Why It Took a Jury Five Minutes to Sentence Woman to 70 Years in Prison After She Stole Power Tools

[happyg]

 Dave Urbanski

When you get caught stealing power tools, it’s unlikely to earn you a 70-year prison sentence.

Then again, when you’re known as the county’s Christmas “Grinch,” the wheels of justice in this case turned a whole lot harder and faster.

Woman Known as Christmas Grinch Sentenced to 70 Years in Prison After Stealing Power Tools
Oceander Brock (Image source: KXAS-TV)

Indeed it took a jury all of five minutes to hand down the sentence for Oceander Brock, 44, on Thursday, KXAS-TV in Fort Worth reported.

“A 70-year sentence will knock the air out of your stomach,” said her attorney Raul Navarez. “She kept asking me, ’70 years? Are you serious? 70 years?’ Because 70 years is a pretty harsh sentence for this kind of a deal. And quite frankly, that’s what I argued to the jury. But the jury decided and we have to respect that.”

So why the harsh sentence?

Mainly because of Brock’s voluminous rap sheet, KXAS reported, but then there’s the “Grinch” factor.

Seems Brock became known as the Christmas “Grinch” after getting caught on surveillance video stealing Christmas lights from outside a home while the family slept last December.

Woman Known as Christmas Grinch Sentenced to 70 Years in Prison After Stealing Power Tools
Image source: KXAS-TV

Then when she was collared again in May for stealing a weed wacker and a power washer from a garage, a deputy recognized her on that surveillance tape, too. He said, “Hey, that’s the Grinch,” according to assistant Parker County district attorney Jeff Swain. “He knew right away who it was.”

The jury saw the video of her stealing Christmas lights, too. “When you’re known as the Christmas Grinch, people do remember you,” Swain said.

As far as her other misdeeds, Brock got started down a bad path at the age of 17 when she was convicted in Arizona of solicitation to commit murder, KXAS reported. Later she was convicted of credit card abuse, injury to a child, theft, assault, and drug possession.

Instead of two to 20 years in prison for burglary of a habitation, Brock faced 25 years to life under the “three strikes and you’re out” law, KXAS said.

Here’s a report from KXAS:
 Video and pictures at link: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/14/why-it-took-a-jury-five-minutes-to-sentence-woman-to-70-years-in-prison-after-she-stole-power-tools/

[truth_seeker]

People get lesser sentences for murder !!

[Cincinnatus]

I find this to be an insightful statement:

Brock got started down a bad path at the age of 17 when she was convicted in Arizona of solicitation to commit murder

Yeah, that would be the first step in most cases.

[Oceander]

70 years for burglary, even by a hundred-times-over repeat offender, is too much.

[SPQR]

Mainly because of Brock’s voluminous rap sheet, KXAS reported

The article did mention that she had a extensive rap sheet. I have no pity for three time loser criminals. They should of learn their lesson the first time around. She may get lucky on appeal.

[Oceander]

The article did mention that she had a extensive rap sheet. I have no pity for three time loser criminals. They should of learn their lesson the first time around.

So perhaps we should have a second-offender statute that simply sentences anyone who is convicted of a second crime to death.  That'd get rid of repeat offenders pretty quickly.

[SPQR]

So perhaps we should have a second-offender statute that simply sentences anyone who is convicted of a second crime to death.  That'd get rid of repeat offenders pretty quickly.

She did the crime(which was a felony), now she must do the time. She may find a bleeding heart liberal judge and get an judgement cut.

[Oceander]

She did the crime(which was a felony), now she must do the time.

Why should the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony matter?

As a matter of simple economics, locking a mere thief up for 70 years "steals" a lot more wealth from everyone else than the thief herself stole.

[SPQR]

Why should the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony matter?

As a matter of simple economics, locking a mere thief up for 70 years "steals" a lot more wealth from everyone else than the thief herself stole.

The jurists looked over the things she done over the years and said she not getting away with it again. I think the jurors did their job and said this lady must pay. It was a good decision. She a habitual felon that has gotten away with murder and played the with the system and the jurists put the brakes on that.

