The Released On Parole By Mistake Sentencing Documents

My case is so surreal, I sometimes have difficulty believing it myself. That is why I am trying to provide as many documents as I can.

Judge Craig Clymer’s sentence in my case was eight years from the bench but four years in writing. Unless specified, DOC will read sentences as to be served concurrently:

Final Judgment & Sentence

I went home on parole, with a parole plan, after serving the required time on a four year sentence. Judge Craig Clymer contacted DOC and said something like, “Why is she out? I amended her sentence.”

I was then rearrested with a doubled sentence. Here is that article:

http://froggravy.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/released-on-parole-by-mistake-frog-gravy-39/

Here is the amended sentence:

Corrected Judgment & Sentence

Here are some other sentences, issued by the same judge:

MCCRACKEN COUNTY, KY – From a house party to the jail house. A shocking end to the Caleb Barnett tragedy. Despite emotional pleas for mercy a local man learned how much time he’ll serve in connection to the death of his close friend.

In July 2009 Taylor Thompson and Caleb Barnett were partying and taking drugs, drugs Thompson provided. On Wednesday, McCracken County Circuit Judge Craig Clymer sentenced Thompson to two two-and-a-half-year terms to run concurrently.

Thompson pleaded guilty to trafficking a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/83492172.html?m=y

McCracken County Circuit Court Judge Craig Clymer sentenced Karen Clark Thursday morning. Clark had already pleaded guilty to Theft by Deception and Criminal Abuse in the Second Degree. On Thursday, Judge Clymer sentenced Clark to three years on both charges. Clark will serve the sentences at the same time, totaling only three years.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/90108107.html

PADUCAH, KY (AP) – A western Kentucky judge sentenced a woman involved in the sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms implicated in a deadly break-in to more than two years in jail.

The Paducah Sun reports McCracken Circuit Judge Craig Clymer sentenced Shaina Skinner on Monday to 2-1/2 years for trafficking in a controlled substance.

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/12355896

Seriously, had I trafficked in drugs that were directly involved in the death of a young person, I would have received less than half the time I did receive, for a no-drugs-no-alcohol-no-bad-driving DUI and possession of one-tenth of a gram of crack.

Are you interested in state-by-state incarceration rates and other statistics?

Go here:

http://www.sentencingproject.org/map/map.cfm

The Curious Case of the Three Suppression Orders (Part 3) [Frog Gravy Legal Case

Written by Masoninblue and published full-text here with permission. However, I chose the music for the post. To listen as you read, simply click on the video;you do not have to watch it. By the way,if you are a judge and you are following this case,and you have seen anything like this,please emailme privately with the citation;I would like to see it. My email listed in the About section of this site. Thank you,Rachel, aka Crane-Station.

The Curious Case of the Three Suppression Orders (Part 3)

Author’s Note: Judge Clymer surprised us with a third suppression order that he issued out of the blue 3 days after the trial concluded. He did not inform us that he was considering modifying his second order and he did not schedule a hearing, request any input or allow any discussion or objections. He simply mailed it out as one might do with a letter bomb.

The order consists of the judge’s personal opinions set forth as findings of fact in a transparent effort to strengthen his order denying suppression by making stuff up and characterizing it as “unusual, suspicious, and disturbing,” even though Deputy McGuire never uttered those words at the suppression hearing. He even uses the word appellant, instead of defendant, obviously anticipating an appeal.

During my 30 years representing clients charged with felonies in state and federal courts, I never had a case in which a judge did this and I never heard of a case in which a judge did something like this.

3. The Third Suppression Order Issued Post-Trial on January 28, 2008.

In his third suppression order, the supplemental suppression order, Judge Clymer modified his first finding of fact in the second order (that correctly quoted what the caller reported to 911) by eliminating the quote and replacing it with the following statement.

The 911 dispatcher received a call from an identified public citizen, Vernon Wilkey, who reported that a white female driving a dark blue LeSabre with Washington State license plates made unusual and disturbing statements about heroin in his neighborhood.

(Finding of Fact 1)

Finding of Fact 2 states,

911 called deputies, and alerted them to the woman, her vehicle, and her suspicious drug activity.

