A 132nd District Court jury basically split the difference when assessing punishment for a Snyder man convicted of evading arrest with a vehicle.
Shortly after entering the second day of deliberation over punishment for Joel Silva, 33, who was convicted of evading Department of Public Safety Trooper Israel Perez on May 19, the jury sentenced Silva to 11 years in state prison this morning.
Faced with a possible punishment range of between two and 20 years in prison, the jury met in the middle.
“That’s one of the more unusual verdicts I’ve seen,” District Attorney Ben Smith said. “Eleven years is halfway between two and 20 years.”
Smith expressed satisfaction with the sentence.
“I’m pleased with the decision,” he said, “and I believe it sends the message that we take the offense of evading law enforcement very seriously.”
The jury’s quick decision today — they reached a verdict less than 30 minutes after reconvening this morning — was in stark contrast to Wednesday’s deliberations.
The five-man, seven-woman jury deliberated for more than five hours Wednesday without reaching a consensus before District Judge Ernie Armstrong took the unusual step of “separating” — or temporarily dismissing — them for the evening shortly after 10 p.m.
Earlier in the day, the jury had found Silva guilty of the third-degree felony, which was enhanced to second-degree felony punishment status.
However, after retiring to determine punishment shortly before 5 p.m., the jury proved unable to reach a verdict Wednesday. Finally, Armstrong received a note from the jury foreman at 10:10 p.m. stating that one of the jurors was feeling unwell and the judge decided to separate them for the night.
Normally, jurors remain together until a decision is reached.
Smith asked the jury to assess the maximum sentence during closing arguments earlier in the day.
Noting that Silva has 13 prior convictions, including two prior felonies, for a variety of offenses on his criminal record, Smith argued that the defendant did not deserve a light sentence.
“You’ve been told that the punishment should fit the crime, but that doesn’t apply when you’re faced with a defendant who, for the past 16 years, has continuously broken the law. In this case, the punishment should fit the defendant,” Smith said. “Give him 20 years. That’s the only way to make sure he’s not going to keep breaking the law. Those are the cold, hard facts.”
In contrast, defense attorney Chris Hartman asked the jury to take a more lenient approach to punishment.
“This is Mr. Silva’s criminal history,” Hartman said, pointing to the previous convictions laying on the jury bar. “I expect the state will get up here and say that this is his life, but it’s only part of his life.”
Pointing to family members who had testified for the defendant earlier, Hartman argued that there was much more to Silva’s life than his criminal record.
“They all testified about what a good man he is, and how much he cares for his family,” he said. “Consider what you saw and heard during this crime and ask yourself if the punishment fits the crime.”
Smith countered by saying that if the jury had sympathy for Silva’s family, they would assess a harsher penalty.
“I have sympathy for the defendant’s family, for his children, because of the situations the defendant has put them in, because of the decisions he’s made since he was 17,” Smith said. “All of those decisions have culminated in where we are today.”
Image
Body