2010.05.13 -Ronald & Hank Jr. Hearing: Ron negotiating for 15yr sentence, Trial 7/19

[SondraK]

Is there any chance that if RC negotiates to have two charges dropped, that the three remaining, (15 to 30) could run concurrently?

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I looked this up because I have never heard of setting a date to stop accepting a plea.

This is from a public defender's office to their clients. It was the most informative explanation I could find. Docket Day is also known as Plea Day.

http://www.pdo1.org/whattodoifarrested.htm

The purpose of the docket day is to advise the Court whether the Defendant wishes to go to trial. By the docket day, the attorney handling the case will be thoroughly familiar with the facts of the case and able to make tactical decisions involving the case. Discussions with the State Attorney and investigation of the case will usually take place before the docket day. If the Defendant wishes to plead guilty, or if there has been a negotiation involving the plea with the Court, or if the State Attorney has indicated they will drop some of the charges due to lack of evidence, the pleas will be offered at the docket day. Otherwise, the case will be set for trial. We will usually ask for a trial by jury, however, occasionally we feel that it would be to the Defendant's advantage to ask for a trial before the Judge and give up the right to a jury trial. Your attorney will advise you, but the decision whether or not to have a trial and whether it is a jury or Judge trial, is up to you.

TY, TY great research!

 

[pittsburghgirl]

That would be up to the prosecutor's office. I can't see why RC or his attorney would take a plea for consecutive sentences that would amount to, in practical terms, life in prison. At that point, he might as well go to trial and roll the dice. Or at least it would seem that way to me.

 

[twall]

Ron has 5 trafficking charges

1 4-14 g, carries a 3 yr. mm
2 14-28 g, carries a 15 yr. mm
2 28 g but less than 30 kg, 25 yr. mm

The only charge that the docket was updated on was the one that Dr. Fessel posted.
Why just the one and not the other four? I looked at Misty's and hers were all updated at the same time showing the same results of the court appearance. Ron's last court appearance was for all of the charges, right? Weird.

Any ideas if the judge will sentence concurret or consecutive? What is the norm? Is it more common for the state to drop the lesser charges (like in my example above) than the more severe ones?

My husband works with a guy who was sentenced consecutive.

Here are his charges:

Charge (1)
INFORMATIN FOR DEALING IN METHAMPHETAMINE
Charge (2)
POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE
Charge (3)
POSS OF PRECURSORS/INTENT TO MANUFACTURE
Charge (4)
MAINTAINING COMMON NUISANCE

He pled out, the 4th charge was dropped, he got 3 yrs. each on charges 1-3.
He is in a work release program for 4 yrs. and the other 5 will be served on probation if he doesn't screw up.

Even if the state won't drop the charges with the 25 yr. mm (which is what Shoemaker said he was trying to do) and the sentences run concurrent he will be in prison for a long time 21+ yrs. if I am understanding this right he has to serve at least 85% of that. IMO that would be the wisest thing to do, going to trial (bench or jury) he could end up getting more than 25 yrs.

JMO

 

[Peliman]

So let me get this straight on the drug charges, Hope received a $250,000 mandatory minimum fine also. Does this mean Ron and Tommy's deal also included a $250.000 mandatory fine as part of any possible plea deal? "Curious minds want to know"

 

[twall]

So let me get this straight on the drug charges, Hope received a $250,000 mandatory minimum fine also. Does this mean Ron and Tommy's deal also included a $250.000 mandatory fine as part of any possible plea deal? "Curious minds want to know"

I don't know about the fine/plea deal.
Here are the mm sentences for Florida statute 893.135.1c1. These are from
2009. I didn't see any for 2010. Hope's fine listed on her court docket doesn't match the amount shown here so did the state raise the fine in 2010?


(c)1. Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 4 grams or more of any morphine, opium, oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, or any salt, derivative, isomer, or salt of an isomer thereof, including heroin, as described in s. 893.03(1)(b), (2)(a), (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., or 4 grams or more of any mixture containing any such substance, but less than 30 kilograms of such substance or mixture, commits a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in illegal drugs," punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the quantity involved:

a. Is 4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $50,000.

b. Is 14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay a fine of $100,000.

c. Is 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 calendar years and pay a fine of $500,000.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0893/SEC135.HTM

From Hope's court docket:

TRAFFICKING IN HYDROCODONE MORE THAN 14 GRAMS LESS THAN 28 GRAMS

$250,000 FINE (MINIMUM MANDATORY)

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I'm truly hoping that the truth comes to light before this date. If Misty doesn't talk now, she never will. Surely, her love has dimmed a bit by now. Come on Misty, if you are protecting Ron, now is the time to end this.