Finding of Fact 3 characterizes the appellant’s driving and states,

The vehicle was travelling slowly in the right traffic lane of Highway 60 with the left-turn signal activated for an unusually long time for no apparent reason. The vehicle did not turn left, but continued on straight, which all appeared unusual and suspicious to the deputy.

Finding of Fact 4 (mis-numbered as a second 3) states,

The vehicle then pulled to the right side of the road and stopped without any signaling to do so by the deputy. This demonstrated additional unusual behavior by the appellant. The deputy then pulled in behind the appellant’s vehicle and activated his roadstop lights. By the time the deputy stopped, he had reasonable grounds and reasonable suspicion to approach the driver. He exited his cruiser and walked to speak to the driver.

Finding of Fact 5 (mis-numbered as 4) states in part,

The appellant failed all HGN tests. She also gave unusual responses to instructions given to her by the deputy; she appeared somewhat confused; she appeared nervous; and she appeared to the deputy to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Finding of Fact 6 (mis-numbered as 5) states,

The appellant admitted to the deputy that she was on a number of medications, including Clonazepam. Clonazepam is a strong anti-psychotic medication which interferes with motor performance, including driving a motor vehicle. Clonazepam also causes abnormal eye movements.

Finding of Fact 7 (mis-numbered as 6) states,

The deputy had reasonable grounds and probable cause to arrest the appellant for DUI.

Finding of Fact 8 (mis-numbered as 7) states,

The appellant was transported to the hospital for the taking of a blood test. At the hospital a suspicious baggie was found next to the appellant’s watch in the back seat of the deputy’s patrol car. The deputy knew that the patrol cruiser did not have the suspicious plastic baggie or a watch before the appellant was placed into the back seat. The appellant admitted losing her watch. The deputy had probable cause and exigent reasons to seize the baggie. The baggie appeared to contain crack cocaine. The deputy had probable cause to arrest the appellant for tampering with evidence and possession of cocaine.

Conclusion of Law 1:

The caller who reported the appellant’s unusual interest in heroin was identified. Such a report is considered more reliable than an anonymous tip.

Conclusion of Law 2:

The deputy had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make an investigation stop and search of the appellant and her vehicle.

Conclusion of Law 3:

Discovery of the suspicious plastic baggie in the back seat of the deputy’s cruiser was based on plain view discovery. The appellant and her vehicle had previously been detained based on the circumstances described above which proceeded (sic) the discovery of the baggie.

Author’s Note: We have previously discussed Deputy McGuire’s testimony under oath at the preliminary hearing in which he said he found the rock of crack under his rear seat while he was looking for Crane-Station’s watch that she had asked him to retrieve for her.

I was confident that the Court of Appeals would reverse on the suppression issue in this”unusual, suspicious, and disturbing” case, but it did not, and that is when I lost hope for an honest and judicious review of her case.

If this could happen to Crane-Station, it can happen to you. We are all lost when our judicial system ceases to function.

The Curious Case of the Three Suppression Orders (Part 2) [Frog Gravy Legal Case]

Written full-test here by Nasoninblue with premission.

Author’s note: In case y’all missed it or want to refresh your recollection, <a hrPart 1 is here.

Deputy McGuire testified at the suppression hearing that he was dispatched by 911 to investigate a call by a citizen who reported that, “There’s this lady walking around in my neighbor’s yard talking to my neighbor and writing stuff down in a notebook and she mentioned something about tar heroin and all that stuff.”

The caller identified himself and described the woman and her vehicle. He also reported that the vehicle had a WA license and provided the number. He did not indicate if he had spoken with the woman; if he was present when the conversation took place; who told him about it if he was not present; or what she was writing down.

When he arrived in the area, the deputy searched for but he did not find the woman or the vehicle and he cleared the call without talking to the 911 caller. As he was approaching the traffic-controlled Cairo Road intersection in the passing lane on Highway 60, he noticed that he was passing a vehicle with its left turn signal blinking. The vehicle had WA plates and both the driver and the vehicle matched the description provided by the caller. He decided to pull her over and investigate.

He slowed down, allowing her to move ahead, and then he fell in directly behind her. She reacted by activating her right turn signal and moved over into the emergency lane along the right shoulder of the highway. As she did, he activated his emergency lights, moved over with her, and stopped behind her.

