***DENIED!*** Our First Case. Let's Keep PedophileDonald Scott Brunstetter in prison!

See below links for more information about Coffey.

Write to:
Chairman Charles L. Mann Sr.
NC Post Release Supervision & Parole Commission
P.O. Box 29540
Raleigh, NC 27626-0540
RE: Fred Howard Coffey, DOC# 0081135
or send an email to parole@doc.state.nc.us

LINKS:

http://justice4amanda.tripod.com/


Neely Smith, age 5, murdered 1981, NC - Suspect: Fred Howard Coffey Jr. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Respectfully snipped .. Two emails sent to the above address requesting NO PAROLE for the above referenced inmate.

Hopefully he will be refused again. Thank you for your perseverance, Richard.
 
I sent mine also!
We need to continue doing this!
Wishing only good things for you and your daughter Lisa!
 
How can they even consider Parole?
I mean Hello!!!!! Wake up ppl!
 
How can they even consider Parole?
I mean Hello!!!!! Wake up ppl!

Excellent question. Here is how it came about that Coffey has come to be up for Parole:

Fred Coffey was arrested in 1986 in Charlotte, NC. Prosecutors wanted to charge him with the 1979 murder of little Amanda Ray (age 10). They also had evidence that he had molested three children earlier in 1986.

It was decided for some reason to hold two separate trials, the first being for the multiple molestations. Coffey was seen by different Psychiatrists prior to the trial and he attempted to get lenient treatment by claiming to have a "problem". He admitted to the court appointed psychiatrist that he had molested "over 100" children over the years.

In his first trial, Coffey was found guilty of three separate charges in regard to molestation of each of the three children - a total of nine counts. He was sentenced to a specific number of years for each of those nine charges.

With the first trial over, Coffey remained in jail prior to, and throughout the next trial. He was charged with the murder of Amanda Ray, and convicted in 1987. He was sentenced to Death.

On appeal, Coffey was granted a second trial in the murder of Amanda Ray, and again he was found guilty. Again he was sentenced to Death.

Coffey and his lawyers appealed again and this time, they claimed that because the prosecution had introduced all the evidence regarding his molestation convictions and his admissions to having molested others, that this "prejudiced" the jurors against him.

The Defense claimed that the molestations had taken place AFTER Amanda's murder. Using their convoluted logic, Coffey MIGHT have only become a molester in 1986, and that his molesting of children in 1986 would not necessarily indicate that he would KILL someone in 1979. Therefor, they asked for a retrial, this time NOT allowing the jurors to hear of any convictions or evidence regarding child molestation.

A Third trial was held for Coffey with a new jury. Once again, he was found guilty of killing Amanda. But in the sentencing phase, previous convictions for - and admissions of child molestation were left out.

Ten out of the twelve jurors voted for the Death sentence, but two jurors held out, believing that the murder of Amanda was a "one time" step over the line for Coffey. The sentence became "Life in Prison" in 1995, and because he had been in Prison for 19 years at that time, he became automatically elligible for Parole - by North Carolina law.

And since then, Coffey has periodically come up for parole - at first, every year, but since 2009 it has been every three years.

Coffey has been a model prisoner with no offenses committed since his 1986 arrest. Law enforcement and prosecutors in Charlotte have attempted to charge him with the 1981 murder of five-year-old Neely Smith, but no trial has ever taken place. Prosecutors in Bristol, Virginia have attempted to charge Coffey with the murder of eight-year-old Travis Shane King, but again no trial has been held.
 
Lisa,
Thank you for allowing us to help in seeing this predator STAY WHERE HE BELONGS thus allowing Lauren the time to continue to heal and become stronger from the inside out by doing the very hard and painstaking process that working through this involves.. making sure to relieve herself of any and all shame, guilt, and self blame that this predator has sentenced her to.. that is only a portion of what makes this so blood boiling infuriating.. that he has placed a hold on your beautiful young daughter.. and has in a way very much "sentenced" her to a lifetime of having to deal with, learn to cope, and continually work at overcoming the lifelong negative effects that she, by absolutely no fault of her own has had heaped upon her by him..

