Category Archives: Convictions

#meetoo in student exchange industry

In his article of February 2, 2018 Andrew Binion, journalist with the KitsapSun, writes about 73 year old Larry Iversen who was sentenced to five days in jail for abusing a 17 year old student.

According to the court, Iversen did not use any “power to persuade or coerce the teen”. The student was an exchange student with Rotary’s youth exchange program over which Iversen was Youth Exchange Officer for East Bremerton Rotary and also worked to establish safety guidelines for exchange students in USA.

In these #Meetoo times it shouldn’t be too much to ask that judges see things for what they are. At least Rotary International had the decency to ban Iversen from any and all Rotary clubs.

Her host family discovered the relationship, but not until the exchange student left their family. They had lent the exchange student their smart phone. On it they found nude photos of the exchange student along with messages to and from Iversen. It may well be that the student intended that the predatory  behaviour be discovered as no attempt had been made to delete the pictures that were found on the phone.

2016 Jan 26: Coffman guilty of sexual abuse


By Adam Ferrise | updated January 26, 2016 at 11:42 AM

Edward Coffman, 37, pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition, a fourth-degree felony. Summit County Common Pleas Judge Todd McKenney sentenced him Tuesday to the maximum prison term for the charge. … The 14-year-old girl was living with a host family in central Ohio. She visited Akron to meet with Coffman’s family, who was friends of the host family.

Coffman flirted with the girl two days prior to the assault. He assaulted girl July 18 or 19, 2014 at his home … Akron police began investigating after the girl reported the incident to her host family and went to a Columbus-area hospital for treatment. … Police matched Coffman with DNA found the girl’s sexual assault kit.

The entire article may be read on Cleveland

Radtke sentenced for sexual abuse

David Edwin Radtke deemed sexual predator

Pastor charged with sexual assault of exchange student
By Paul Walsh Star Tribune | May 27, 2011 — 9:00pm

A 52-year-old Lutheran minister has been charged in Sibley County with fondling a high school foreign exchange student as he massaged her while she nodded off in the family’s home.

The Rev. David E. Radtke of St. Peter’s Lutheran Church in Gibbon, Minn., posted bond Thursday after being jailed and charged with two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.

Radtke was arrested Monday while working at a Lutheran church in Clyman, Wis., about 50 miles northeast of Madison, and was returned to Minnesota. Assistant County Attorney Don Lannoye said Radtke was not trying to flee prosecution, but was in Wisconsin on business.

“I just can’t handle this,” the student, a 16-year-old from Madrid, said in a text message to the minister’s wife, according to the charges. “What happened is not legal in any place of the world and you know what I mean!”

Radtke, his wife and their son all approached the girl at various times, acknowledged the molestation earlier this month and asked her to forgive him, the charges added.

The girl moved in with the Radtkes in August 2010, upon the departure of an exchange student from Finland, the complaint read.

According to the charges:

The girl told a sheriff’s deputy that Radtke gave her back massages once every two weeks or so between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. At times, she would fall asleep.

On May 17, as she lay on the couch, Radtke rubbed her legs until she fell asleep. She awoke to find him molesting her inside her underwear. …”

The rest of the article may be read at Star Tribune

2006 Apr 27: Paul Louis Stone sentenced for molesting exchange student

Paul Louis Stone deemed sex offender
Posted: Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:31 pm | Joice Biazoto

Madison Circuit Judge William Jennings sentenced a Berea man Thursday to one year in prison for molesting a 15-year-old female international student.

Paul Stone, 54, had entered a guilty plea April 4, the day before he was scheduled to go on trial.

Stone was indicted Feb. 9 on charges of third-degree sodomy, attempted third-degree rape and third-degree sexual abuse. … Stone must serve at least 20 percent of his sentence before he can be eligible for parole. He also must complete a sex offender treatment course, which takes about a year….

The victim, an exchange student from Taiwan, was attending a Berea high school. Stone and his wife were the student’s host parents.

…. Investigators believe Stone used the student’s lack of knowledge of American culture to take advantage of her, …

The student related the incident to the exchange program’s coordinator, who then contacted Berea police….

The entire article can be found at the Richmond Register

Mallernee convicted of sexual abuse

On July 2, 2009, Judge Fredrik Spencer gave Tricia D. Mallernee, of Anderson, Indiana, a three-year suspended sentence on each of four counts of child solicitation. The judge gave Mallernee a one-year suspended sentence for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, for giving the victim alcohol. This was in accordance with the terms of her plea agreement with the prosecutors. In addition, she will serve three years on probation and must register as a sex offender for 10 years.

During an interview with the police, the victim had stated that he did not want Mallernee to go to prison.

According to Herald Bulletin the 17-year old exchange student arrived in Anderson in August 2008. Two weeks later Mallernee and the exchange student had sex for the first time.

The sexual relationship continued through April. Mallernee and the teen had sex in her home and while on a spring vacation in Florida. On one occasion in April, Mallernee had the boy dismissed from school early and the pair had sex at Mounds State Park.

The teen told investigators he initially wanted to be in the relationship. But later he tried to end it, fearing Mallernee was becoming “emotionally attached and he did not feel the same way.”

Mallernee allegedly threatened to have the boy removed from the home if he ended the relationship, law enforcement officials said. He told investigators that he was afraid that moving to a new home would mean having to stop participating in school activities. He continued in the relationship….

Mallernee is married, but her husband was very ill during most of her relationship with the teen. The man, who is not named in the court documents, was hospitalized several times, “making Tricia’s activities with (the teen) possible without easy detection,” the court documents state.

The relationship came to the attention of Indiana Department of Children’s Services case workers, who then contacted police. Mallernee was arrested by Madison County sheriff’s deputies arrested Tricia D. Mallernee, 32, at the jail June 2, 2009.



Amie Lou Neely sentenced to prison

Guilty of sexual battery/coercing child by adult

Amie Neely, 38, 400 block of Southeast Crabapple Cove, Port St. Lucie, was arrested by the St. Lucie County police and charged with sexual assault on a minor. In March 2014 Neely was sentenced to three years in prison for having sex with a 16-year-old exchange student. She was also sentenced to five years probation and had to register as a sex offender.

Two exchange students lived with the Neely’s at the time of her arrest. Neely was a teacher at Community Christian Academy in Stuart, the same school the victim and the other exchange student living with the Neely’s attended.

It was Neely’s husband who discovered Neely having sex with their exchange student. As a result of the discovery, the boy was kicked out of their house. The other exchange student remained.

According to Neely, their illicit sex was a one-time occurrence after the exchange student had pressured her for some time. But the exchange student claimed that theirs was longer affair. Neely later alleged that all the alleged sex acts had been consensual. She pleaded guilty to sexual battery on a child by a person in custodial authority in return for the State dropping the other charges. However, the trial court sentenced Ms. Neely to 36 months in state prison followed by five years of sex-offender probation and designated her a sexual predator.

2014 Sep 30: Tucker gets three years probation for recording student in shower

DarrienTuckerA Potomac man was sentenced to three years of probation in District Court on Friday for recording an exchange student while she was taking a shower.

Darrien Lamont Tucker, 40, a physical education teacher at the McLean School of Maryland in Potomac, pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of visual surveillance in a private place and with prurient intent. He was given three years of probation with a one-year suspended sentence for each count, meaning any violation of his probation could result in two years of jail time.

The sentence also requires Tucker to attend therapy and have his computers regularly tested for “pornographic surveillance material,” according to Ramon Korionoff, spokesperson for the State Attorney’s office.

“This plea not only holds him accountable for his crimes but also provides the community safety,” Korionoff said in an email.

Defense attorney Mike Rothman, Tucker’s attorney, said Tucker wants to move past the incidents.

“Mr. Tucker is a member of the community and he is eager to move forward at this time,” Rothman said.

Tucker was charged in June with five counts of visual surveillance after the 18-year-old exchange student he was hosting noticed him slipping his iPad under the door of the bathroom during her shower.

The student then brought her phone into the bathroom to record the incidents and the third time placed a video camera outside the bathroom that captured Tucker sliding the iPad under the door, according to a Montgomery County Police press release. Tucker later confirmed in an interview with police he had recorded the student.

Three of the counts of visual surveillance were dismissed in court.

2010 May 22: McClintock sentenced for abuse

An exchange student testifies in the trial of James McClintock of Junction City on misdemeanor charges
By Jack Moran |The Register-Guard
>Appeared in print: Saturday, May 22, 2010, page B1

A Lane County jury concluded Friday that a Junction City man sexually abused a female foreign exchange student who lived with his family last fall.

After about four hours of deliberations, the three-man, three-woman jury unanimously found James Franklin McClintock, 51, guilty of four misdemeanor counts of third-degree sexual abuse and one misdemeanor count of private indecency for illegal sexual contact with the 17-year-old girl from Europe.

Those charges stemmed from the girl’s claims that McClintock touched her inappropriately on four separate occasions, and exposed himself to her once.

McClintock was found not guilty of a fifth count of third-degree sexual abuse, as the jury did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that he forced the girl to touch him after he exposed himself to her.
McClintock was arrested in February after an investigation into the allegations. He will be sentenced Wednesday. He faces one year in jail on each of the charges.

McClintock, a contractor who has served as a volunteer assistant coach for the Junction City High School football team, took the witness stand Thursday in the third day of his trial and strongly denied charges that he abused the girl in a garage on his property where he set up a workout area that the teen used under his supervision.

He did admit asking the girl if she’d had sex before, but claimed to have done so only out of concern for her well-being.
Earlier in the trial, the victim testified that she didn’t resist McClintock’s advances because she “was afraid of what would happen if I tell (him) no.”

In January, the girl told a Junction City High School teacher about being sexually abused at McClintock’s home.

The teacher reported it to authorities, and the girl was moved to another home.

“It was weighing on her,” Lane County deputy district attorney Erik Hasselman told the jury Thursday during his closing argument. “She thought she needed to tell somebody. She has, and it’s being dealt with.”

McClintock was arrested a few days later, and spent about a month in the Lane County Jail before he was released on bail.

He remains on house arrest and will wear an electronic monitoring bracelet around his ankle until he returns to court for sentencing.
Hasselman and McClintock’s attorney, Shaun McCrea, both declined to comment Friday on the jury’s verdict.

2009 Jun 19: Jack sentenced for sexual abuse

By Tim Novotny | Published: Jun 19, 2009 at 5:57 PM PDT

COQUILLE, ORE – A prominent member of the Coquille community is going to jail, after admitting in court to a single charge of Sex Abuse in the Third Degree. In exchange, two other charges were dropped.

53 year old Curtis Jack entered a Guilty plea Friday morning before Judge Richard Barron, charges of Sex Abuse One and Sex Abuse Three were dismissed.

Coos County Deputy District Attorney Karen McClintock said the charge stemmed from a May 12th incident where Jack subjected a 17 year old girl to sexual conduct, by touching her breast. The teen, who said the contact was unwanted, was a youth exchange student living with the family.

Jack, the owner of Coquille Supply and President of the Coquille Lions Club, was sentenced to 90 days in jail, three years of supervised probation, and a fine of $6,250.

He must also complete a Sex Offender program and refrain from associating with anyone under the age of 18, except under specific, court-approved, circumstances.

KCBY spoke with his Attorney, John Trew, who said their only comment was that Jack “admitted to the crime and took full responsibility for it.”

2005 Aug 02: Medley sentenced for sexual battery

ROBERT MEDLEY / Robert Lee Medley
Offender Number: 0907745
Probation/Parole/Post Release Status: INACTIVE
Gender: MALE
Birth Date: 07/02/1969

Most Recent Period of Supervision Record
Sentence Number: 01-001 Commitment Type: PROBATION/PAROLE
Conviction Date: 08/02/2005 County Of Conviction: HENDERSON
Punishment Type: COMMUNITY SS (DCC)
Sentence Type 1: PROBATION
Sentence Type 3: COUNTY JAIL
Commitment Docket# Offense (Qualifier) Offense Date Type Sentencing
Class Code


Comment from DR1 (Danish television) re NBC’s exchange student documentary

2013 Mar 19: Hamilton appeals sentence


Present:   Judges Beales, Alston and Senior Judge Willis
Argued by teleconference

JOHN E. HAMILTON                                                       OPINION BY
v.     Record No. 1922-11-4                      JUDGE ROSSIE D. ALSTON, JR.
MARCH 19, 2013


Brett A. Kassabian, Judge

Karin Kissiah (Kissiah & Schaefer, PLLC, on briefs), for appellant.

Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, Assistant Attorney General (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

        John E. Hamilton (“defendant”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new sentencing.  On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court did not properly follow the procedures in Code § 9.1-902(H) and, accordingly, his case should be remanded for compliance with Code § 9.1-902(H).1  Because we find that the trial court substantially complied with Code § 9.1-902(H), we affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new sentencing.


1 Code § 9.1-902(H) states:
Prior to entering judgment of conviction of an offense for which registration is required if the victim of the offense was a minor, physically helpless, or mentally incapacitated, the court shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the victim of the offense was a minor, physically helpless or mentally incapacitated, as defined in [Code] § 18.2-67.10, and shall also determine the age of the victim at the time of the offense if it determines the victim to be a minor.  Upon such a determination the court shall advise the defendant of its determination and of the defendant’s right to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.  If the defendant chooses to withdraw his plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, his case shall be heard by another judge, unless the parties agree otherwise.