Why would Misty protect a man who is negotiating a plea that includes testifying against her? That idea defies logic.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

Is there any chance that if RC negotiates to have two charges dropped, that the three remaining, (15 to 30) could run concurrently?

The media is mis-reporting IMO. TS even said that Ronald would get 15-30 YRS on the other 3 charges. Ronald has a lot of priors as well and it will be up to the judge on what time Ron will be sentence to, even with the plea deal since they are asking for the 2 other charges to be dropped and the 15-30 Yr sentence. I am not sure how the laws are in FL, but I would assume Ron will end up serving 45yrs to 90 yrs if the plea is accepted. But I am not legal expert. Any legal experts please feel free to weigh in. Thanks!

Haleigh’s father will testify against ex-wife, Misty Croslin

May 19, 2010 "Snip" http://nancygrace.blogs.cnn.com/201...r-will-testify-against-ex-wife-misty-croslin/
Ronald Cummings is seeking a plea deal with a 15-year sentence on prescription drug-trafficking charges. In order to get this deal, he is willing to testify against Misty, and Tommy Croslin.

Shoemaker, said his client hopes to have the deal before his trial begins on July 19. Cummings faces five counts of drug trafficking.

Shoemaker said he has been working on the plea deal for more than a month .

If the deal is accepted, Ronald will face 15-year minimum and a 30-year maximum per charge, Shoemaker said. The two most serious charges would be dropped and then Cummings would be sentenced on the three remaining lesser charges. Shoemaker would like to do more for his client but he can “only work with the hand dealt.”

Posted by: Marlaina Schiavo

 

[debs]

Why would Misty protect a man who is negotiating a plea that includes testifying against her? That idea defies logic.

"Baby, trust me. They ain't got nuthin' on you and if you never say nuthin' they can't pin nothing on you. Trust me! No matter what you're hearing, remember I love you and what I'm doing is for the both of us. It's you and me forever baby. Just you and me. You're my other half, baby. I love you so much. I can't live without you. You mean everything to me."

Yeah, I see it.

 

[Baznme]

Why would Misty protect a man who is negotiating a plea that includes testifying against her? That idea defies logic.

I just had a fleeting thought on this. What if Ron is going to actually testify on her behalf rather than against her? Wouldn't that be what LE has been looking for anyway in exchange for a lighter sentence? His confession?!

Not likely, but.....it's a thought.

 

[debs]

I have seen nothing, even Mr Shoemaker's comments, which would lead me to believe that a deal is being offered FROM LE to Ron Cummings. From what I've read and heard, it is Mr Shoemaker's statement that his client is amenable to a plea. On his docket is given a last chance date for said plea to be entered.

I sincerely think that LE won't accept anything but the truth with him. And I'm pretty sure they won't get it, with regard to Haleigh. However, when he said he'd go to prison for the drugs, I believe him.

 

[SoSueMe]

"Baby, trust me. They ain't got nuthin' on you and if you never say nuthin' they can't pin nothing on you. Trust me! No matter what you're hearing, remember I love you and what I'm doing is for the both of us. It's you and me forever baby. Just you and me. You're my other half, baby. I love you so much. I can't live without you. You mean everything to me."

Yeah, I see it.

In light of Misty's new tapes just out, I do believe you must be clairvoyant Debs. LOL

 

[lonetraveler]

Why would Misty protect a man who is negotiating a plea that includes testifying against her? That idea defies logic.

Ron negotiating a plea deal has just now come to light. Misty protecting Ron has been ongoing for more than 15 months. Misty continuing to protect Ron at this point definitely defies logic, but so has everything else regarding this case. Who the heck knows why she doesn't throw him to the wolves at this point? He has certainly earned it.

 

[pufnstuf]

I haven't read all the way through the thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone else's post...

But I think that Ron KNOWS and was INVOLVED in whatever happened to Haleigh that night...

I think this plea deal that requires him to testify against Misty is a set-up, so that if and when she finally tells about that night and his involvement, Ronald can point to her and say, "Woman scorned! She's making this up because I testified against her at the drug trial."