And to think for a moment that he has the opportunity to be released early from his sentence?!?....well what about Lauren's "sentence" who isn't only guilty of NOTHING, she is a complete INNOCENT who has been "sentenced" to lifelong effects!. WHERE THE HELL IS LAUREN'S EARLY RELEASE? WHERE THE HELL IS REPRIEVE OFFFRED TO LAUREN FOR WHAT SHE HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO BY DONALD'S EVIL CHOICES?

I know I'm not alone in my continual disgust of how our system seems to very much work for the criminals far more than it does for their victims.. their rights are always being made certain to never in any way whatsoever be "violated"..when the victims and survivors of their heinous crimes are pretty much on their own with their entire lives and souls having been "violated" in the truest sense of the word violated..no reprieve offered to them.. no lighter sentence...no end period to what the predator has forever left as their mark on those who've survived the evil criminal behaviors, actions, abuses of those just like Donald Brunstetter..

I could go on and on as many are keenly aware that I'm known to do:blushing:..but I'll cut myself off here and get started on my letters that will hopefully help to ensure that atleast as far as this predator..this pedophilic criminal, Donald Brunstetter is concerned.. that we'll ensure he is given no reprieve nor lighter sentence awarded to him.. hopefully with all of us banded together we can make a difference in seeing him atleast spend his full sentence behind bars!
I do have a question of concern of how exactly he is even being able to be eligible for parole? In what little I've been able to read in the last hour I see according to Maryland's laws and statutes that his being found GUILTY of second degree sexual offense that it carries a MANDATORY MINIMUM OF 15 YEARS! MANDATORY MINIMUM is exactly what it says it is.. it is MANDATORY that he serve the minimum 15 year sentence and therefore NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE OR EARLY RELEASE.. So exactly how is Brunstetter even being made eligible to be up for a parole hearing when only having served what a mere 25% of his MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE OF 15 YEARS?! ?

I did a little digging to make sure that it is indeed correct that this is a mandatory minimum in Maryland and everything I've found states that second degree sexual offense(statute code 27. 464A) carries the mandatory minimum 15 year sentence.. so, how is this even being considered? ..

Here's a snipped quote from Maryland statutes and laws:
Sexual offense second degree-[27. 464A statute code]
Prohibited.- A person may not engage in a sexual act with another:

(1) by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other;

(2) if the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the sexual act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual; or

(3) if the victim is under the age of 14 years, and the person performing the sexual act is at least 4 years older than the victim.

(b) Age considerations.- A person 18 years of age or older may not violate subsection (a)(1) or (2) of this section involving a child under the age of 13 years.

(c) Penalty.-

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person who violates this section is guilty of the felony of sexual offense in the second degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 20 years.

(2) (i) Subject to subparagraph (iv) of this paragraph, a person 18 years of age or older who violates subsection (b) of this section is guilty of the felony of sexual offense in the second degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment for not less than 15 years and not exceeding life.

(ii) A court may not suspend any part of the mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years.

(iii) The person is not eligible for parole during the mandatory minimum sentence.


(iv) If the State fails to comply with subsection (d) of this section, the mandatory minimum shall not apply.

(d) Required notice.- If the State intends to seek a sentence of imprisonment for not less than 15 years under subsection (c)(2) of this section, the State shall notify the person in writing of the State's intention at least 30 days before trial.

[An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 464A; 2002, ch. 26, § 2; 2006 Sp. Sess., ch. 4; 2007, chs. 494, 495; 2010, chs. 174, 175, 180, 181.]
Above BBM for emphasis on this being a 15 year mandatory minimum with his being NOT ELIGIBLE for parole or early release of any kind.. wth?

Just whenever you have time Lisa to reply because I'm quite certain that youll inform me that his attys have found a loophole to get him out of this supposed MANDATORY MINIMUM 15 YEAR SENTENCE.. :devil:
 
Lisa,
Thank you for allowing us to help in seeing this predator STAY WHERE HE BELONGS thus allowing Lauren the time to continue to heal and become stronger from the inside out by doing the very hard and painstaking process that working through this involves.. making sure to relieve herself of any and all shame, guilt, and self blame that this predator has sentenced her to.. that is only a portion of what makes this so blood boiling infuriating.. that he has placed a hold on your beautiful young daughter.. and has in a way very much "sentenced" her to a lifetime of having to deal with, learn to cope, and continually work at overcoming the lifelong negative effects that she, by absolutely no fault of her own has had heaped upon her by him..