– 2 –


           On appeal from the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new sentencing, this Court views the evidence “in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and accord[s] the Commonwealth the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from the evidence.”  Glenn v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 123, 130, 654 S.E.2d 910, 913 (2008) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

So viewed, the evidence indicated that defendant was indicted on five separate felony charges, consisting of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, two counts of indecent liberties, and one count of crimes against nature.  During a hearing in the trial court on March 29, 2011, defendant entered a plea of guilty to each of the five felony charges.  During the hearing, the trial court read the indictments, which stated the ages of each of the victims in the separate indictments, to defendant.  Defendant pleaded guilty to each of the charges.  Thereafter, the trial court considered the plea of guilty forms that defendant signed.  Defendant’s counsel informed the trial court that prior to the hearing defendant had reviewed with counsel a form identical to those presented to the trial court except for item 11 of the plea form; the paragraph informing defendant of the requirement that he register as a sex offender based on his conviction for each charge.  The trial court addressed defendant on this point and asked defendant if he had been given a chance to read “that particular identical aspect of each one of these forms,” to which defendant responded, “[Y]es.”  The trial court then asked defendant if he still intended to enter pleas of guilty to each of the five felonies, and defendant responded affirmatively.

           Following the plea colloquy, the Commonwealth proffered the facts of the case.  These facts indicated that defendant sexually abused multiple boys while holding a position as a baseball coach and as a host to a foreign exchange student.  The investigation of the charges against defendant began in 2009 when K.E. reported to the Fairfax County Police Department

– 3 –

that defendant sexually molested him when he was twelve years old.  A detective followed up on this report by going to defendant’s residence where F.G., a sixteen-year-old foreign exchange
student, answered the door.  Later in the investigation, F.G. reported that defendant massaged him “which ended in fellatio and anal intercourse.”

          The Commonwealth also proffered that as part of its investigation, the Fairfax County Police Department issued a press release seeking additional information from individuals who may have had contact with defendant.  Following this press release, additional witnesses came forward.  J.C. reported that defendant exposed himself to and performed sexual acts on him when J.C. was between ten and thirteen years old.  T.T. and P.V. reported similar conduct involving defendant had occurred when they were minors.
Following the Commonwealth’s proffer, the trial court accepted defendant’s plea of guilty, noting it did so based on defendant’s pleas and the proffered evidence.  On June 24, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total of fifty-five years’ imprisonment for the five felony offenses.

          On July 14, 2011, defendant filed a motion for a new sentencing hearing.  Defendant claimed that the provisions of Code § 9.1-902(H) applied to each of his convictions and were not followed at the sentencing hearing and that the sentence was thus voidable.

          On August 26, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on defendant’s motion for a new sentencing.  The trial court first concluded that Code § 9.1-902(H) applied only to defendant’s conviction for crimes against nature in violation of Code § 18.2-361(A).  The trial court then denied defendant’s request for a new sentencing.  In doing so, the trial court noted that the true purpose of Code § 9.1-902(H) “is to put the defendant on notice at the time of his plea and conviction that this conviction mandates or requires registration.”

– 4 –

The trial court found that the defendant’s plea satisfied the purpose of Code § 9.1-902(H) because he was repeatedly notified by the trial court of the registration requirement and he signed a written plea form that stated, “I understand that this conviction is for an offense for which registration is required.”  Further, according to the trial court, the evidence proffered by the Commonwealth demonstrated that the victim in the felony offense pertaining to the violation of Code § 18.2-361(A), F.G., was sixteen.  The trial court concluded that the lack of a specific determination of the minor status of the victim and notification of the right to withdraw the plea was harmless error.2

This appeal followed.

2 The trial court identified two rationales for denying defendant’s request for a new sentencing hearing.  Initially, the trial court concluded that the remedial purpose of Code § 9.1-902(H) was satisfied because defendant pleaded guilty with the knowledge that his felony convictions would require him to register as a sexual offender.  Notwithstanding that reasoning, the trial court also concluded that even if it inadvertently violated Code § 9.1-902(H), such error was harmless in the context of this case.  
         Upon our review, we find that both rationales possess some foothold in our case law.  See J.B. v. Brunty, 21 Va. App. 300, 305, 464 S.E.2d 166, 169 (1995) (“Thus, we find the harmless error analysis employed in Jamborsky [v. Baskins, 247 Va. 506, 442 S.E.2d 636 (1994)], in finding none of the defendant’s rights was infringed as a result of the delay in the circuit court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the charges is applicable here.”); see also Weathers v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 803, 805-06, 553 S.E.2d 729, 730 (2001) (providing that substantial compliance with the notice provisions of Code § 19.2-295.1 is sufficient absent any prejudice demonstrated by the defendant).  However, we find the substantial compliance rationale better suited to address the issue raised in this case.  While public officials should endeavor to strenuously comply with procedural statutes, it has long been the rule that “[a] statute directing the mode of proceedings by public officers is to be deemed directory, and precise compliance is not to be deemed essential to the validity of the proceedings . . . .”  Jamborsky, 247 Va. at 511, 442 S.E.2d at 638 (quoting Commonwealth v. Rafferty, 241 Va. 319, 324, 402 S.E.2d 17, 20 (1991)).  Accordingly, because we find that the trial court accomplished the purpose of Code § 9.1-902(H), though not in the precise manner detailed in the relevant statute, we find no initial error by the trial court from which to conduct a harmless error analysis.  Moreover, because precise compliance with a procedural statute is not required, to warrant reversal a defendant must affirmatively show that the trial court’s failure to precisely comply with the statute resulted in some harm or prejudice.  See Marrison v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Family Servs., 59 Va. App. 61, 68-69, 717 S.E.2d 146, 150 (2011) (“[T]he failure to follow a procedural requirement will not prevent a court from exercising its subject matter jurisdiction unless a party can show ‘some harm or prejudice caused by the failure’ to follow the procedural requirement.” (quoting Carter v. Ancel, 28 Va. App. 76, 79, 502 S.E.2d 149, 151 (1998))).  Thus, eschewing a harmless error

– 5 –


          “This appeal presents a matter of statutory interpretation and is subject to de novo review by this Court.”  Commonwealth v. Barker, 275 Va. 529, 536, 659 S.E.2d 502, 504 (2008) (citing Wright v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 77, 80-81, 655 S.E.2d 7, 9 (2008)).

A.  Applicability of Code § 9.1-902(H) to Defendant’s Convictions Code § 9.1-902(H) states in pertinent part that,

[p]rior to entering judgment of conviction of an offense for which registration is required if the victim of the offense was a minor . . . the court shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the victim of the offense was a minor . . . as defined in [Code] § 18.2-67.10, and shall also determine the age of the victim at the time of the offense if it determines the victim to be a minor.  Upon such a determination the court shall advise the defendant of its determination and of the defendant’s right to withdraw a plea of guilty . . . .  If the defendant chooses to withdraw his plea of guilty . . . his case shall be heard by another judge, unless the parties agree otherwise.

         On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred with respect to each of his five convictions in failing to find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant’s victims were minors and in failing to advise defendant of his right to withdraw his pleas of guilty. We disagree.

          When interpreting statutes, courts “ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.”  That intent is usually self-evident from the words used in the statute.  Consequently, courts apply the plain language of a statute unless the terms are ambiguous, or applying the plain language would lead to an absurd result.

analysis for consideration of whether the trial court substantially complied with the challenged statute preserves defendant’s burden on appeal.  See DePriest v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 577, 583, 359 S.E.2d 540, 543 (1987) (finding that the burden is on appellant to show that the trial court erred); cf. Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 695, 702, 696 S.E.2d 261, 264 (2010) (“[T]he principle is well established that the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving the error was harmless.”).  Accordingly, we focus the analysis herein on whether the trial court substantially complied with Code § 9.1-902(H).

– 6 –

Barker, 275 Va. at 536, 659 S.E.2d at 504 (quoting Boynton v. Kilgore, 271 Va. 220, 227, 623 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2006) (citations omitted)).

Defendant asserts that the procedure detailed in Code § 9.1-902(H) applies seriatim to each of his five felony convictions because Code § 9.1-902(H) applies to “all charges where the victim was a minor.”  However, the plain language of the statute demonstrates that subsection H is not implicated by every offense where a minor is involved. Code § 9.1-902(A) identifies the offenses for which registration as a sex offender is required and includes, inter alia, criminal homicide, murder, a sexually violent offense, and any offense listed in subsection B of Code § 9.1-902.  The majority of these offenses requires registration automatically, regardless of any finding concerning the victim’s age, physical status, or mental capacity.  See Code § 9.1-902(B)(1) and 9.1-902(E).  Code § 9.1-902(B)(2), however, identifies a subset of offenses that require registration only “[w]here the victim [was] a minor or
[was] physically helpless or mentally incapacitated” and certain crimes are attempted or committed, including violations of Code § 18.2-361.  Code § 9.1-902(H) addresses the offenses identified in subsection (B)(2), i.e., the offenses that require registration because the victim was a minor.  Code § 9.1-902(H) (detailing the procedure a trial court shall conduct “[p]rior to entering judgment of conviction of an offense for which registration is required if the victim of the offense was a minor, physically helpless, or mentally incapacitated” (emphasis added)).

Here, defendant’s conviction for crimes against nature in violation of Code § 18.2-361 is the only offense for which registration is required under subsection (B)(2) of Code § 9.1-902.
Accordingly, defendant’s conviction for crimes against nature is the only offense that implicates Code § 9.1-902(H), and the only offense for which the trial court was required to “determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the victim of the offense was a minor,” and upon such a determination, “advise the defendant of its determination and of the defendant’s right to

– 7 –

withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.”  Code § 9.1-902(H).  For the foregoing reasons, we limit our consideration of whether the trial court erred in failing to follow the procedures detailed in Code § 9.1-902(H) to defendant’s conviction for crimes against nature.

B.  Alleged Violation of Code § 9.1-902(H)

          Defendant asserts that he was harmed by the trial court’s failure to comply with Code § 9.1-902(H) because he was unaware of his right to withdraw his guilty plea.  Defendant alleges that error denied him a substantive right, the right to withdraw a guilty plea created by Code § 9.1-902(H), and constitutes a structural error that is not subject to harmless error analysis.

         Assuming arguendo that Code § 9.1-902(H) grants defendant a substantive right to withdraw his guilty plea, we nevertheless hold that Code § 9.1-902(H)’s requirement that the trial court determine that the victim was a minor and advise the defendant of his right to
withdraw his guilty plea is procedural in nature.3

         As the Virginia Supreme Court has previously held, “[t]he use of ‘shall,’ in a statute requiring action by a public official, is directory and not mandatory unless the statute manifests a contrary intent.”  Jamborsky v. Baskins, 247 Va. 506, 511, 442 S.E.2d 636, 638 (1994).  To determine whether a statute expresses a contrary intent, this Court must determine whether the statute contains “prohibitory or limiting language.”  Id.  Absent such language, “the failure to


3 A trial court’s failure to comply with a statute may, at times, touch upon a defendant’s substantive right.  But, mere contact, standing alone, does not render a statute mandatory and jurisdictional.  See Lebedun v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 697, 718, 501 S.E.2d 427, 437 (1998) (finding no error where “[t]he Commonwealth’s failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirements of [the challenged statute] violated no substantive right and did not prejudice [the defendant] . . .”); Howerton v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 205, 211, 548 S.E.2d 914, 916-17 (2001) (“We have held that compliance with [the challenged statute] relating to procedures for instituting proceedings against juveniles is mandatory and jurisdictional.  The failure to strictly follow the notice procedures contained in the Code deny the defendant a substantive right.”); Caccioppo v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 534, 537, 458 S.E.2d 592, 594 (1995) (“Such provisions are ‘procedural in nature’ and ‘precise compliance is not to be deemed essential to the validity of the proceedings,’ absent infringement of a substantive right.” (quoting Jamborsky, 247 Va. at 511, 442 S.E.2d at 638).

– 8 –

follow a procedural requirement will not prevent a court from exercising its subject matter jurisdiction unless a party can show ‘some harm or prejudice caused by the failure’ to follow the procedural requirement.”  Marrison v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Family Servs., 59 Va. App. 61, 68-69, 717 S.E.2d 146, 150 (2011) (quoting Carter v. Ancel, 28 Va. App. 76, 79, 502 S.E.2d 149, 151 (1998)).

         In the present case, Code § 9.1-902(H) contains no prohibitory or limiting language that prevents the trial court from convicting and sentencing a defendant without first determining that a victim was a minor and advising the defendant of his right to withdraw his plea of guilty. “Absent such limiting language, the provision at issue is directory and procedural, rather than mandatory and jurisdictional.”  Jamborsky, 247 Va. at 511, 442 S.E.2d at 639.

          Having reached this conclusion, it follows that defendant cannot prevail in this appeal “unless [he] can show ‘some harm or prejudice caused by the failure’” to follow Code § 9.1-902(H).  See Marrison, 59 Va. App. at 68-69, 717 S.E.2d at 150 (quoting Carter, 28 Va. App. at 79, 502 S.E.2d at 151).  Thus, if the trial court substantially complied with the challenged statutory provision, absent attendant harm, defendant cannot prevail.  See Weathers v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 803, 805-06, 553 S.E.2d 729, 730 (2001).

          After reviewing the record and the evidence in this case, we find that the trial court’s failure to apprise defendant of his right to withdraw his guilty plea did not infringe or deny his right to withdraw his guilty plea.  In reaching this conclusion, we note that, although defendant was aware of Code § 9.1-902(H) and referenced the stat ute in his motion for a new sentencing hearing, defendant did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea either before or after his sentencing event.  Because defendant was aware of his right to withdraw his guilty plea but did not pursue it, we find that the trial court’s failure to apprise defendant of his right to withdraw his guilty plea did not deny or infringe defendant’s substantive right.

