated when she was tried as an adult and that her 65-year sentence was appropriate.

Gray, Patterson and Page were accused in 2005 of luring Houngues out to the Valley and executing him on a Houston ATV trail. At trial it came out that Houngues had stolen a large amount of cocaine from Patterson at a time when Gray, his girlfriend, was supposed to have been looking after his interests.

Gray was alleged to be the shooter. Patterson, described by prosecutors as the enforcer in Page’s drug enterprise, was alleged to have delivered the coup de grace.

According to the ruling in Gray’s case, she was 16 years old at the time Houngues was shot. She challenged her conviction on constitutional grounds, according to appellate court judge Joel Bolger.

“Gray argues that her sentence for first-degree murder violates the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment and the constitutional guarantees of equal protection because she was a minor at the time of her offense,” Bolger wrote.

At trial, two doctors testified that, as a teenager, Gray’s thinking at the time was immature and she was prone to “irrational behavior and poor moral reasoning.”

In Alaska, a 16-year-old who commits a felony as serious as murder is automatically tried as an adult, on appeal she cited two U.S. Supreme Court rulings that say it is unconstitutional to execute juvenile offenders.

Bolger cited various rulings in other states to show that there isn’t a national consensus that bars teenagers from receiving adult sentences in criminal cases.

“In addition to our review of any national consensus, we also have a responsibility to exercise our independent judgment regarding whether an adult sentence for a minor convicted of murder serves legitimate penological goals,” Bolger wrote.

The court found that a lengthy sentence serves a number of important purposes, including deterring Gray from reoffending, rehabilitating her and affirming “the important community norms that protect the value of a human life.”

Bolger notes that Gray’s sentence wasn’t life imprisonment. She got 65 years and will be eligible for parole in 25.

And, he wrote, the automatic waiver of juveniles into adult court is not unconstitutional.

“There is a reasonably close fit between the purposes of punishment and the automatic waiver statute,” the ruling says. “The Legislature could reasonably conclude that the more lenient provisions of the juvenile system should not be available for those who commit the most serious crimes.”

Contact Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.