[Oceander]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree because I find it to be a terrible decision; inflamed passions are not a reasonable basis on which to make such a serious decision as what sentence to impose on someone.

[SPQR]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree because I find it to be a terrible decision; inflamed passions are not a reasonable basis on which to make such a serious decision as what sentence to impose on someone.

She must have a jacket that is three inches thick. The jurors may have seen evidence or heard evidence we weren't privy to see.

[Oceander]

She must have a jacket that is three inches thick.

?? why such a jacket ??

[SPQR]

?? why such a jacket ??

Only criminals like hers have a jacket that thick. She probably have arrests and convictions going back years to deserve a sentence like that. This is not a one time fluke.

[Fishrrman]

[[ People get lesser sentences for murder !! ]]

Yup.
Especially if they're suffering from "affluenza"...

[SPQR]

[[ People get lesser sentences for murder !! ]]

Yup.
Especially if they're suffering from "affluenza"...

She probably was offered a plea agreement for a lesser sentence by district attorney and decided to go for broke and she lost.

[Chieftain]

She probably was offered a plea agreement for a lesser sentence by district attorney and decided to go for broke and she lost.

Exactly.  She went for the jury trial instead of the plead bargain, and she crapped out.  Tough.  Society is better off with her under lock and key.

[SPQR]

Exactly.  She went for the jury trial instead of the plead bargain, and she crapped out.  Tough.  Society is better off with her under lock and key.

 

[Oceander]

Only criminals like hers have a jacket that thick. She probably have arrests and convictions going back years to deserve a sentence like that. This is not a one time fluke.

Ahh, I assume you mean her case file.

Dessert is precisely what's being discussed here, and quite frankly even a long, long record of arrests and convictions does not justify a 70 year sentence for burglary.  In point of fact, this case is a great example for why the rules of evidence generally prohibit the introduction of evidence about prior bad acts - because the accused is likely to be convicted simply for having a bad history, not because he or she committed the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  In other words, prior history is not a particularly good basis for determining what sort of punishment is deserved for a present conviction.

[truth_seeker]

California voters approved Three strikes in 1994, and revised it to be more lenient in 2012. Geore Soros gave $1 million to the reform measure, which passes with 69%.

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_36,_Changes_in_the_%22Three_Strikes%22_Law_(2012)

[SPQR]

Ahh, I assume you mean her case file.

Dessert is precisely what's being discussed here, and quite frankly even a long, long record of arrests and convictions does not justify a 70 year sentence for burglary.  In point of fact, this case is a great example for why the rules of evidence generally prohibit the introduction of evidence about prior bad acts - because the accused is likely to be convicted simply for having a bad history, not because he or she committed the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  In other words, prior history is not a particularly good basis for determining what sort of punishment is deserved for a present conviction.

Its seems to me that you are coddling a criminal and supporting her activity. For that matter a habitual criminal with a huge record. Criminals should not be coddled. They should pay for their crimes and debt to society.That means going to jail. Its one less criminal taken off the streets.The judge was probably going by the guidelines of state law and her record. She should of taken whatever plea deal that was offered to her by the District Attorney and the advice of her own attorney. She thought that she would get away with it,gambled with a jury trial, and she lost. Now she must go to prison. Now, she will find some liberal bleeding heart judge to overturn her sentence.

 
Oceander Brock

[EC]

She's bloody stupid. Everyone knows you NEVER touch a guy's tools without permission.

Heck, it's even in the bible.

[Lipstick on a Hillary]

Exactly.  She went for the jury trial instead of the plead bargain, and she crapped out.  Tough.  Society is better off with her under lock and key.

Amen. 

[massadvj]

What I find interesting is the headline:

"Why It Took a Jury Five Minutes to Sentence Woman to 70 Years in Prison After She Stole Power Tools"

Obviously, they never really told us why or there wouldn't be so much speculation in this thread about information the jury must have had, etc.

[SPQR]

Amen. 

Second that