Upon request, she produced her license, registration, and proof of insurance without difficulty.

When he ordered her to get out of her vehicle, she did so without stumbling, and she followed his instructions without exhibiting any confusion or mental impairment. Other than “glassy” eyes and nervousness, he saw no signs of possible impairment. He administered a portable breath test (PBT) that she passed, effectively ruling out alcohol intoxication. Although she “failed all six clues” on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (HGN), he administered the test improperly, according to the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) because he positioned her facing the headlights of oncoming traffic and his patrol cruiser’s emergency lights. NHTSA, which developed the test, warns police not to do that because the lights produce a false nystagmus.

The deputy conceded that he did not witness any bad driving and her blinking left-turn signal could have been due to her intending to move into the left lane, but his approaching vehicle in that lane prevented her from doing so.

After he placed her under arrest for DUI, he transported her to a hospital for a blood draw and discovered an apparent rock of crack next to her watch in the seatbelt crack of his back seat next to where she was sitting.

Author’s note: In another post we discussed his prior testimony under oath at the preliminary hearing and the grand jury in which he said he found her watch and the rock of crack under his back seat. In other words, he did not find it in plain view on the seat beside her. He said he pulled the back seat forward to look for her watch after she told him that it had fallen off and slipped behind the seat. She asked him to retrieve it because she was handcuffed and could not do it herself.

The trial judge entered three suppression orders.

1. The First Order.

On January 11, 2007, Judge Clymer issued his first order denying the motion to suppress evidence. Although all of the material findings of fact and conclusions of law were clearly erroneous, one finding of fact and its corresponding conclusion of law merit special consideration. In Finding of Fact 5, Judge Clymer wrote,

When Defendant first exited the [her] vehicle the Deputy observed a wristwatch in close proximity to a baggie with apparent controlled substance inside the car. Defendant denied the apparent controlled substance was hers but acknowledged the wristwatch was hers.

This did not inspire confidence as one can only wonder how the judge forgot or became confused and thought that the rock of crack was discovered in her vehicle rather than the police cruiser.

Not to worry, we thought. We pointed out that and other errors and asked him to reconsider his order, which he agreed to do.

2. The Second Order

On January 18, 2008, Judge Clymer entered his second order concerning the defense suppression motion. He found that while driving “in a right hand traffic lane with her left turn signal activated, [the appellant] did not turn but pulled to the right side of the roadway and stopped.” (Finding of Fact 3) “The deputy pulled in behind the stopped vehicle and activated his emergency lights.” (Finding of Fact 4) He concluded that the arresting officer “did not conduct a stop of the appellant’s vehicle” because she “pulled off the roadway and stopped” before “he pulled in behind her and turned on his emergency lights so as to investigate.” (Conclusion of Law 1)

Author’s note: We have already discussed whether this was an investigatory stop initiated by a police officer or a voluntary citizen initiated contact with a police officer. This was an investigatory stop.

Judge Clymer also concluded that “[t]he combination of a report of an unknown person, driving a Washington state licensed vehicle in a Paducah, Kentucky residential area, asking about tar heroin, later observed to signal a left turn but pull off the roadway to the right, constitutes reasonable suspicion to investigate and possibly cite for improper signal.” (Conclusion of Law 2)

Author’s note: A person who calls 911 to report a possible crime is presumed to have provided reliable information if he identifies himself and provides a current address. Since the caller in this case provided the requisite information, he would be presumed to have provided reliable information. However, even if one assumes that his information was accurate and reliable, he did not describe criminal activity. In addition, the judge’s findings of fact conflict with the information provided by the caller and the deputy’s testimony, which described an alert driver operating her motor vehicle in compliance with the traffic laws. He could not have cited her for “improper signal” because no such statute exists. Since the information provided by the presumptively reliable caller and the deputy described lawful activity, the judge erroneously concluded that the deputy had a reasonable suspicion “to investigate and possibly cite for improper signal.”

Regarding the appellant’s arrest, he found as fact that the appellant admitted that she had taken several prescription medications, including Clonazepam. (Finding of Fact 6) He also found that “[t]he maker of Clonazepam warns that it should not be used when driving a vehicle and that the drug causes abnormal eye movements.” (Finding of Fact 7) He concluded, “[d]efendants inquiring about heroin, failing an HGN test, signaling a left turn and pulling off the road to the right, and stating she was taking medication that would cause her to fail the test, constitutes probable cause to arrest for DUI.” (Conclusion of Law 4).

