Ruling impacts sex crime sentencing

PALMER — In a move that will apply broadly to sentencing for other sex crime cases, an Appeals Court judge has sent a case back to the lower court for reconsideration and possible reduction of sentence.

Appeals Court Judge Robert Coats ruled Friday that the case of Yako William Collins, who was convicted of raping his girlfriend’s sister in November 2009, should be sent back to a lower court to reconsider the 20-year sentence.

Prosecutors alleged at trial that a year prior to his conviction, Collins was at a bonfire at the home of his girlfriend’s parents with his girlfriend and her sister and her boyfriend.

The four of them “spent the evening in the apartment over the garage,” according to a ruling handed down by Coats. The sister and her boyfriend had sex, then went to sleep in her room in the main house. Later, her father kicked the boyfriend out.

“Sometime later (she) awoke to find Collins lying on top of her, having sexual intercourse with her,” Coats wrote.

She told Collins to stop. He didn’t, and in the morning she didn’t tell anyone at first, but later told her boyfriend. Word got around to her sister and then her father, and Collins was arrested and charged with rape.

At trial, Collins argued that the sex was consensual and that his victim had claimed rape to hide it from her father. What eventually got Collins’ case sent back was when judge Eric Smith decided whether he should sentence Collins, or the sentence should come from a three-judge panel that handles sentencing in cases where the proper term is a tough call.

That panel is really the only way that a person in Collins’ position can receive a sentence below the 20-year mandatory minimum. That 20-year minimum is a relatively new addition to the law, introduced in 2006.

Smith said there were a lot of “instinctual reasons” to believe Collins had a good chance at rehabilitation. (One of the criteria for sending a case to the panel is the possibility for rehabilitation.)

Collins was also young — 20 at the time he was charged — and his victim and her mother had written positive letters on his behalf.

Coats wrote that judging by the letter the Legislature included with that 2006 change to the stiffer penalties; the new rules were intended for sex offenders with a history of unprosecuted prior offenses.

“The current sentencing ranges are based on legislative findings that the typical sex offender is a repeat offender with very poor prospects for rehabilitation,” Coats wrote.

The typical sex offender, in other words, is more dangerous than the typical criminal and thus needs stiffer penalties.

But Collins isn’t in that category, Coats wrote, before penning a rule that will apply broadly to other sex crime cases.

“A defendant’s case should be referred to the three-judge panel for consideration of sentences outside the presumptive range if the defendant shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Legislature’s assumptions do not apply to him — either that the defendant does not have a history of unprosecuted sexual offenses or that the defendant has prospects for rehabilitation which, in other offenders, would be considered ‘normal’ (or ‘good’),” Coats wrote.

Judge Joel Bolger dissented from Coats’ ruling, writing essentially that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to make a rule that hinges on crimes that weren’t charged and that might not have even been reported.

“The problem with requiring proof of unreported offenses is that the offenses cannot be documented,” Bolger wrote.

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