– 9 –

          Additionally, we find that the trial court’s failure to advise defendant of his right to withdraw his plea is not structural error.  See Ray v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 647, 651, 688 S.E.2d 879, 881 (2010) (“Structural error exists only in a very limited class of cases in which the error affects the very framework within which the trial proceeds in a manner that defies analysis by harmless error standards because it undermines the entire adjudicatory framework of a criminal trial.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Campbell v. Campbell, 49 Va. App. 498, 505 n.4, 642 S.E.2d 769, 773 n.4 (2007) (“Generally, structural error is limited to error that deprives a litigant of a constitutional right.”).  Rather, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the requirement to advise defendant of his right to withdraw his guilty plea was procedural and directory.

         Finally, we find that the record demonstrates substantial compliance with the challenged portion of the statute.  See Weathers, 262 Va. at 805, 553 S.E.2d at 730 (providing that substantial compliance with the notice provisions of Code § 19.2-295.1 is sufficient absent any prejudice demonstrated by the defendant).  As we read the plain language of the statute, Code § 9.1-902(H) is designed to ensure that a defendant is aware that pleading guilty to an offense listed in Code § 9.1-902(B)(2) may also, if the victim is a minor, physically helpless, or mentally incapacitated, require the defendant to register as a sex offender.  Because registration is dependent on a factual predicate that is separate from the elements of the offense to which the defendant is pleading, Code § 9.1-902(H) requires the trial court to determine that the victim was a minor and, upon such a finding, to advise the defendant of his right to withdraw his plea of guilty “[p]rior to entering judgment of conviction.”  In application, Code § 9.1-902(H) ensures that the defendant has notice of the registration requirement before his plea is finalized.

        While the trial court did not precisely follow the directions of Code § 9.1-902(H) in this case, defendant was aware prior to pleading guilty that the victim in the case was a minor and

– 10 –

that conviction of the offense would require him to register as a sexual offender.  The trial court read to defendant the indictment for the crimes against nature charge, which stated that the victim, F.G., was sixteen years old.  The trial court also informed defendant of the registration requirement, and defendant acknowledged this fact during the plea colloquy and in the signed “Plea of Guilty to a Felony” form memorializing his understanding.  Moreover, defendant has not pointed to any prejudice he has suffered by the trial court’s failure to strictly comply with the language of Code § 9.1-902(H).  “Accordingly, we hold that, although the statute means what it says and its directions should be followed, there has been substantial compliance with it in this case,” and defendant’s conviction and sentencing were proper, “there having been no showing of prejudice to [defendant].”  Weathers, 262 Va. at 805-06, 553 S.E.2d at 730.


          Assuming without deciding that Code § 9.1-902(H) creates a substantive right to withdraw a guilty plea and the trial court failed to apprise defendant of this right, because we find that the trial court substantially complied with the challenged statute, we affirm defendant’s conviction.



2012 Mar 20: Misbrug af udvekslingsstudenter hemmligholdes (Danish)

2011 Jun 27: John E Hamilton, deemed sexual predator

2011 Jun 27: Hamilton sentenced for sexual abuse

Registration ID : 33320
Sex : Male
Race : White
Age : 43
Height : 6 Feet 03 Inches
Weight : 285 lbs
Hair Color : Brown
Eye Color : Hazel
Palm Print : On File
Finger Print : On File
Violent : Yes
Photo Date : June 01, 2012
Print Submit a Tip Map Subscribe for this Offender
 Alias Name(s)
 Address Information
 Registration Information
Initial Registration : Apr 03, 2011
 Sex Offender Conviction Record
Case Number Sentencing Court Code Section Statute Date of Conviction State Convicted Victim Age


2011 Jan 25: Centreville man in custody after international manhunt

2010 Jan 12: Former youth coach sought in manhunt for molestation charges

2009 Oct 29: Community Questions How Indicted Sex Offender Got Away

2009 Jun 5: Additional Victims Emerge In John Hamilton Sex Offense Case



Beul sues ASSE International for negligence

65 F.Supp.2d 963 (1999)

Kristin BEUL, Klaus Beul, and Petra Beul, Plaintiffs,
ASSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Admiral Insurance Company, Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

October 19, 1999.

Heiner Giese, Giese & Weden, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiffs.

Timothy J. Strattner, Amy J. Doyle, Schellinger & Doyle, Waukesha, WI, Nancy J. Sennett, Brett H. Ludwig, Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendants.


MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

When plaintiff Kristin Beul was a 16 year-old German exchange student living in the Wisconsin home of Richard Bruce, his wife Cheryl and their daughter Angela, she became involved in a sexual relationship with Mr. Bruce, her “host father”. According to Kristin’s testimony at trial, he initially employed some force to accomplish a sexual act with her and later used psychological pressure, including threats of suicide, to coerce her into continuing the relationship and keeping it a secret. Shortly after her “host mother”, Cheryl Bruce, found “love letters” from Kristin in her husband’s truck, Mr. Bruce committed suicide in the face of an impending criminal investigation. There was evidence at trial to suggest that Kristin sustained severe psychological injuries as a result of her involvement with Mr. Bruce, including post-traumatic stress disorder, bulimia, self-mutilation and thoughts (as well as acts) of attempted suicide.

Kristin and her parents, Klaus and Petra Beul, filed this diversity action against defendant ASSE International, Inc., [“ASSE”], the foreign corporation that ran the student exchange program, and its insurer Admiral Insurance Company. The plaintiffs alleged that ASSE’s negligent supervision was a cause of the sexual relationship and the resulting harm that Kristin suffered. The jury agreed, returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on August 4, 1999. The jury attributed 59% of the causal negligence to ASSE, and 41% to Kristin. The jury determined that her damages were $1,100,000 and that her parents’ damages for loss of consortium were $17,000. After applying the jury’s apportionment, the court entered judgment in favor of Kristin for $649,000 and in favor of her parents Klaus and Petra Beul for $10,030.

Presently before the court are the defendants’ post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial and amendment of the judgment. This decision will assume familiarity with the court’s prior opinion granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, in which the factual and procedural background of this case are stated in greater detail. Where necessary, the court will discuss the evidence presented at trial in the context of discussing the defendants’ motions.


The defendants move for judgment as a matter of law, and alternatively for a new trial, on the ground that there was no evidence that ASSE caused any injuries to the plaintiffs. The defendants made the same argument in their summary judgment motion, and as the argument related

[65 F.Supp.2d 965]

to the claims that went to trial, the court rejected it. Based on the evidence presented at trial, I now believe there is even less reason for granting judgment as a matter of law on the issue of causation.

The defendants do not challenge the jury’s finding that ASSE was negligent. The evidence, which I must review in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, supports the conclusion that ASSE was negligent in many significant respects. These include ASSE’s noncompliance with a number of specific duties contained in its manual, federal regulations, and student exchange organization accreditation standards. Most if not all of these duties were designed to protect the children in the student exchange program from the risks associated with having them live with adult strangers in another country. In addition, ASSE failed to perform many obligations imposed by the common-law negligence duty of reasonable care. Examples of these failures include, inter alia:

  • not maintaining anything other than minimal and perfunctory contact with Kristin;
  • not having any meaningful communication with Cheryl Bruce, who testified that she immediately became suspicious of Richard Bruce’s relationship with Kristin and would have told ASSE’s area representative about her problems had she been asked;
  • not speaking privately with Kristin or the Bruces;
  • not giving Kristin the student handbook containing specific instructions to students about what to do if they were in “sexual jeopardy”;
  • not maintaining contact with school authorities (Kristin had a number of absences because, unbeknownst to his family, Richard Bruce kept her home from school on many occasions to have sex with her);
  • not providing formal training or supervision for ASSE’s area representative.

I believe that these factors bear an important relationship to the issue of causation. For example, if ASSE’s area representative had advised Kristin about how to respond if she was in “sexual jeopardy”, Kristin may have been better prepared about what to do when Richard Bruce began making improper advances. Had the representative spoken with Cheryl Bruce and encouraged her to discuss any problems, Ms. Bruce may have told her about her concerns, or suggested that another host family be found for Kristin. A personal visit with the family may have led the representative to observe, as Ms. Bruce did early on and the representative did eventually, that Kristin and Richard Bruce were interacting improperly. Checks with the school might ultimately have led to the other members of the Bruce family discovering that Mr. Bruce had been secretly arranging Kristin’s frequent absences from school.

ASSE’s omissions in this case can each be linked to a possibility that the injuries sustained by Kristin might have been avoided. A mere possibility is not enough, however, and some factors, such as not meeting Kristin at the airport, seem remote from the harm that occurred to her in this case. Nevertheless, other omissions, such as not speaking with Cheryl Bruce or failing to provide a copy of the student handbook, are perhaps sufficient in and of themselves to support a finding of causation. More important, the jury reasonably could find that all of these possibilities add up to a probability that the injury to Kristin would have been avoided if ASSE had complied with its duties, duties which were specifically designed to ferret out or prevent any problems.

The defendants, relying on the fact that Kristin herself kept the improper relationship a secret until it was discovered by Ms. Bruce, argue that Kristin would not have confided in anyone. The jury was entitled to believe this argument, but it was not required to do so. The jury could have inferred, based on Kristin’s testimony, that she wanted to tell someone about Mr. Bruce’s improper behavior, but for obvious reasons did not tell the Bruces and was

[65 F.Supp.2d 966]

afraid to tell her parents. The jury could have believed that ASSE’s area representative (if she had met her responsibilities) would have been the most appropriate person to have dealt with precisely this type of situation. They also could have found that what kept Kristin from telling the area representative was the lack of communication and rapport between them, the failure to sufficiently encourage Kristin to seek help if she had a problem, and the failure to specifically advise Kristin about what to do if she was in “sexual jeopardy”. Moreover, even if the jury did believe that Kristin would not have told anyone about the relationship, they could still have found causation based on other theories that do not depend on Kristin’s disclosure.

Looking at the evidence of ASSE’s failures as a whole, I believe that the jury reasonably could have found that the agency totally failed to guard against the possibility that a host parent with sinister intentions might seek to sexually abuse a teenaged student who, out of fear, humiliation, lack of maturity or other reasons, would keep the abuse secret. Reviewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence supports the finding that this overall failure, more likely than not, was a cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries. See Wisconsin Jury Instructions — Civil 1500 (submitted to the jury). Accordingly, I will deny the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. I will also deny the alternative motion for a new trial, as I believe the jury’s finding of causation is not against the greater weight of the evidence.


The defendants claim they are entitled to a new trial on the basis of several prejudicial errors that the defendants allege had occurred during the trial. One of these claimed errors is that the court informed the jury of the effect of its verdict in answering one of their questions. Their question, which arose during deliberations, was: “What bearing does the negligence factors have on the $ amounts we may or may not choose to award?”

This somewhat ambiguous question was interpreted by the court and, I believe, by the parties’ attorneys, as inquiring about the relationship between the degree of negligence of one or both of the parties and the amount of damages. After considering the suggestions of counsel, the court informed the jury that as far as they were concerned, their answers to the damages questions had nothing to do with their answers to the negligence questions, but that their answer to the comparative negligence question (number five), if they reached it, would affect the amount of damages the court would ultimately award in entering the judgment.

I do not accept the defendants’ contention that these comments improperly informed the jury of the effect of its verdict. I believe that the court gave the jury an accurate response to their question, without ignoring their question or avoiding giving them an answer. In fact, the answer that the court ultimately gave the jury was generally consistent with the answer recommended by defense counsel:

I would simply answer the jury by saying that the impact of the negligence findings on the ultimate judgment is the province of the court and that they do not need to be concerned with that and that they are asked only to find what sum of money will reasonably compensate the plaintiffs and just leave it at that.

I told the jury that their answer, if any, to question five would have a significant impact, which the court would determine, on the damages ultimately awarded. The jury was given no indication of how their answer would affect the judgment, and the court made clear that this was not their concern. Any variance between my answer and the defendants’ suggested answer, if there was error in it at all, does not provide the basis for granting a new trial.

The court did not, as the defendants claim, instruct the jury that they had to answer question five in order to award the

[65 F.Supp.2d 967]

plaintiffs’ any damages. Such an erroneous instruction, had it been given, would have favored the defendants by incorrectly suggesting to the jury that they should find Kristin at least partially negligent. The transcript also belies the defendants’ assertion that the court told the jury that the plaintiffs would only receive the percentage of damages not attributable to Kristin. The court gave no such instruction.

The defendants argue that the court erred in instructing the jury that “the law in Wisconsin does not allow a child under the age of 18 to consent to an act of sexual intercourse”. The defendants do not contend that the instruction incorrectly states the law, nor do they argue that this legal principle is not relevant to this case (I believe it clearly is). Instead they assert that the instruction was prejudicial to them because it tended to diminish Kristin’s responsibility and “place[ ] the two parties on different levels.” This argument is waived because it is unsupported by citation to any authority. See Chambers v. American Trans Air, Inc., 17 F.3d 998, 1005 (7th Cir.1994). In any event, it is black-letter law that different standards of care apply to adults and minors. See, e.g. Wisconsin Jury Instructions—Civil 1582: “Comparative Negligence: Adult and Child” (collecting cases in comment).

Moreover, the defendants concede that the jury could consider other factors, besides her supposed consent, in weighing Kristin’s negligence. The jury did, in fact, find that 41% of the causal negligence was attributable to her.