Author’s note: We have already discussed the HGN and Clonazepam issues noting that the product insert does not warn “that it should not be used when driving a vehicle and that the drug causes abnormal eye movements.” It advises physicians to warn their patients for whom they first prescribe Clonazepam to be careful because the drug might cause drowsiness and impair their ability to operate a motor vehicle or other machinery. If that happens, the dosage can be lowered to avoid impairment. This is actually a common warning given for many drugs that are prescribed to improve functioning. Clonazepam is such a drug and it is prescribed to enhance function by reducing anxiety and to control seizures. Dosage is critical. Assuming the judge was honest, the rest of the finding establishes that he was thinking of a different case when he crafted this effort.

To be continued.

Insanity or Reality? Frog Gravy 27 [with jail art]

Author’s note: Frog Gravy is a nonfiction account of incarceration in Kentucky, first in jails and then in prison, in 2008 and 2009.

Frog Gravy contains graphic language.

Other posts are gathered at froggravy.wordpress.com.

McCracken County Jail, Cell 107, Sometime in February, 2008.

“It sure is a beautiful day outside,” says the breakfast-serving sadistic guard, as he pushes food trays through the steel slot in the steel door. He says this to be mean because he knows we never get recreation time out of the cell, and he knows that they can make it look like we do get recreation time, by documenting “refusal” on the form, when he offers us one-half-hour of rec time at 3 AM, the one time when we are likely to be sleeping, and he offers this sleep interruption not in the outdoor cage, but in the tiny indoor, closet-sized chapel.

Before I sit at the steel table to eat, I go into the toilet stall, climb onto the steel toilet, stand on tip-toes and peer through a scratched out slit of the ghosted-out window. I see dumpsters. I see a business called “Tim’s Tires” across a street. It looks to be a crisp, winter morning. I climb down from the toilet.

Today I am depressed. My spirit is broken, and I question my faith in God. I am tired of the Christian ‘right’ telling me that Jesus will descend from the clouds looking like Fabio, scanning the world for marks of the beast and imbedded computer chips indicating the chosen people who will be allowed to shop at WalMart, while ignoring the rest of the planet in its entirety. Forgive me for this, but I sometimes picture Jesus teaming up with the likes of Paul and Moses (also with bad tempers at times), forming a sleeved-out-in-tattoos gang and descending from the clouds to kick some ass.

I try to think about Joseph’s technicolor dream coat.Then I try to remember if colors were even mentioned in the bible. Or why Jesus never wrote anything down. Or if anyone had a sense of humor back then. Probably one of those banned chapters, I suppose.

I adjust my mat. Pull it up. Turn it over. Put a towel over my head. Put a sheet around my shoulders. Tape a Maxipad over my eyes with the sticky label from a shampoo bottle. I turn to the right until my arm goes numb, and then I turn to the left. The towel falls to the floor. Christie gives it back to me.

Christie notices my misery that accompanies existing, but not living, in a cage, and tries to lighten my mood. I have come to love Christie like a sister, or like a childhood friend that, even after years without contact, the love and friendship never changes.

She says, “Lemme tell you how worthless my mother is. She knows I’m getting out, right? And she can’t even keep phone time on her phone. But, I can’t be too mad at her. I forged a check in her name form $167.00, in Marshall County and there might be a warrant out for her. arrest, but she doesn’t know it.”

“You’re kidding.”

“No. But I mean we’re even because I was getting all her Lortabs for her before.

“I say, “Checks seem to be a scam anyway. We don’t use checks or cards any more. The banks just steal all the money anyway. Who charges people to get their own money ? Who does that?”

Tina says, “I wrote a check for seventy-five cents. It bounced. Now I owe $395.00 in fees. For a seventy-five cent check.

Christie says, “I had an account I was trying ti get right with. I called the bank and asked how much overdrawn I was. They told me $290.00. Now listen to this. This is US Bank.

“”Thieving Mega bank,” I say.