And to think for a moment that he has the opportunity to be released early from his sentence?!?....well what about Lauren's "sentence" who isn't only guilty of NOTHING, she is a complete INNOCENT who has been "sentenced" to lifelong effects!. WHERE THE HELL IS LAUREN'S EARLY RELEASE? WHERE THE HELL IS REPRIEVE OFFFRED TO LAUREN FOR WHAT SHE HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO BY DONALD'S EVIL CHOICES?

I know I'm not alone in my continual disgust of how our system seems to very much work for the criminals far more than it does for their victims.. their rights are always being made certain to never in any way whatsoever be "violated"..when the victims and survivors of their heinous crimes are pretty much on their own with their entire lives and souls having been "violated" in the truest sense of the word violated..no reprieve offered to them.. no lighter sentence...no end period to what the predator has forever left as their mark on those who've survived the evil criminal behaviors, actions, abuses of those just like Donald Brunstetter..

I could go on and on as many are keenly aware that I'm known to do:blushing:..but I'll cut myself off here and get started on my letters that will hopefully help to ensure that atleast as far as this predator..this pedophilic criminal, Donald Brunstetter is concerned.. that we'll ensure he is given no reprieve nor lighter sentence awarded to him.. hopefully with all of us banded together we can make a difference in seeing him atleast spend his full sentence behind bars!
I do have a question of concern of how exactly he is even being able to be eligible for parole? In what little I've been able to read in the last hour I see according to Maryland's laws and statutes that his being found GUILTY of second degree sexual offense that it carries a MANDATORY MINIMUM OF 15 YEARS! MANDATORY MINIMUM is exactly what it says it is.. it is MANDATORY that he serve the minimum 15 year sentence and therefore NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE OR EARLY RELEASE.. So exactly how is Brunstetter even being made eligible to be up for a parole hearing when only having served what a mere 25% of his MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE OF 15 YEARS?! ?

I did a little digging to make sure that it is indeed correct that this is a mandatory minimum in Maryland and everything I've found states that second degree sexual offense(statute code 27. 464A) carries the mandatory minimum 15 year sentence.. so, how is this even being considered? ..

Here's a snipped quote from Maryland statutes and laws:

Above BBM for emphasis on this being a 15 year mandatory minimum with his being NOT ELIGIBLE for parole or early release of any kind.. wth?

Just whenever you have time Lisa to reply because I'm quite certain that youll inform me that his attys have found a loophole to get him out of this supposed MANDATORY MINIMUM 15 YEAR SENTENCE.. :devil:

The answer to your question would be section d: required notice.

If they didn't give the required notice, then the mandatory minimum doesn't apply. I imagine the reason would be that the offence allegedly took place many years earlier, the accused denied it plus there was no evidence other than the victims allegations. Unfortunately it is not uncommon for allegations like these to surface during or after contentious divorces, and that tends to cloud the water considerably. The prosecution could not be sure of a conviction. Allthough juries will usually convict on an allegation alone if an accused is charged, sometimes they don't and there is allways the possibility the allegation is false for various reasons. I imagine that if they were to give notice that they intended to ask for the mandatory minimum, the standard of proof that would be required would be higher. Presumably that proof wasn't there, and the prosecution had to rely on emotional arguments rather than factual arguments to win their case. Therefore they didn't serve notice as required by law.

When it comes to parole the primary consideration will the risk of reoffence. If the applicant has a clean record while in prison, has entered into programs while in prison, and doesn't have a record before the conviction, then there is no real reason to deny parole. Possibly he won't get it on the first attempt but sooner or later he will. Parole will likely continue for the remainder of his sentence, so it sounds like he will be monitored for many years to come if he is granted parole. If this guy doesn't present a special risk (after all, he apparently went crime free for the five years after the divorce until the allegation was made, and I assume wasn't pursueing the victim during that time) then why should he be kept in prison for life?
 