For similar reasons, the court rejects the defendants’ somewhat related argument that they must be granted a new trial because “ASSE cannot be more negligent than Kristin Beul, an active participant in the affair.” The argument is unsupported by citation to any authority, and it ignores the differing standards of care that applied to Kristin and ASSE. In addition, it depends on the theory that Kristin was an entirely willing participant in the relationship from its inception, a view that the jury arguably could have rejected in reaching its verdict.

I have considered the defendants’ remaining arguments in favor of a new trial. I conclude that they are waived because they are not based on any pertinent authority (See Chambers, 17 F.3d at 1005) and, also, they are devoid of merit.


The defendants seek an order amending the judgment for the same reasons advanced in support of their other motions. For the reasons set forth above, I hold that the defendants are not entitled to amendment of the judgment.


IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial and amendment of the judgment be and hereby are denied.

1999 Jul 29: Former exchange student who had affair suing program

2012 Mar 12: Lamonte sentenced to 25 years for molesting boy

Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 2:37 pm, Mon Sep 30, 2013.

A Tulsa man was sentenced to 25 years in prison Monday for molesting a boy whom he said he was tutoring.

Tony Lamonte Greene, also known as Toshav Storrs, pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd molestation.In accordance with a plea agreement, Tulsa County District Judge James Caputo sentenced the 51-year-old defendant to consecutive prison terms of 20 and five years.Greene must serve 85 percent of that sentence — about 21 years — before becoming eligible for parole or release.On Dec. 7, a 13-year-old boy disclosed that he had been sexually assaulted by his tutor, Greene, an arrest and booking report states.Greene was affiliated with the Aces After Care program housed at Academy Central Elementary School. Tulsa Public Schools announced the termination of an agreement with Aces in December and emphasized that Greene was not a school district employee, according to a prior Tulsa World news report.Counts of forcible sodomy, lewd molestation and rape by instrumentation, involving the same boy, against Greene have been dismissed. He has been in the Tulsa Jail since Dec. 8, records show.


2007 Jun 10: ASSE: Exchange-student problems bring shake-up

2007 Jun 10: School of hard knocks? Every story has two sides, but tales about Bayard Rustin Living Learning Center couldn’t be more further apart.

2011 Dec 14: Tulsa Man Charged In Child Abuse Case Had Multiple Fraud Convictions

Tony Lamonte Greene / Tony Storrs / Toshav Storrs

Lamonte’s aliases

tulsa .com
All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

AGE: 50

Lauret D Hooks and aliases


Name: LAURET D HOOKS / ODOC# 281969

Alias: D Hooks / Jean Miller / Lauret Hooks / Lovin’ Spoonful Hooks / Lauret DeJan Hooks

IDs ODOC#: 281969

Birth Date: 08/19/1961

Appearance White Female; 5 ft. 3 in. tall; 190 pounds; Brown hair; Hazel eyes;

Body Marks No data available

CRF# 1999-973
County: OKLA
Offense: False Declaration To Pawnbroker / Embezzlement By Employee
Conviction: 12/20/1999
Term: 3 Y
Start: 12/20/1999
End: 12/19/2002

Current Facility: INACTIVE
Reception Date
Discharge Date: 01/07/2000
Parole Hearing Date

2007 Jun 10: ASSE: Exchange-student problems bring shake-up

2007 Jun 10: School of hard knocks? Every story has two sides, but tales about Bayard Rustin Living Learning Center couldn’t be more further apart.

2010 Apr 16: James sentenced for molestation

Florida Department of Law Enforcement – Sexual Offender / Predator Flyer
Picture of an Offender or Predator

Shernon James
Date Of Photo: 06/03/2014

Click Here to Track this Offender
Designation: Sexual Offender
Name: Shernon James
Status: Supervised – FL Dept of Corrections
Department of Corrections #: X70993
Search the Dept of Corrections Website
Date of Birth: 06/03/1982
Race : Black
Sex: Male
Hair: Black
Eyes: Brown
Height: 5’10”
Weight: 175 lbs
James is registered as a Sexual Offender.
Positive identification cannot be established unless a fingerprint comparison is made.
Scars, Marks & Tattoos
Information temporarily unavailable
Address Information
Address Address Source Information Map Link
323 Ferrara Ct
Kissimmee, FL 34758-4327
Osceola COUNTY
Source: Dept. of Corrections
Received: 01/09/2015
Type of Address: Permanent
Show Map
Crime Information – Qualifying Offenses
Adjudication Date Crime Description Court Case Number Jurisdiction & State Adjudication
04/16/2010 Lewd or lascivious molestation victim 12-15 years old offender 18 or older; F.S. 800.04(5)(c)(2) 0903242 OSCEOLA, FL Guilty/convict
Victim Information
Gender:Unknown  Minor:Yes


CAUTION! If you reached this flyer from any site other than FDLE’s Florida Sexual Offender and Predator homepage, FDLE cannot guarantee the timeliness of the information you are viewing. To receive the most current information regarding registered sexual offenders or sexual predators registered with the State of Florida please conduct an “Offender Search” from FDLE’s website located at


Shernon N James

2011 Jan 05: Ley sentenced for sex abuse of high school exchange student

Oregon Live | By Emily E. Smith |
updated January 05, 2011 at 9:50 PM

A Beaverton man who sexually abused the high school exchange student he hosted last school yearwas sentenced Wednesday to five years in prison.Craig Steven Ley, 51, facing five counts of first-degree and five counts of second-degree sex abuse, took a plea deal last month and pleaded guilty to four counts of second-degree sex abuse.Washington County Judge Eric Butterfield sentenced Ley Wednesday afternoon, granting the sentence Ley and prosecutors agreed to in the deal.

The victim, a 16-year-old European boy, was living with Ley and attending a Beaverton school as a foreign exchange student when the abuse occurred.

In June 2010, the boy reported months of abuse that began early in his stay with Ley.

Deputy District Attorney Paul Maloney said Ley, an active member of the Beaverton lacrosse community, had hosted exchange students previously, but officials found no evidence of prior abuse.

Maloney described in court Wednesday how the relationship between Ley and his victim quickly escalated to the two sleeping in Ley’s bed every night and having daily sexual contact.

A visitor in a foreign country, the boy “was completely and utterly reliant on the defendant,” Maloney said.

“When he would talk to his parents over Skype,” Maloney said, “the defendant would always be lurking about; he would pop in and out sporadically throughout the phone calls.”

His parents never knew that their son’s host father lived alone, had filed bankruptcy and had a 2004 federal felony mail fraud conviction.

The teen didn’t see his family in person until his aunt came from Germany to visit him at Ley’s home in June 2010, shortly before his high school graduation, Maloney said.

He then admitted to his aunt that he slept in Ley’s bed, and his aunt recognized, “this was not the American dream,” Maloney said.

His aunt took him to CARES Northwest, a program that assesses and treats child abuse, and a criminal investigation began.

Ley pulled off the inappropriate relationship by taking advantage of the victim’s vulnerability, Maloney said, and playing off the behavior as fun and normal.

Defense attorney Devon Fooks said Ley’s actions were less sinister than Maloney described.

Fooks said his client didn’t groom or prey upon the student but leaned on him for emotional support during a troubling year. Ley developed a friendship with the boy that “went too far,” Fooks said.

The abuse didn’t occur daily or “with great frequency,” Fooks added, and sometimes the victim initiated the acts.

While those facts don’t relieve Ley of any responsibility, Fooks said, the abuse was “situational more than predatory.”

Ley addressed the court, offering an apology to his victim and family, and explaining that he genuinely cared for the victim and the previous 18 exchange students he had hosted.

“To hurt anybody who I cared for … in my home – that hurts and tears my heart apart,” he said.

For years Ley and his ex-wife alternated hosting boys and girls each year, he said, and he treated them as he would his own children.

In the 2009-10 school year, Ley said, “I had a difficult time stepping up and being an adult that year.”

Butterfield ordered Ley to register as a sex offender when he is released from prison.

Emily E. Smith

2004 May 17: USA v. Ley Oregon District Court, Case No. 3:03-cr-00576-KI

2008 Jul 18: Programmes Internationaux D’Echanges v. Grijalva: Conspiracy; Defamation; Tortious Interference

2010 Jun 15: Beaverton lacrosse coach arrested on multiple sex abuse counts

2010 Dec 21: Exchange student’s Beaverton host father pleads guilty to sex abuse

2004 May 17: Ley placed on probation for mail fraud

United States of America, Plaintiff
Represented by United States Department of Justice

Name Phone Fax E-Mail
Johnathan S. Haub +1 503 727 1032 +1 503 727 1117
Office Portland
Filed 12/23/2003
County Outside State
Terminated 5/17/2004
Magistrate Case
Count 1
Citation Section 18 U.S.C. § 1341.F
Offense Level 4
Def Custody Status Released
PACER 18 Filed: 5/19/2004, Entered: 5/26/2004 Findings of Fact Court Filing
Findings of Fact Order as to Craig Steven Ley Note: This document is located in the non-public files of the United States Probation Office for the District of Oregon by Judge Garr M King signed on 5/19/04. (Kirk, )
PACER 17 Filed: 5/19/2004, Entered: 5/26/2004 Judgment & Commitment Court Filing
Judgment & Commitment as to Craig Steven Ley (1), Count(s) 1, Defendant is hereby placed on probation for a term of 3 years. Defendant to pay $57,343.00 in restitution to the Public Service Mutual Insurance Company. Defendant to pay a special assessment in the amount of $100.00 payable to the Clerk immediately. by Judge Garr M King signed on 5/17/04. (Kirk, )
 16 Filed: 5/17/2004, Entered: 5/19/2004 Sentencing Hearing Court Filing
Minutes of Proceedings:Sentencing Hearing before Judge Garr M King as to Defendant Craig Steven Ley. Formal Judgment and Fact Finding Order to follow. Defendant advised of right to appeal.Counsel Present for Plaintiff: Johnathan Haub.Counsel Present for Defendant: Thomas J. Hester.(Court Reporter Susan Walker (Teach Reporting)) (ecp, )
PACER 15 Filed: 5/13/2004, Entered: 5/14/2004 Sentencing Memorandum
Sentencing Memorandum filed by USA as to Craig Steven Ley (Kirk, )
PACER 14 Filed: 4/22/2004, Entered: 4/23/2004 Order on Motion to Continue / Reset Court Filing
RECORD OF ORDER: Granting [13] Motion to Continue Sentencing Hearing as to Craig Steven Ley (1); Sentencing reset to 5/17/2004 at 10:15AM in Portland before Judge Garr M King. (Kirk, )
PACER 13 Filed: 4/20/2004, Entered: 4/21/2004, Terminated: 4/22/2004 Motion to Continue / Reset
Motion to Continue Sentencing Hearing by Craig Steven Ley. (Kirk, )
Update this case via PACER (Paid subscription required)PACER Shortcuts

2009 Oct 20: Licata sentenced for unlawful restraint

Posted Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009

Former Colleyville councilman Tony Licata, 58, was sentenced Tuesday to 24 months of probation for unlawfully restraining a foreign exchange student at his home last year, according to court records. Licata will also have to “continue private counseling for a minimum of two sessions” each month and was fined $386, according to court documents. If he fulfills terms of his probation, the conviction will be set aside.

Licata resigned his seat earlier this year on the day the arrest warrant was executed.

Licata’s attorney, Barry Sorrels of Dallas, had no immediate comment. The prosecutor who handled the case was in court Tuesday afternoon and couldn’t be reached.

Licata was sentenced a day before his case was due for disposition in County Criminal County No. 1.


2009 May: Colleyville Councilman Accused of Fondling Exchange Student

2014 Dec 23: Oikeus: Vaihto-oppilas kotiutettiin Kanadasta väärin perustein / Student wrongly sent home from Canada (Finnish)

Rikos Julkaistu 23.12.2014 21:50

Helsingin käräjäoikeus

Kanadassa vaihto-oppilaana ollut opiskelija haki Helsingin käräjäoikeudessa korvauksia pilalle menneestä, etukäteen maksetusta lukuvuodesta hieman yli 10 000 euroa. Oikeus katsoikin, että 17-vuotias tyttö kotiutettiin Kanadasta väärin perustein, mutta korvaukset olivat puolet vaaditusta.

17-vuotias tyttö lähti ranskankieliseen Kanadaan syksyllä 2011 STS Kielimatkat Oy:n kautta.

Tyttö oli ennen matkaa ilmoittanut olevansa allerginen kissoille, koirille ja siitepölylle. Käsityksensä mukaan hän joutui matkalla erittäin allergisoiviin olosuhteisiin.

Mainos (uutinen jatkuu alla)

Perheen piti olla ranskankielinen, mutta sellaista ei löytynyt. Tyttö joutui yksinasuvan 62-vuotiaan jamaikalaissyntyinen naisen luokse.

Tytön mukaan asunto oli täysin siivoton ja sotkuinen. Kaksikon välit tulehtuivat, kun 17-vuotias ja hänen vanhempansa ryhtyivät selvittämään epäilyä emännän marihuanan käytöstä. Tämä osoittautui sittemmin vääräksi.

Tyttö päätyi uuteen perheeseen, jossa oli kaksi koiraa. Lopulta STS Kielimatkat päätti tammikuussa 2012 kotiuttaa tytön.

Tapauksesta kerrottiin myös Ylen MOT-ohjelmassa lokakuussa 2013.

STS: Väärää tietoa

STS:n mukaan tyttö oli antanut puutteellisia tietoja allergioistaan ja jos yritys olisi tiennyt totuuden, häntä ei olisi otettu vaihto-ohjelmaan.

Uudessa paikassa tyttö oli ilmoittanut olevansa allerginen myös tomaatille. STS oli saanut myös tietää, että tyttö oli saanut oireita huonepölystä.