“So,” says Christie. “I paid them $290.00, right? I thought I was in the clear. Turns out I was overdrawn $295.00, so I was still over drawn by $5.00. Now that 5 dollars has accrued fees and interest equal to is $297.00. The bank did that on purpose They knew they’d make money if they lied to me about the amount I owed. Now I owe them $295.00.”

“Told you,” I say.

We watch the morning news. A man is sentenced to one year for manslaughter.

“Wow,” I say, I shoulda killed someone! I would have got less time!”

Tina says, “He didn’t mean to kill anyone. It was manslaughter.”

YaYa says, “Yeah, he didn’t mean to kill anyone during a parole violation.”

On TV we also learn than Kentucky is 50th in the nation for physical activity.

“Makes sense,” I say. Everyone in Kentucky is locked up.”

Christie changes the subject and says, “Ever eaten at The Greasy Spoon?”

“There is actually a restaurant called The Greasy Spoon?” I ask.

“Yeah, it’s in Possum Trot.”

“There’s a town called Possum Trot?”

“Yeah,” says Christie, I had a friend that lived over there. She was real cracked out, and anyway I was at her house one day and we were smoking all this crack, and the smoke was getting to my eye. Did I tell you I have a glass eye?” She points to her glass eye.

“No,” I say, looking. “I can’t even tell. What happened?”

“My brother put it out with a tent stake when I was six.”

“Oh God,” I say.

“Anyway, we were smoking all this crack, and the smoke got to my eye, so I took my eyeball out and set it on a bench next to the bed, and I told Lexie, I’m putting my eye right here, okay?”

“So then we keep smoking, and I decide to go to my sugar daddy to get $200 to get some more crack, and I go to put my eyeball back in, but it’s gone. We tear the place up, and I can’t find my it anywhere, so I leave without it, and I’m driving, and I’m trying to put some makeup on, as if that’s going to help, I look awful.”

“And?”

“And I get distracted and run a red light and almost hit someone, and there sits a cop, right there in the parking lot of the local AA club. So, he blue lights me, and I slam on the brakes and the crack pipe and the crack and the purse fly to the floorboard, and I’m trying to cover everything up. He comes to my window, and I point to my eye socket, and I am frantic, practically in tears, and I point to my eye socket, and I say “I can’t find my eyeball!! The socket’s really bothering me and my eyeball is missing!”

“What did he do?”

He is horrified and he kind of backs away and says “Ma’am, why don’t you just park over here and smoke a cigarette and calm down.”

“And I pulled over and smoked a cigarette, then took a hit off the crack pipe, then went to my sugar daddy to get the $200 and got some more crack, then went back to try to find my eyeball.”

“Where was it?”

“Turns out it was in the baby bed with the baby. I guess the baby thought it was comforting or something so he took it to bed with him.”

“Is the eyeball round?”

“No, curved, kind of like a disc.”

And I am thinking, maybe they should label glass eyeballs with those choking hazard warnings, but I am also now absolutely certain that I live in an insane asylum: Things are just so…wrong.

Author’s end note: Since I have no legal training, Masoninblue will be writing about the Frog Gravy legal case, because it is not only surreal, but it is also fascinating for folks who may be interested in legal issues. I have tried, to no avail, to upload hearings and the dash-cam video, but I have not yet figured out how to do it.

Here are some highlights from the grand jury testimony. The officer and the Commonwealth prosecutor had the alcohol exculpatory results at least four days prior to the grand jury meeting. Nonetheless, they assured the grand jury that I was drunk, stumbling, and smelling of alcohol, and that I lied when I told them that I had not had anything to drink. I used to think that courtrooms were venues for the truth and that perjury and suborning perjury were the stuff of urban legend. Not only is this not so, lying has become standard practice in American courtrooms today.

Also, the roadside ‘traffic stop’/hunch/fishing expedition that lasted 1.25 hours and included searches of my car and my person that revealed nothing illegal, was deemed “not a stop” by Judge Craig Clymer, in his Once-Upon-A-Time ‘finding of fact.

Toxicology blood test results, as evidenced below, even though exculpatory, did not stop the Kentucky Court of Appeals from affirming the conviction, citing improperly performed HGN and so-called “glassy eyes” way more indicative of impairment than exculpatory blood testing by their own forensic labs.