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Ron negotiating a plea deal has just now come to light. Misty protecting Ron has been ongoing for more than 15 months. Misty continuing to protect Ron at this point definitely defies logic, but so has everything else regarding this case. Who the heck knows why she doesn't throw him to the wolves at this point? He has certainly earned it.

It's only "Misty protecting Ron" if Ron is involved in criminal activity. Since we clearly KNOW that the two (and various other individuals allied with them) were involved in drug trafficking, it's to be expected that they all would attempt to keep their stories straight about drug use and sales, etc. However, the drug bust complete with video blows that strategy out of the water for the drug case. The stupidest juror on the planet can see what they were up to. So there is no point on earth in any of them "protecting" each other. Thus, we see RC willing to testify in the drug case against Misty. The first person who talks gets the best deal. What we saw from Hope S. is that at least one of them is capable of massive self-destruction in dealing with the legal system.

However, if you are referring to Haleigh's case, you start by assuming he's involved, which then necessarily means Misty is protecting him because she isn't naming him as the guilty party, ringleader, or member of the conspiracy. In regard to Haleigh's disappearance, the facts as we know them at this time make it more likely that she can't implicate him because he wasn't involved. We may yet see more information that will change my mind on that. But we can't start by assuming RC is guilty and then deducing that Misty is covering for him. We have to look at what we know from the media and public documents and LE behavior. If RC is involved, then Misty has clearly been covering for him. If he isn't, then she is covering for herself and for whoever else was in the mobile home that night. But I have yet to see any indication in how LE is treating this case that leads me to believe they are looking at RC; moreover, I would think that there would be considerable public pressure on those who claim to have seen Haleigh after RC left for work if LE was looking at RC for Haleigh's murder. And I would wonder why it wasn't RC standing on that dock with LE instead of Tommy or Misty.

 

[epiphany]

ETA: I see Twall posted a few days ago on Court Info Thread, but didn't notice prior to posting here:

UCN: 542010CF000144XXAXMX
File Date: 2010-01-21 Judge: TERRY J LARUE
Defense Atty: SHOEMAKER, TERRY J

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES
Alias
2010-05-13 39 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY TERRY J SHOEMAKER
2010-05-13 39 STATE AND DEFENSE ANNOUNCED READY FOR TRIAL
2010-05-13 39 CASE SET FOR JURY TRIAL 07/19/2010
2010-05-13 40 ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE 07/19/2010 AND LAST CHANCE
2010-05-13 40 PLEA DAY 07/09/2010
2010-05-21 41 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (07-19-2010) IN JAIL
2010-05-21 42 NOTICE TO ATTORNEY (07-19-2010)

http://www.putnam-fl.com/clk_apps/crim_dkts/frame.php

 

[kamky]

Why would Misty protect a man who is negotiating a plea that includes testifying against her? That idea defies logic.

It is looking more and more like both Misty and Tommy were involved. If Ron were also involved, what would be the motive for Tommy to protect Ron and not ask for a plea to testify against him? Tommy has fingered cousin Joe, but not blamed Ron. This indicates to me that Ron was not involved.

From what Ron's lawyer has said, Ron is willing to testify against both Misty and Tommy. IMO, he has some information about the actions of these two people or he heard statements made by these two people that may help prosecutors.

 

[PorcineGranny]

It seems to me that Ron is involved but in a round a bout way, not directly responsible for Haleigh's death in one sense, but very responsible in another sense. Could it be possible that Tommy and Misty are protecting themselves from someone else? They've thrown who they could into the fire and the only reason Tommy has not indicated Ron is because there is someone else involved who instills real fear and Tommy cannot directly connect Ron to Haleigh's death. These are just opinions and thoughts of desperation for this to end.

 

[wickedeye]

Less than three weeks before we see whether or not Ron was really negotiating a plea.

 

[lonetraveler]

I could be wrong but I feel it is more like Ron and his attorney are "begging" for a deal instead of Ron and attorney "negotiating" a deal. I have not read or heard anything from LE about "offering" a deal to Ron. :waitasec: I can't for the life of me figure out what Ron could offer as a deal when everything was videoed with audio. I guess he could point to the video and say, "Yes! That is what happened!!!!!" "I know because I was there, that makes me an eye witness!!!" I just can't figure it out :waitasec: but I'm sure He'll come up with something. Some judge will accept this "bombshell evidence" as an excuse to give him less time.