STS tiedusteli tilanteesta tytön vanhemmilta, joiden mukaan allergiaoireet olivat sen verran vakavia, että tytöllä oli mukanaan epipen-kynä varmuuden vuoksi. Tässä vaiheessa STS keskeytti matkan. Tyttö palasi suomeen tammikuussa 2012.

“Uutta perhettä ei löytynyt”

Tytön käsityksen mukaan keskeyttämisen taustalla oli se, että STS ei kyennyt löytämään sijoitusperhettä. Tyttö oli joulun alla saanut tietää kakkosperheen äidiltä, ettei perhe pysty pitämään häntä enää tammikuun jälkeen. Kotimatkasta kerrottiin vain kaksi päivää ennen lentoa.

STS totesi, että allergisille on ylipäätään erittäin vaikea löytää isäntäperhettä Kanadassa. STS:n mukaan moniallergisuuden paljastuttua, tyttöä ei olisi pystytty ”myymään” mihinkään perheeseen. Kotimatkasta kerrottiin tytölle myöhään, jottei tämä karkaisi, kuten oli joskus käynyt.

Väärät perusteet kotiuttaa

Käräjäoikeus katsoi, että tyttö oli antanut riittävät terveystiedot ennen matkaa, vaikka ne olivat jossain määrin puutteellisia. Allergiat olivat STS:n tiedossa. Oikeus totesi myös, että tytön palauttaminen Suomeen tehtiin perusteetta. STS:llä ei siis ollut oikeutta keskeyttää vaihto-oppilasvuotta.

Käräjäoikeus lausui kuitenkin, että koko matka ei mennyt hukkaan, koska tyttö oli ollut Kanadassa 5 kuukautta eli yhden lukukauden. Hinnanalennusta ei hyväksytty ensimmäisen perheen asunnon väitetystä epäsiisteydestä, koska siitä ei ollut näyttöä.

Oikeus arvosteli sitä, että kolmatta perhettä ei edes yritetty löytää.

Käräjäoikeus päätyi siihen, että STS Kielimatkojen on palautettava tytölle 5000 euroa.

Koska STS oli jo tammikuussa 2013 ja uudestaan jutun valmisteluistunnossa tarjoutunut sopimaan asian ja palauttamaan tytölle 5000 euroa, käräjäoikeus totesi, että molemmat saavat itse maksaa oikeudenkäyntikulunsa.

Jarkko Sipilä | jarkko.sipila(at) | @sipilamtv3

Google translation of the article:
Canadian exchange student was a student applied for the Helsinki District Court for compensation out of a ruined, paid in advance of the academic year to just over 10 000 euros. Court ruled that the 17-year-old girl was discharged from Canada wrongly, but the claims were half required.

17-year-old girl went to French-speaking Canada in the autumn of 2011 STS Language Oy.

The girl was before the trip expressed its allergic to cats, dogs and pollen. View, he was on the way very allergenic conditions.
Advertisement (news continued below)

The family was supposed to be in French, but could not be found. The girl was forced to living alone 62-year-old Jamaican woman to him.

According to the girl’s apartment was absolutely filthy and messy. The duo intervals inflamed, when the 17-year-old and his parents began to explore the wife of suspected marijuana use. This turned out later to be false.

The girl ended up being a new family with two dogs. In the end, STS Language Schools decided in January 2012 to withdraw the girl.

The case was also told YLE MOT program in October 2013.
STS: Incorrect

STS, the girl had given incomplete information about allergies and if the company had known the truth, he would not have been an exchange program.

The new location, the girl had expressed its allergic to tomatoes. STS had also learned that the girl had symptoms of indoor dust.

STS inquired about the situation of the girl’s parents, according to which the allergy symptoms were so severe that she had with the EpiPen pen just in case. At this point, the STS cut the trip. The girl returned to Finland in January 2012.
The new family was not found”

The girl’s view of the suspension in the background was the fact that STS was not able to find the position of the family. The girl was just before Christmas got to know the family right from the mother that the family can not keep her anymore after january. The trip home was reported just two days before the flight.

STS stated that the anti-allergy is generally very difficult to find a host family in Canada. STS: According to moniallergisuuden had been discovered, the girl would not be able to sell” to any family. The trip home was told the girl late, so as not to break out of this, as was sometimes the case.

Incorrect criteria to repatriate

The district court found that the girl had given adequate health information before the trip, even though they were somewhat incomplete. Allergies were STS known. The Court noted, also, that the girl’s restoration to Finland was unjustified. STS was therefore not entitled to suspend the exchange student years.

The District Court stated, however, that the whole trip did not go to waste, because the girl had been in Canada five months, ie one semester. The price reduction is not approved for the first family residence of the alleged untidiness, since it was not evidence.

Legal criticized the fact that the third family does not even attempt to find.

The District Court concluded that the STS exchange trips must be returned to her 5000 euros.

Since the STS was already in January 2013, and again the story a preliminary hearing, offered to fit the case and return the girl to EUR 5000, the District Court found that both are self-pay costs.

Jarkko Sipilä

jarkko.sipila (at)

@ sipilamtv3

Frank Swiderski convicted of sexual abuse

[Cite as State v. Swiderski, 2005-Ohio-6705.]



STATE OF OHIO,                :     O P I N I O N
Plaintiff-Appellee,              :
                                                           CASE NO. 2004-L-112
– vs –                                            :
Defendant-Appellant.     :

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 03 CR 000255.

Judgment: Affirmed.

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Amy E. Cheatham, Assistant Prosecutor, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Daniel S. Chaplin, 1148 Euclid Avenue, #300, Cleveland, OH 44115 (For Defendant-Appellant).


{¶1} Appellant, Frank Z. Swiderski, appeals from the judgments of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to an aggregate prison term of thirty months and adjudicating him as a sexual predator. For the following reasons, we affirm.

{¶2} On July 1, 2003, the Lake County Grand Jury indicted appellant on eight counts of gross sexual imposition, each count a fourth degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1); three counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, each count a fourth degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5); and four counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor, each count a fourth degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(5). At his arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the foregoing charges.

{¶3} On January 12, 2004, appellant entered a written guilty plea to one count of gross sexual imposition and two counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor. The written guilty plea did not include a recommended sentence.

{¶4} During a change of plea hearing, the court advised appellant of his constitutional and non-constitutional rights incident to trial. Appellant acknowledged that he understood these rights and that his guilty plea would act to waive these rights. The court then accepted appellant’s guilty plea and convicted him on one count of gross sexual imposition and two counts of pandering sexually oriented matter.

{¶5} This matter proceeded to a sentencing hearing and sexual offender classification hearing, which were held contemporaneously. During the hearing, the court considered the testimony and report of Dr. John Fabian (“Dr. Fabian”), and the report of Dr. Michael Arnoff (“Dr. Arnoff”), regarding two separate psychological evaluations of appellant. Also, the court considered the submitted pre-sentence investigation report.

{¶6} The evidence established that appellant’s convictions were based upon his improper sexual contact with a foreign exchange student and his possession of pornographic pictures depicting minor males engaging in various sexual activities. The victim of the improper sexual contact was a seventeen-year-old, male foreign exchange student. Appellant was acting as the victim’s host parent when the improper sexual contact occurred.

{¶7} At the conclusion of the hearing, the court discussed the relevant sentencing and recidivism factors and pronounced its sentence. The court sentenced appellant to a fifteen-month prison term on each of the two counts of pandering sexually oriented material, with the prison terms to run concurrently. The court also sentenced appellant to a fifteen-month prison term on the single count of gross sexual imposition. The fifteen-month prison term for gross sexual imposition was to be served consecutive to the concurrent fifteen-month prison term for pandering sexually oriented material.

{¶8} On June 24, 2004, the court issued a judgment entry which re-stated its findings and sentence. The judgment entry also included the court’s determinations with respect to appellant’s sexual offender classification. Based upon its findings, the court adjudicated appellant as a sexual predator.

{¶9} From this judgment, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and now sets forth the following five assignments of error:

{¶10} “[1.] The trial court’s sentence violated Blakely v. Washington *** and the case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

{¶11} “[2.] The trial court’s consecutive sentence violated the Ohio Supreme Court’s requirement that consecutive sentences are reserved for the worst offenses and worst offenders pursuant to State v. Comer ***.

{¶12} “[3.] The court’s conclusion that the appellant is not amenable to an available community control sanction is not supported by the record.

{¶13} “[4.] The trial court failed to ensure that the 30 month sentence imposed on the appellant was consistent with similar sentences imposed on similar offenders in violation of R.C. 2929.11(B).

{¶14} “[5.] The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding that the appellant is a sexual predator.”

{¶15} Under his first assignment of error, appellant contends that, per Blakely v. Washington (2004), 124 S.Ct. 2531, the trial court erred by sentencing him to a nonminimum prison term and consecutive prison terms. We disagree.

{¶16} In Blakely, the defendant pleaded guilty to kidnapping involving the use of a firearm, a class B felony. In the state of Washington, the statutory maximum for a class B felony was ten years; however, other provisions of Washington law limited the range of sentences a judge could impose. Consequently, the “standard” statutory range for the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty was forty-nine to fifty-three months. Although the guidelines set forth the “standard” sentence, a court could enlarge the “standard” sentence if it found any of a non-exhaustive list of aggravating factors justifying the departure. In Blakely, the trial court determined the defendant acted with “deliberate cruelty” and imposed a sentence of ninety-months, a thirty-seven month upward departure from the “standard.”

{¶17} The United States Supreme Court reversed the sentence, holding a trial court may not extend a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum when the facts supporting the enhanced sentence are neither admitted by the defendant nor found by the jury. Id. The court defined the statutory maximum as “the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at 2537.

{¶18} Appellant maintains that the court’s imposition of non-minimum prison terms and consecutive prison-terms exceeded the statutory maximum. Therefore, appellant concludes that, in exceeding the statutory maximum, the court made statutory findings not made by a jury or admitted by appellant, thereby violating Blakely and depriving him of due process.

{¶19} With respect to the non-minimum prison terms, appellant was convicted on three separate fourth degree felonies. The statutory minimum prison-term for a fourth degree felony is six months, while the statutory maximum prison-term is eighteen months. The trial court sentenced appellant to prison terms of fifteen months on each fourth degree felony.

{¶20} R.C. 2929.14(B) states:

{¶21} “(B) *** if the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a felony elects or is required to impose a prison term on the offender, the court shall impose the shortest prison term authorized for the offense pursuant to division (A) of this section, unless one or more of the following applies:

{¶22} “(1) The offender was serving a prison term at the time of the offense, or the offender previously served a prison term.

{¶23} “(2) The court finds on the record that the shortest prison term will demean the seriousness of the offender’s conduct or will not adequately protect the public from future crime by the offender or others.”

{¶24} To support its upward departure from the minimum prison-terms, the court relied upon a finding that the shortest prison terms would demean the seriousness of appellant’s conduct and not adequately protect the public from future crime.

{¶25} This court has previously not applied the holding of Blakely to the sentencing factors of R.C. 2929.14(B). In doing so, we have concluded that the Blakely holding does not render the trial court’s findings with respect to these factors constitutionally infirm. See, e.g., State v. Fielder, 11th Dist. No. 2003-L-190, 2005-Ohio-3388; State v. Semala, 11th Dist. No. 2003-L-128, 2005-Ohio-2653; State v. Morales, 11th Dist. No. 2003-L-025, 2004-Ohio-7239. We have provided the following explanation:

{¶26} “In State v. Morales, 11th Dist. No. 2003-L-025, 2004-Ohio-7239, we began our analysis by noting that Blakely and the prior case law of the United States Supreme Court had not had the effect of depriving a trial judge of the discretion to consider aggravating circumstances in deciding the length of a defendant’s sentence; instead, the Blakely decision only held that a trial judge cannot make a factual finding which would result in the imposition of a sentence longer than the maximum prison term permissible under the jury verdict. In other words, we concluded that, under Blakely, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial had no application so long as the trial judge was imposing a sentence within the general range of terms permissible based upon the jury verdict. The Morales court then held that the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.14(B) were similar in nature to aggravating circumstances because a trial court’s finding concerning the existence of one of the two factors in a particular case only meant that a longer term within the acceptable range could be imposed. As a result, the Morales court ultimately held that the procedure under R.C. 2929.14(B) did not constitute a violation of the basic constitutional right to a jury trial.” Fielder at ¶44.

{¶27} The clear precedent of this court establishes that the trial court’s use of the sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.14(B) did not constitutionally invalidate its imposition of non-minimum prison terms. Instead, the trial court obtained proper statutory authority to impose prison terms which were longer than the statutory minimum when it made the appropriate findings under R.C. 2929.14(B). This portion of appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.

{¶28} Likewise, the court’s imposition of consecutive prison-terms was not constitutionally invalid per Blakely. When imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court must first determine that consecutive sentences are “necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public[.]” R.C. 2929.14(E)(4). Next, the trial court must find that one of the following factors listed in R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) is also present: (a) that the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing or was under community control sanctions; (b) that the harm caused by the offenses was so great that a single prison term would not adequately reflect the severity of the conduct; or (c) that the offender’s prior criminal history demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime. State v. Norwood (June 8, 2001), 11th Dist. No. 2000-L-072, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2573.

{¶29} In the case sub judice, the court found that consecutive prison-terms were necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish appellant and are not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger he poses to the public. The court further found that the harm caused by appellant’s multiple offenses was so great or unusual that no single prison term adequately reflects the seriousness of his conduct.

