July 12, 2005, 07:14<notalawyer>
WACO � A man has been sentenced to 99 years in prison for stealing a cell phone.
Glenn Alvin Reed, 31, was convicted of robbery Thursday for stealing a cellular phone from a man's truck last fall and then hitting him several times when he demanded its return.
Jurors, who deliberated about 15 minutes, convicted Reed as a habitual criminal because he has prior felony convictions for injury to an elderly person and robbery. That bumped the minimum sentence from five to 25 years for Reed, who rejected a 15-year plea bargain offer from prosecutors.
Reed also has 15 misdemeanor convictions dating to 1991, including 12 criminal trespassing convictions.
Reed, who testified during his trial against the wishes of his court-appointed attorneys, frequently went into profanity-laced tirades and told jurors he didn't care if they gave him life in prison.
"There's things I choose to do, like, if I go in a store and choose to take a Snicker's bar," Reed testified. "If you catch me, you catch me. If not, I'm going to go home and eat it up and go on about my business, dog."
Four years ago, Reed walked up behind retired Texas Ranger Capt. Bob Prince outside the McLennan County courthouse annex and said he was robbing him. Prince decided not to shoot Reed because he could tell he was unarmed, the former Ranger testified during Reed's cell phone robbery trial.
Prince easily took Reed into custody, and he later was sentenced to two years in prison, according to court records.
Reed made an obscene hand gesture toward Prince as the former Ranger left the witness stand.
Would you rather that some officer wait and respond to the case in which that defendant kills someone or provokes a shooting of himself?
He was not sentenced to life for theft of a single cell phone. A jury made a deliberate and well-supported decision to protect society from a man who:
-is a violent
-who has not been rehabilitated by at least two prior trips to prison.
I guarantee his prison sentence will save a life and the pain and suffering of many people.
And, by the way, given the rising parole rate, he is likely to come up for early release in as little as five years. Real tough.
[This message was edited by John Bradley on 07-12-05 at .]
July 12, 2005, 09:05Toby Shook
I'd say the jury got it just right. The defendant's comments clearly show he cares nothing for our laws and will continue to violate them when ever he chooses. Let him do it in prison.
Hats off to the prosecutors who tried him and the jury that hammered him
July 12, 2005, 10:37Terry Breen
If you think about it, the jury was more lenient than he asked for. He said he didn't care if they gave him life. Instead of giving him Life, the jury only gave him 99 years.
I think even Sen. Whitmire would agree that was a very decerning, and moderate jury.
BTW: he did not get 99 years for stealing a phone. He got 99 years for robbery.
July 12, 2005, 12:11<notalawyer>
Hey, I was just quoting the headline.
I agree that they got it right. I just want to know what your opinion was.
Also, I loved the quote��dog�.
It's never a good idea to a) call the jury "Dog", b) curse while you're testifying, and c) flip off your last victim.
This defendant showed his utter disrespect for the jury and the law, and it's just too bad they'll parole him out way too soon on this sentence.
July 12, 2005, 14:48w.d. willis
It would also be inadvisable for a defendant or any family thereof to curse the Judge or Jury Members After Verdict in the Guilt Phase AND prior to Sentencing.....
Seen it before... it ain't pretty!
But it does reinforce Darwinism!
So where exactly is the overkill? Just looks like a defendant whose last crime would not have happened unless he had received several prior opportunities at rehabilitation and totally wasted them.
Likewise, my salute to the jury who was able to properly sentence the defendant, and to the prosecutors who tried him.
Nothing like a defendant "sitting second chair to the State" and helping the State show he deserved every day he received of the 99 years. I'm sure there was some head shaking going on by his counsel as the defendant really showed the jury how intelligent he is.
I'm sure he'll file a writ for ineffective assistance.
July 25, 2005, 14:42Trey Hill
I only WISH I could have a defendant behave like this in trial!
July 25, 2005, 16:31Robert S. DuBoise
You just need to learn how to goad them properly. Rumor has it that the now Hon. Belinda Hill, when she was a Harris County Prosecutor in the 337th, had a Defendant tell her "You point your finger at me one more time and I'm coming over the table after you." In closing--the ever fearless Ms. Hill walked right over to the Defendant and pointed at him repeatedly. True to his word--he came over the table after her.
July 26, 2005, 08:23jsboone
In a recently-tried Harris County murder case, the victim's last words were, "Aww, don't shoot me, Dog."
"Dog" must not be the magic word.
July 26, 2005, 10:00JohnR
Isn't the problem that the article misses the distinction between theft and robbery? This guy was convicted of robbery. Whenever the media or ACLU doesn't like a robbery sentence, they always frame the issue as "so and so got life for stealing a twinkie." Robbery is a far more serious offense than mere theft.
If this guy had merely picked up the cell phone without assaulting the prior owner, he would not have gotten hammered like that. By framing the issue in this dishonest way, the paper has really caused much mischief.