{¶30} Despite the court’s findings with respect to the statutory sentencing factors, this court has consistently held that a sentencing court’s imposition of consecutive sentences does not violate the rule set forth in Blakely. See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 158 Ohio App.3d 597, 2004-Ohio-5939, at ¶26. See, also, State v. Allen, 11th Dist. No. 2004-L-038, 2005-Ohio-1415, at ¶29; Semala at ¶37. In doing so, we noted that Blakely is distinguishable from the instant case where consecutive sentences have been issued for multiple crimes. Specifically, we noted that Blakely dealt with sentencing for a single crime. See, e.g., Semala at ¶36. Therefore, Blakely does not apply to consecutive sentences “as long as the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for each individual underlying offense.” Id.

{¶31} The court sentenced appellant to prison terms of fifteen months on each of the individual underlying fourth degree felonies. As noted previously, the statutory maximum prison-term for a fourth degree felony is eighteen months. Thus, the trial court’s imposition of fifteen-month prison terms did not exceed the statutory maximum. This portion of appellant’s first assignment of error is also not well-taken.

{¶32} Appellant’s first assignment of error is without merit.

{¶33} Appellant’s second, third, and fourth assignments of error challenge the validity of the court’s felony sentence. In examining these assignments of error, we note that, under R.C. 2953.08, our review of a felony sentence is de novo. State v. Bradford (June 1, 2001), 11th Dist. No. 2000-L-103, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2487, at 3. However, this court will not disturb a given sentence unless we find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. State v. Thomas (July 16, 1999), 11th Dist. No. 98-L-074, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3334. Clear and convincing evidence is that evidence which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established. Id.

{¶34} Under his second assignment of error, appellant maintains that the court’s consecutive prison-terms were not justified as he did not commit the worst offense nor was he the worst offender. Instead, appellant contends that an examination of certain statutory factors under R.C. 2929.12(E) establishes a low likelihood of recidivism. Thus, appellant concludes that the court erred in issuing consecutive prison-terms.

{¶35} In arguing that the court was required to specifically find that appellant was the worst offender or committed the worst offense, appellant relies upon the following statement by the Ohio Supreme Court:

{¶36} “Consecutive sentences are reserved for the worst offenses and offenders.” State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, at ¶21.

{¶37} Such reliance is misplaced. The Court’s general statement did not mandate a specific finding by the trial court that a defendant committed the worst offense or was the worst offender. Instead, taken in full context, the statement merely established that the trial court’s application of R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) will ensure that consecutive sentences are reserved for the worst offenses and offenders. Id. at ¶13-21. A review of the statutory factors under R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) demonstrates that the court was not required to find that appellant was the worst offender or that he committed the worst offense prior to imposing consecutive prison-terms.

{¶38} The only instance in which R.C. 2929.14 requires the trial court to find that the defendant committed the worst form of the offense is under R.C. 2929.14(C). R.C. 2929.14(C) requires the trial court to find that the defendant committed the worst form of the offense before imposing the maximum prison-term. However, as stated previously, the statute does not require this finding when imposing a consecutive prison-term per R.C. 2929.14(E)(4).

{¶39} Nevertheless, the court was obligated to follow the requirements set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B) when sentencing appellant to consecutive prison-terms. Specifically, R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) requires that the trial court justify its imposition of consecutive prison-terms by making findings that give the court’s reasons for selecting that particular sentence.

{¶40} In the past, this court has held that the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) and 2929.14 “must appear somewhere on the record of sentence, either in the judgment or in the transcript of the sentencing hearing.” State v. Rone (Dec. 4, 1998), 11th Dist. No. 98-A-0001, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 5813, at 6. In Comer, however, the Ohio Supreme Court held that when ordering a defendant to serve consecutive sentences, the trial court must also make its statutorily required findings at the sentencing hearing. Id. at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus.

{¶41} In the case sub judice, the court sentenced appellant to two consecutive fifteen-month prison terms. As stated under appellant’s first assignment of error, the court set forth its findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), at the sentencing hearing, and as part of its sentencing entry.

{¶42} With respect to the aforementioned findings, the court provided the following reasons in support: (1) the victim was a foreign exchange student and appellant used his position of authority as a host parent to facilitate the offenses; (2) appellant used manipulation and acts of intimidation to assist in committing these offenses; and (3) appellant has admitted to a long history of sexual criminal conduct.

{¶43} The foregoing demonstrates the court’s compliance with Comer and the statutory prerequisites for issuing consecutive sentences. The court’s findings and reasons for issuing consecutive sentences are substantiated by the record and were made part of the sentencing entry and sentencing hearing. Thus, this portion of appellant’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.

{¶44} Moreover, the trial court was required to consider the recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12(E). The trial court stated that it had considered the recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12(E) and balanced its consideration of such factors against its findings and the principles and purposes of sentencing. In doing so, the court ultimately determined that certain factors demonstrating a low likelihood of recidivism were outweighed by those factors justifying a consecutive prison-term.

{¶45} The trial court was in the best position to evaluate and balance the relevant statutory factors when determining appellant’s sentence. As a result, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court’s when there is clear and convincing evidence supporting its findings and when the sentence is not otherwise contrary to law. See, e.g., Thomas; Bradford. Here, the court, within its wide sentencing discretion, determined that despite its consideration of recidivism factors, a consecutive prisonterm was necessary. Because the record supports the court’s findings and because the sentence was not contrary to law, the court did not err in issuing a consecutive prisonterm. This portion of appellant’s second assignment of error is also not well-taken.

{¶46} Appellant’s second assignment of error is without merit.

{¶47} Under his third assignment of error, appellant maintains that the court erred in concluding that appellant was not amenable to an available community control sanction. Specifically, appellant argues that the court failed to consider the availability of specific community control sanctions and whether appellant was willing to submit to community control.

{¶48} When imposing a sentence for a felony of the fourth or fifth degree, the trial court must determine if one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2929.13(B)(1) is present. This statute provides that:

{¶49} “In sentencing an offender for a felony of the fourth or fifth degree, the sentencing court shall determine whether any of the following apply:

{¶50} “***

{¶51} “(d) The offender held a public office or position of trust and the offense related to that office or position[.]”

{¶52} If the trial court finds that (1) one of the foregoing factors is present; (2) that a prison term is consistent with the purposes of sentencing; and (3) that the defendant is not amenable to community control sanctions, a prison term must be imposed. R.C. 2929.13(B)(2)(a). In making these determinations, the court must consider all relevant factors, including the factors affecting the seriousness of the offenses and the potential for recidivism found in R.C. 2929.12(B) through (E). R.C. 2929.12(A).

{¶53} In the case sub judice, the court found that a prison sentence was consistent with the purposes of sentencing and that appellant was “not amenable to an available community control sanction.” And the trial court found that appellant had facilitated the offense by abusing his position of trust as a host parent of the victim. The court also noted that it had considered all relevant factors including the recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12(B).

{¶54} The trial court clearly considered all relevant statutory factors prior to determining that appellant was not amenable to community control and adequately stated its findings. Thus, the court did not err in sentencing appellant to a prison term rather than community control. Appellant’s third assignment of error is without merit.

{¶55} Under his fourth assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court failed to ensure that its thirty-month prison term was consistent with sentences for similar offenses. Appellant maintains that the trial court ignored evidence presented at the hearing of similar cases in which the trial court’s sentence did not include a prison term. Therefore, appellant concludes that the court failed to adhere to the sentencing consistency requirement of R.C. 2929.11(B).

{¶56} We agree with appellant that R.C. 2929.11(B) mandates consistency when applying Ohio’s sentencing guidelines. See, e.g., State v. Lyons, 8th Dist. No. 80220, 2002-Ohio-3424, at ¶30. Accordingly, “it is the trial court’s responsibility to insure that it has the appropriate information before it when imposing sentence in order to comply with the purposes of felony sentencing.” Id. However, this court has reasoned that sentencing consistency is not developed via a trial court’s comparison of the existing matter before the court to prior sentences for similar offenders and similar offenses. State v. Spellman, 160 Ohio App.3d 718, 2005-Ohio-2065, at ¶12. Specifically, we stated:

{¶57} “We agree with the rationale of the Lyons court, insofar as the trial court must adhere to the statutory mandate to ensure consistency in sentencing. However, we note, as that court did, that the trial court is required to make its sentencing decisions in compliance with the statute, but need not specifically comb the case law in search of similar offenders who have committed similar offenses in order to ascertain the proper sentence to be imposed.” Id.

{¶58} In short, a consistent sentence is not derived from a case-by-case comparison; rather, it is the trial court’s proper application of the statutory sentencing guidelines that ensures consistency. As discussed previously, the court properly applied and considered the necessary statutory sentencing factors before issuing appellant’s sentence. Moreover, the court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, the court’s sentence met the consistency requirement as espoused by R.C. 2929.11(B). Appellant’s fourth assignment of error is without merit.

{¶59} Under his fifth assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in adjudicating him as a sexual predator. In support of this contention, appellant maintains that several factors, including his age and the absence of a prior criminal record, establish a low likelihood of recidivism. Thus, appellant argues that the court’s sexual predator adjudication was not based upon clear and convincing evidence.

{¶60} R.C. 2950.01(E)(1) defines a sexual predator as a person who has been “convicted of or pleaded guilty to committing a sexually oriented offense and is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually oriented offenses.” In applying the sexual predator definition, a common pleas court can classify an individual as a sexual predator only if it concludes that the state has established both prongs of the definition by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2950.09(B)(4). Clear and convincing evidence is the measure or degree of proof which “will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford (1954), 161 Ohio St. 469, paragraph three of the syllabus. See, also, State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158, 164, 2001-Ohio-247.

{¶61} To assist a common pleas court in determining the second prong of the sexual predator definition, specifically, whether appellant is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually oriented offenses, R.C. 2950.09(B)(3)(a)-(j) sets forth a list of nonexclusive factors that the court must consider. These factors include: (1) the offender’s age; (2) the offender’s prior criminal record; (3) the victim’s age; (4) whether the underlying sexually oriented offense involved multiple victims; (5) whether the offender used alcohol or drugs to impair or incapacitate the victim; (6) whether the offender has previously participated in a rehabilitative program for sexual offenders; (7) any mental illness or mental disability of the offender; (8) the specific nature of the sexual conduct involved in the underlying sexually oriented offense; (9) whether the offender acted cruelly in committing the underlying sexually oriented offense; and (10) any additional behavioral characteristics that contribute to the offender’s conduct.

{¶62} Here, the record demonstrates that the common pleas court considered the factors of R.C. 2950.09(B)(3), and after doing so, concluded there was clear and convincing evidence to support a determination that appellant satisfied both prongs of the sexual predator definition. In particular, the court noted that appellant had pleaded guilty to a sexually oriented offense as defined by R.C. Chapter 2950. The trial court then proceeded to the second prong of its sexual predator classification and provided the following analysis of the requisite factors under R.C. 2950.09(B)(3):

{¶63} “a.) The defendant was sixty-eight (68) years of age at the time of the offense;

{¶64} “b.) The defendant has no prior criminal record;

{¶65} “c.) The victim of the sexually oriented offense for which sentence was imposed was between seventeen (17) and eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the crime;

{¶66} “d.) The sexually oriented offense for which the sentence was imposed involved multiple victims:

{¶67} “1) On Count 1 – the offense involved one (1) victim;

{¶68} “2) On Counts 9 and 10, the Court finds multiple victims depicted in the images of child pornography;

{¶69} “e.) The defendant did not use drugs or alcohol to impair the victim or to prevent the victim from resisting;

{¶70} “f.) The defendant has no prior offenses and, therefore has no prior treatment;

{¶71} “g.) The defendant does have a mental illness or mental disability, to-wit: per Dr. Fabian’s report, the defendant has traits of obsessive/compulsive disorder, traits of pedophilia and traits of ephebophilia;

{¶72} “h.) The nature of the offender’s sexual conduct, sexual contact, or interaction in a sexual context included touching/massaging of the buttocks and thighs. The defendant’s sexual actions were part of a demonstrated pattern of abuse which occurred from August 2002 through April 2003, including possession for several decades of images of child pornography;

{¶73} “i) The nature of the defendant’s actions during the commission of the sexually oriented offense displayed cruelty or threats of cruelty, to-wit: the victim reported verbal threats from the defendant. The defendant yelled at the victim and threatened to send the victim back to Vietnam;

{¶74} “j.) Additional behavioral characteristics that contributed to the defendant’s conduct include the following:

{¶75} “1) The defendant has a long-time history of inappropriate sexual behavior, including sexual activity with young boys.

{¶76} “2) The defendant has a long-time history of taking and viewing images of child pornography, nude photography of [high school] students and nephews.

{¶77} “3) The defendant has a history and has admitted engaging in sexual activity including sexual conduct with his nephews;

{¶78} “4) The defendant is in denial. Based upon investigation, the defendant ‘does not get it’ – behavior with students/young boys/men, is not tolerated by society;

{¶79} “5) The defendant has a history of engaging in lewd and lascivious sexual behavior with male [high school] students in the 1970’s;

{¶80} “6) During the 1970’s, the defendant admits to having high school students at his home and engaging in sexual activity;

{¶81} “7) The defendant’s single, male status, per psychological reports elevates his risk[.]”

{¶82} Despite the trial court’s extensive and detailed findings, appellant claims that clear and convincing evidence did not support a sexual predator adjudication. For instance, appellant claims that the record established that neither Dr. Arnoff nor Dr. Fabian found appellant to be a pedophile. Also, appellant contends that there was no evidence that appellant was diagnosed with an impulse control disorder by Dr. Arnoff and that Dr. Arnoff could not predict with any certainty whether appellant would reoffend.

{¶83} To the contrary, our thorough review of the record demonstrates that the court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Namely, the findings are substantiated by Dr. Fabian’s testimony and psychological report, Dr. Arnoff’s psychological report, the pre-sentence investigation report; the victim’s statement, and appellant’s own admissions. As noted by the trial court, Dr. Fabian testified that appellant demonstrated traits of an obsessive compulsive disorder. The record also established that Dr. Fabian found appellant had traits of pedophilia. Further, Dr. Arnoff’s report recognized that appellant’s test results placed him in a medium-high risk of recidivism.

{¶84} While the record accurately reflects the absence of some factors which would support a sexual predator adjudication, the overwhelming majority of factors found by the common pleas court demonstrated that appellant was likely to commit a sexually oriented offense in the future. Many of these relevant factors were based upon appellant’s self-reporting. Thus, the court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and both prongs of the sexual predator definition have been satisfied. Appellant’s fifth assignment of error is without merit.

{¶85} Based upon the foregoing analysis, appellant’s five assignments of error are without merit. We hereby affirm appellant’s sentence and sexual predator adjudication.




Kevin Garfield Ricks – Work history of a sexual predator

List has been copied from

Kevin Garfield Ricks 2010
Kevin Garfield Ricks; Molester of high school/exchange students in various states. See list over places of employment.

Camp Holiday Trails in Charlottesville

Hampton Roads Academy, Newport News, a private school, 1982-83

Northeast Academy, Lasker, N.C., private school, 1984-85

Brandon Hall School, Dunwoody, Ga., a private boarding school, 1985-86

The Cottage School, Roswell, Ga., a private school, 1986-87

Worked at schools in Japan, 1988-95

Danville Public Schools, substitute teacher, 1995-97

Alamance-Burlington Public Schools, Burlington, N.C., full-time teacher, 1996-97

Danville Public Schools, full-time teacher, 1997-98

Danville Public Schools, substitute teacher, 1998-2000

Education First Foundation for Education, host and local coordinator:

“Ricks entered into a foreign exchange program, Education First, and hosted young students from all over the world in his home. A Danish student who was hosted by Ricks, Uffe Emborg, says that after drinking with Ricks one night, he discovered nude photographs of himself by Ricks’s bedside table. Out of fear, Emborg did not report this to the police, and instead burned the photographs with Ricks in the backyard. Ricks and his wife left Danville after Ricks was fired from Education First after being accused of stealing $2,000 from a student’s bank account.” (Wikipedia)

Col. Richardson High School, Caroline County, 2000-03

Wye River Upper School, Wye River, Md., a private school, 2003-04

Walbrook High School, Baltimore Public Schools, 2004-07

American Scandinavian Student Exchange (ASSE), host and local coordinator:

“Even after he stopped teaching in Caroline County, Ricks continued to host foreign exchange students, this time with American Scandinavian Student Exchange. After a German exchange student was removed from Ricks’s home during the 2003-04 school year, a restraining order was filed against Ricks by the student, who alleged that Ricks frequently called and offered gifts. Although the restraining order was not granted, ASSE fired Ricks.” (Wikipedia)

Osbourn High School, Manassas City, 2007-2010

Huntington Learning Center, tutoring, 2007-08

2009: Klug convicted of foreign student fraud

Fayette Klug was sentenced on charges of theft by deception and unauthorized use of a financial transaction device. The victims were a Chinese exchange student and a Norwegian exchange student. She was both host-mother and sponsor-representative. Following is an extract from an article by Trisha Schulz at

The Norfolk Daily News

Posted: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:00 am

Judge Robert Ensz sentenced 35-year-old Fayette Klug to one to three years in prison on charges of theft by deception and unauthorized use of a financial transaction device. …

Ensz said a greater sentence would’ve been justified in the case, but he went along with a recommendation by the Madison County attorney’s office.

The two foreign exchange students – one from Norway and one from China – were placed in Klug’s home about a year ago and attended Battle Creek High School.

Klug asked the two girls for money to cover expenses while they were in the U.S. and used their prepaid credit cards to make unauthorized charges.

The two students didn’t understand that Klug was actually being reimbursed by the foreign exchange student placement company and didn’t need to pay her themselves.

The foreign exchange placement company, STS Foundation, repaid the girls in full. The total amount taken was more than $10,000, …

Ensz … particularly pointed out Klug’s past criminal history, which included a previous theft by deception and issuing bad checks.

He then sentenced her to prison and ordered her to pay the costs of prosecution.

STS Foundation sought restitution from Klug …

The entire article may be read at The Norfolk Daily News

Case progression:

  • 2008 Oct 11: Woman allegedly steals $10,000-plus from live-in foreign exchange students
    • The girls also told Bowersox that they were locked in the basement apartment area that they shared. At the time, Klug told them it was an accident – that the door was broken. …. Both students were removed from the Klug residence earlier this week. …. Why Klug was even hosting foreign exchange students has become a point of investigation because she is a convicted felon.


    2008 Nov 04: Foreign exchange student incident under review by federal department

  • 2008 Nov 18: Bank records obtained
  • 2008 Dec 19: Woman accused of stealing enters plea
    • Klug was arrested Oct. 10. She appeared Thursday in court in jail clothing and was represented by the Madison County Public Defender’s office.

  • 2009 Jun 09: Plea agreement offered in fraud of foreign exchange students
    • Thirty-five-year-old Fayette Klug pleaded no contest to theft by deception (over $1,500), a Class II felony, and unauthorized use of a financial transaction device, a Class I misdemeanor, … The foreign exchange placement company in which Klug worked for – STS Foundation – has been scrutinized for allowing Klug to host foreign exchange students in the first place because of her being a prior convicted felon. She was sentenced in 2006 for a theft by deception charge to 264 days in jail.

2011: Ely guilty of embezzlement and welfare fraud

This is the third and final article I could find in this series about the embezzlement of money from Donnapha Kuppatikasem. It was supposed to have been on Three Rivers Commercial-News, but can no longer be found there. This link was discovered on
The previous two articles in this series were:
  1. Former host mother accused of welfare fraud
By Paula M. Davis | Kalamazoo Gazette
on September 02, 2011 at 3:16 PM, updated September 02, 2011 at 3:18 PM

• A Sturgis woman, originally charged with embezzling more than $20,000 from a Thai exchange student living with her, entered a no contest plea to embezzlement and guilty plea to welfare fraud. Laura Ann Ely, 27, entered the pleas Wednesday before St. Joseph County Circuit Court Judge Paul Stutesman.  [Three Rivers Commercial-News]

2013 May 30: Probation for VHS coach in deal

Pleaded guilty to lewdness in incident with exchange student

May 30, 2013

Written by Deborah M. Marko

VINELAND — As part of a plea agreement, a former volunteer Vineland High School assistant girls’ basketball coach pleaded guilty Wednesday to a lewdness offense admitting he exposed himself to a male foreign exchange student at his home.

John T. Kinka is now required to meet with a psychologist for an evaluation and is prohibited from any role in which he volunteers, mentors or coaches anyone under the age of 18 during a one-year probation, according the plea deal reached with the Vineland Municipal Court.

The charge stems from a Jan. 26 incident in which Kinka, who was a volunteer with the ASSE International foreign exchange program, had two visiting students stay at his Vineland home for a weekend.

The teens, assigned to a host family in Delaware, were Kinka’s overnight guests so they could attend a representative training conference in Atlantic County to give testimonials about their foreign exchange experience.

While at his home, the teens charged that Kinka exposed his genitals to one of them, requested to see him naked and unsuccessfully tried to pull down his pants, according to police reports filed about the incident.

After the students fled the home, they were spotted by a police officer about 4 a.m. who took them to the police station where they were picked up by their host family. The host family contacted ASSE officials about the incident, which was not initially reported to the police. ASSE, noting students were initially concerned they would be removed from the exchange program, notified the police about what the teens told them transpired in Kinka’s residence, according to ASSE officials contacted after Kinka’s arrest.

Last year, ASSE officials noted Kinka, a volunteer since the 2007-08 school year, was an organization representative serving as a contact for more than two-dozen students. He had a “exemplary record“ and passed three annual criminal background checks, according the organization’s records.

The Vineland school board removed Kinka as a volunteer coach after his arrest.

Initially, Kinka had entered a not guilty plea to the two counts of lewdness. Standing beside his attorney, Vincent Pancari, in Vineland Municipal Court Wednesday Kinka agreed to retract that.

Under the plea agreement, Kinka pleaded guilty to one charge of lewdness and a second lewdness charge was dismissed.

He was sentenced to one year probation and required to undergo an evaluation by a psychologist. Pancari noted the psychologist would be provided with the police reports and statements of the foreign exchange students.

The psychologist will be asked to determine if Kinka is a danger to himself or others as well as if he is in need of treatment Pancari said. If treatment is deemed necessary, Kinka agreed to complete it.

Kinka was also fined $257 and about $150 in court-related costs.

Municipal Prosecutor Inez Acosta said she spoke to the exchange students, who were present in court, and they told her “that the sentence is appropriate.”

They voiced concern that they didn’t want a similar incident to happen anyone else who might be placed in Kinka’s trust, Acosta said.

Reviewing the plea agreement with Kinka, Pancari asked him if did expose himself to one of the foreign exchange students identified in court by his initials.

“Yes,” Kinka said.

If Kinka should violate the terms of the plea agreement, Pancari explained he would be back to municipal court and could be sentenced on a disorderly person offense that carries the maximum sentence of about a year in jail.

Should Kinka comply with agreement, Pancari noted he could make a motion to vacate the balance of the probation after six months.

Acting Municipal Court Judge Nicholas Lacovara stated that Pancari said his client was “very sorry for this occurrence.”

Lacovara, noting Kinka was a first-time offender, said the sentence was “crafted primarily to make sure this did not happen again.”

Kinka has 20 days to file an appeal. He left court the room and paid his fines. He declined to comment.

An ASSE representative was in the courtroom. She referred inquiries to regional coordinator Sue Nelson, who could not be reached Wednesday evening.


2013 Jan 31: Coach charged with lewdness

2012 Jul 25: Wilson guilty of sexual assault

The link to this article by Toriano Porter and Russ Pulley no longer seems to work. It was published Wednesday, Jul. 25 2012 8:46AM in Lee’s Summit Journal.

The article is about Brian J. Wilson who pleaded guilty to two counts of common assault against two teenage foreign exchange students, after initially being charged with one count of assault and one count of first degree assault, a class A felony.

A Lee’s Summit man who was the field director for an agency that helps bring foreign exchange students to the United States is serving one year of supervised probation after pleading guilty to charges that he inappropriately touched two foreign exchange students on separate occasions.

Brian J. Wilson, 49, pleaded guilty June 7 before Lee’s Summit Municipal court judge James Tobin to two counts of common assault after initially being charged with one count of assault and one count of first degree assault, a class A felony.

Wilson received a one-year suspended sentence with one year of supervised probation, which includes 40 hours of community service to be completed within six months and orders that he must not have contact with the victims. Wilson’s probation status will be reviewed in December.

Wilson is the father of Sean and Steven Wilson, two Lee’s Summit North students who were suspended in January for 180 days by the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District for posting blog posts the district deemed racist and offensive. The Wilson brothers were reinstated to North in April after a federal judge ruled the brothers could return to school.

Reached by telephone Monday, Brian Wilson denied guilt despite his guilty pleas, which stipulates that Wilson have no one-on-one contact or be in intentional close contact with children under 18 years old.

“I pled guilty, but I’m not guilty,” Wilson said of his pleas, which are considered violations of city ordinances. City officials said the charges were handled as a municipal ordinance violations because state prosecutors did not feel the cases met the threshold for sexual assault. “It was going to cost me several thousand dollars to fight the cases.

“I enjoy volunteering and working with children, but if – I don’t know how to explain it. The reason I pled guilty was I wanted to get things out of the way. Under the circumstances, the city offered a plea that eventually would not remain on my record. Rather than argue with a couple of kids – you know, ‘he said, she said,’ – and take any kind of risk of having something on my record, I pled what I pled and I don’t feel good about it. I’m trying to what’s right for myself and my family.”

Wilson was area field director for Youth for Understanding USA at the time of the accusations, but no longer works for the agency. YFU USA is a non-profit international agency that helps students from all over the world enroll in exchange programs. Wilson helped exchange students find host families for their stay in the United States.

Neil Routman, communication and development specialist for Youth for Understanding said Wilson was no longer an employee of the agency. In a telephone interview from its headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, Routman said “It was very, very inappropriate and completely against all of our policies.”

In a prepared statement the agency said its “top priority is safety of the young people placed in its care.” It said Wilson was terminated early in 2012 following reports of inappropriate conduct. “Upon receipt of an allegation of inappropriate conduct, the local area representative followed YFU protocol and immediately notified the UFU Support Service Manager. Without delay, the Support Service Manager made arrangements to remove the student placed in this employee’s home. YFU directly contacted the Missouri Department of Social Services Children’s Division and the U.S. Department of State, alerting them of this alleged incident.”

Youth for Understanding said Child Protective Services conducted an investigation which resulted in an unsubstantiated conclusion. Despite that, YFU said, Wilson was placed on probation and prohibited from having direct contact with students or having them in his home. During the probationary period a second report of a similar incident which had occurred prior to the first reported incident. YFU notified local authorities and Child Protective Services of the second complaint and terminated Wilson’s employment.

Routman said all adult staff and volunteers undergo criminal background checks, including sex offender registries, and provides training for youth safety and to prevent sexual harassment. It trains students, volunteers, host families and staff to always report incidents to Support Service Managers, who are mandatory reporters to local authorities. Students receive training before and after arrival on identifying inappropriate behavior and how to report it to Youth for Understanding and authorities. It also screens host families, including mandatory in-home interviews, reference checks and criminal background checks.

Youth for Understanding, founded in 1951, has helped bring 250,000 exchange students to the United States from 60 countries, about 2,000 a year and sends 400 to 500 students abroad.

Wilson said he worked with more than 140 kids in two years with YFU USA, and that the two allegations were the only problems he ever had with children.

“One was lying, Wilson said, “and the other kid, it was just a misunderstanding.”

According to legal documents obtained by the Journal, Wilson was first accused of assaulting 17-year-old Camille Lingre, a foreign exchange student from France, in November of 2011.

Charging documents state that Wilson approached Lingre on Nov. 1, 2011 and asked her to come to his bedroom with him with a request for her to teach him to pronounce obscene words in French.

Later, the incident report reveled, Wilson asked Lingre to perform a sex act, which she stated to police made her feel uncomfortable. Lingre later stated to police that Wilson put his hand on her leg, apologized for making her feel uncomfortable then moved his hand further up her leg.

Lingre would eventually inform Sally Wooten, volunteer director for Youth for Understanding USA, of Wilson’s behavior, but Wooten, according to court documents, told Lingre that she and Wilson were good friends, that she had known Wilson for a long time and that she didn’t believe Wilson would do such a thing. Wooten could not be reached for comment.

Lingre, who was staying with Wilson and his family until she found a host family, later moved in with a family from Overland Park, Kan. It was there that Lingre confided in her host mother of what transpired at the Wilson home.

Child services in Kansas referred the case to Childe Protective Services in Missouri, who arranged for a forensic interview. Lingre later prepared a written statement of the incident.

Police questioned Wilson Nov. 30 of last year and he denied all the allegations. He told police at the time that he hugged Lingre when he dropped her off at her new home but he never touched her besides that.

Because of a lack of evidence, charges were not initially filed in the Lingre case, but the case was re-opened after another foreign exchange student came forward with similar accusations.

On Jan. 17, legal documents state, Lee’s Summit Police were contacted by family services in regard to a possible sex offense involving a 16-year-old girl and Wilson. The girl told police while she stayed at Wilson’s home before moving on to her host family that Wilson made her uncomfortable by asking her to translate obscene words into her primary language.

According to the incident report, Wilson touched the girl’s arm and rubbed it, then later invited her into his room where he motioned for her to sit on his bed. The girl stated Wilson was under the covers the entire time and that he told the girl a few days later that he was naked while they were sitting in his bed. The comment made the girl uncomfortable, but she also stated Wilson never touched her in any other way.

The next day Wilson was escorted to police headquarters for questioning where he denied allegations that he touched the girl. He stated that he did have her translate an obscene word into her language and agreed that the request was inappropriate. He also told police that she did sit on his bed while he was naked under covers but stated that the girl let herself in the bedroom and sat down.

The report indicates that Wilson told police that his wife was in the bathroom while the incident occurred and when contacted by police the wife first stated that she did not know what police were talking about.

After police explained the situation, the report states, Wilson’s wife told police that she may have been in the bathroom when the incident happened but that she was not positive.

Warrants were issued for Wilson’s arrest on Jan. 26 for assault on the 16-year-old girl and the previous case involving Lingre.

The Lee’s Summit host family for the 16-year-old girl declined to comment on the case.

“I’ve had several regrets,” Wilson said Monday. “I have to take care of my family and (legal fees are) an awful lot of money. I don’t know what else to say. Is (pleading guilty) something I wanted to do? No. I’m trying to get on with my life. If the city is telling me I can’t work around kids, that’s fine, I don’t have to. I have nothing inside of me that tells me I have to work with kids.”

2013 Apr 06: Norton guilty of sexual harrassment

Extracts of an article by Greg Bolt | Appeared in print: Saturday, April 6, 2013, page B1

“… Ronald Valatt Norton, 52, was placed on court probation for two years, ordered to pay $412 in restitution and was ordered to undergo counseling. … Norton and his wife were hosting the female exchange student, who was attending high school here through a program sponsored by Rotary International. But in October the girl received word that her grandfather had died, and she became extremely distraught. … The couple tried to console her and the girl eventually fell asleep in the couple’s bed with them, Hasselman said. That night, he said, Norton touched the girl improperly and she fled to her own room. … After contacting her parents via the Internet, the girl reported the incident to Rotary officials and was immediately removed from the home. She is now with a new host family and continuing her program, a Rotary official said. … Norton originally was charged with third-degree sexual abuse, but he agreed to plead guilty to the lesser harassment charge to avoid a trial.”

The entire article may be found at the Register Guard

2014 Dec 05: Young and State enter plea bargain to avoid another trial

According to the 2012 appeal, in the autumn of 2007 a foreign exchange student from South-Korea came forward and accused Richard Young, his host-father, of sexual abuse.

Young had hosted students several times through the exchange organization, Face The World Foundation (FTWF). He was the host-parent of this exchange student. Before arrival the two had contact and the student claimed Young “was obsessed with the sexual interests by teenagers.” At one time the student had been asked to send nude photograph of himself to Young. Upon arrival, August 1, Young continued talking about masturbation and teen sex. The first evening the student was given vaseline and tissue and encouraged the student to masturbate.

The talk about sex was kept up and Young kept on asking the student if he was gay. After grooming the student, Young touched the student’s genitals. At that time the boy was told to undress. They both laid down naked, and Young continued to touch the boy. Young told the boy not to speak to anyone of what had happened.

Young instigated another fondling session. This time the student was able to tell Young that he did not want this kind of behavior to continue. After that Young stopped.

At school, the exchange student’s behavior changed. The older exchange student also living with Young claimed the boy must be bipolar. So, that is what the boy said of his changed behavior. The boy did not speak of what had happened. Groomed people seldom do. The school became more and more concerned and contacted FTWF. Chaple sent the student to a psychologist. After that the exchange organization decided the student must return to South-Korea.

The exchange organization sent the student out of Kansas, and he stayed in Philadelphia with a friend of his family. The exchange organization representative, Connie Chaple,  told the exchange student he had to leave the country in two weeks. They boy told his father about the abuse and the father advised the student to get a lawyer.

However, Young was arrested and his house searched. Young was a frequent visitor of Asian gay and hetero porn sites. Young did not speak up in his own defence. He was convicted of three counts of indecent liberties with a child and one count of indecent solicitation of a child.

In 2011 Young appealed the conviction and February 2012 it was overturned. Young claimed evidence regarding his earlier abuse of three step-sons had been wrongfully admitted. The Judge overturned the 2008 verdict because of improperly admitted evidence.

The State Attorney sought a review of the decision with the Kansas Supreme Court. According to Fred Gough with Hutchinson News, Kansas Supreme Court summarily reverse the 2012 ruling and sent the case back to the Court of Appeals. To avoid a new trial, a plea deal was entered December 2014 and Richard Young completed his sentence November 2014.

2005: Conviction of sexual abusers of exchange students USA

This article by Wright and Aratani addresses the problem of background controls and the need for exchange organization to take their exchange students seriously when they complain. Finally, exchange organizations (sponsors) had to keep a record on sexual abuse cases. Sometimes they do, but often they don’t. The entire article can be read at:

Washington Post

By Robin Wright and Lori Aratani | August 12, 2005

Andrew Powers of Germantown admitted to sex offenses. (Montgomery Co. Police Dept. – Montgomery Co. Police Dept.) Yet the rules could not have prevented three cases of abuse now in the courts.

Gaithersburg High School biology teacher Andrew Powers sneaked into the bedroom of the 17-year-old German girl living with his family in the middle of the night last December and tried to get her to perform oral sex, according to a police affidavit. When his wife wasn’t home, Powers also “frequently” roamed the house naked in front of the student, the affidavit adds. Powers, who has resigned, is to be sentenced next week after pleading guilty to second-degree assault and fourth-degree sexual offenses. His attorney declined to comment.

The host father of a 16-year-old German girl in Plainwell, Mich., was charged in April with installing hidden cameras in her bedroom, first under her blankets, then in a dollhouse, to capture her naked. Dale Lacoss will be sentenced this month after pleading guilty to distributing the image of an unclothed person and possession of child sexually abusive material.

And this week, the coordinator for foreign exchange students in Sherwood, Ark., was charged with first-degree sexual assault for rape of three male European exchange students over the past year. In one case, during his wife’s absence, Doyle Meyer Jr. held a slumber party for students, provided them with alcohol and then masturbated one of the minors against his will, according to the police affidavit. The student was reluctant to file charges until he heard about others Meyer allegedly molested.

Meyer could not be reached for comment.

Foreign students are among the most vulnerable minors because they usually do not know U.S. laws, are unfamiliar with customs, are dependent on host families or sponsors, don’t know what to do when abused or are afraid to act, according to Lt. Frank Baker of the Allegan County Sheriff’s Office, who has been involved in the Michigan case.

“For a predator, this is the ideal situation,” Baker said.

Frank Swiderski’s abuse of a 17-year-old Vietnamese exchange student was detected in 2003, when an Eastlake, Ohio, police officer lectured to the boy’s health class about sexual assault. The student asked if the practices by his host father — nude massages, fondling and forcing him to shave Swiderski’s pubic hair — were normal. … At Swiderski’s home, police found photos of nude boys — many of whom appeared to be exchange students and some pictured with the former high school teacher — that dated to the 1970s…

Most cases reported in recent years involve host parents or personnel with sponsoring agencies.

In March 2004, California social studies teacher Peter Ruzzo was sentenced to three years in prison for having sex with a 15-year-old German student living in his home. Ruzzo told the victim “when he saw her foreign-exchange photo that he considered it a challenge, even before she got here, to have sex with her,” …

The State Department decided that publishing the regulations was worthwhile even if they do not eliminate the problem. …

Some groups, such as Bethesda-based Youth for Understanding, have been doing background checks for years. YFU uses the Internet to do a name check of all host family members. But Reed Rago, YFU’s director of development, conceded that the system is not foolproof.

Because there is no database, “we’re going to make our best effort to find out one way or another,” he said. …

In 2003, David Goodhead of Riverside, Calif., pleaded guilty to abusing a 16-year-old Danish student living with him during a trip to Yosemite National Park. Goodhead was sentenced to 36 months’ probation and a $1,500 fine.

In July 2004, Rotary Club exchange student coordinator James Anthony Dillon was sentenced to 30 months’ probation, with 18 months’ home confinement with an electronic monitor and a $2,000 fine, for three acts of molestation of a 17-year-old European student. As in many cases eventually reported, an American third party went to authorities.

2009 Jun 29: Boskatt sentenced for forgery and theft from exchange student

Article written by Tasha Kates in 2006 about a town that takes responsibility for a host-mother’s theft and forgery of exchange student’s money. It shows just how very important it is for outsiders to keep an eye on exchange students while they stay with their host-families.

Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

… Nigina Khamidova’s … an exchange student from Tashkent, Uzbekistan, … a victim of forgery and petit larceny at the hands of her host mother. … Ranelle Boskat … took a plea deal last week. …

Boskat was charged May 31 with two counts each of second-degree forgery and petit larceny. … The stolen checks came to light after one day when Khamidova was stranded at Lockport High School for five hours. The student said it wasn’t unusual for her to have trouble getting to and from school; Khamidova and the Boskats moved to North Tonawanda during the school year and she had to be driven to school each day. … After a call from Boskat, Champagne dropped by and got Khamidova that night. The neighbor learned that Khamidova had not seen any of the local sights during her months-long stay with the Boskats. … A few days later, she spoke to AYUSA and Khamidova came to live with her. She later revealed that she had only seen one of her pocket money checks during her entire time in the United States. … She was reportedly told that the checks never came. Without a contact number for a student exchange group or for the Uzbekistan embassy, Khamidova wasn’t sure who to tell about the checks. … After some prodding by Champagne, the exchange group sent a check for more than $900 to cover the money taken by Boskat.

Things have been looking up for Khamidova ever since. She and Champagne’s family have spent time trying different foods, shopping for clothes and presents for her family and visiting the county’s sites. Khamidova went to the prom with friends last week and went through a graduation ceremony with her fellow seniors. …

Read the entire article at Lockport Journal

2001 Jan 13: Gault convicted of sexual abuse

Robert Gault was sentenced for sexually abusing a foreign exchange student in what was clearly a repeat action. Another former exchange student also told her story of sexual abuse. Has this happened to even more of the 12 exchange students who had lived with Robert Gault’s family? Support for the perpetrator is common in sexual abuse cases.

The Chicago Tribune

By Art Barnum | 2001 January 13

A former Wayne village trustee convicted of sexually abusing a foreign exchange student was sentenced … after a second student testified that she also had been abused by the official.

Robert Gault, 58, also received 36 months’ probation … the 17-year-old girl testified that when she sat at a family computer, Gault sat behind her and inappropriately touched and rubbed her.

Gault … claimed they were “innocent accidental brushes.” … DuPage prosecutors questioned a Finnish foreign exchange student who had stayed at the Gault home about five years ago. …

She testified that one evening while she was watching television, Gault sat next to her, rubbed her back and started kissing her neck and placed his hand under her bra. … Gault’s defense attorney, placed six of Gault’s friends on the witness stand to testify to his “good character,” … about 40 letters of support for Gault from neighbors and friends were given to Judge George Bakalis.

Read the entire article at Chicago Tribune