Lisa,
I just wanted to let you know I just sent off my email requesting denying of parole of Donald Scott Brunstetter.

My prayers are with you and Lauren. :grouphug:
 
Letter sent for Amanda Marie Ray and all the victims of Fred Coffee. :grouphug:
 
Both email and good ol snail mail have been sent re:Brunstetter.. looking forward to hearing there was a firm denial in his hearing attempting to have approval for early release/parole.. how about our system follow through with the guidelines of sentencing those convicted of a crime which carries a MANDATORY MINIMUM sentence.. otherwise really what is even the point of having sentencing guidelines that were established to keep those convicted FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR SENTENCE?? ..moo the MANDATORY MINIMUM in theory would be quite a deterrent in knowing that they could not be released so much as even a single day early from their full sentence.. but it certainly appears as tho the MANDATORY MINIMUM IS NOT MANDATORY AT ALL.. Arrrgghh!
 
I just sent emails LisaB and Richard. This is a good thing & glad this thread was started. Keep them locked up!
 
And I've alread rec'd a reply re: Donald S. Brunstetter. LisaB, I'm so sorry your daughter had to experience this.

"Thank you for your letter. It will be in file for review by hearing officer and commissioner."
 
Lisa,
Thank you for allowing us to help in seeing this predator STAY WHERE HE BELONGS thus allowing Lauren the time to continue to heal and become stronger from the inside out by doing the very hard and painstaking process that working through this involves.. making sure to relieve herself of any and all shame, guilt, and self blame that this predator has sentenced her to.. that is only a portion of what makes this so blood boiling infuriating.. that he has placed a hold on your beautiful young daughter.. and has in a way very much "sentenced" her to a lifetime of having to deal with, learn to cope, and continually work at overcoming the lifelong negative effects that she, by absolutely no fault of her own has had heaped upon her by him..

And to think for a moment that he has the opportunity to be released early from his sentence?!?....well what about Lauren's "sentence" who isn't only guilty of NOTHING, she is a complete INNOCENT who has been "sentenced" to lifelong effects!. WHERE THE HELL IS LAUREN'S EARLY RELEASE? WHERE THE HELL IS REPRIEVE OFFFRED TO LAUREN FOR WHAT SHE HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO BY DONALD'S EVIL CHOICES?

I know I'm not alone in my continual disgust of how our system seems to very much work for the criminals far more than it does for their victims.. their rights are always being made certain to never in any way whatsoever be "violated"..when the victims and survivors of their heinous crimes are pretty much on their own with their entire lives and souls having been "violated" in the truest sense of the word violated..no reprieve offered to them.. no lighter sentence...no end period to what the predator has forever left as their mark on those who've survived the evil criminal behaviors, actions, abuses of those just like Donald Brunstetter..

I could go on and on as many are keenly aware that I'm known to do:blushing:..but I'll cut myself off here and get started on my letters that will hopefully help to ensure that atleast as far as this predator..this pedophilic criminal, Donald Brunstetter is concerned.. that we'll ensure he is given no reprieve nor lighter sentence awarded to him.. hopefully with all of us banded together we can make a difference in seeing him atleast spend his full sentence behind bars!
I do have a question of concern of how exactly he is even being able to be eligible for parole? In what little I've been able to read in the last hour I see according to Maryland's laws and statutes that his being found GUILTY of second degree sexual offense that it carries a MANDATORY MINIMUM OF 15 YEARS! MANDATORY MINIMUM is exactly what it says it is.. it is MANDATORY that he serve the minimum 15 year sentence and therefore NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE OR EARLY RELEASE.. So exactly how is Brunstetter even being made eligible to be up for a parole hearing when only having served what a mere 25% of his MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE OF 15 YEARS?! ?

I did a little digging to make sure that it is indeed correct that this is a mandatory minimum in Maryland and everything I've found states that second degree sexual offense(statute code 27. 464A) carries the mandatory minimum 15 year sentence.. so, how is this even being considered? ..

Here's a snipped quote from Maryland statutes and laws:

Above BBM for emphasis on this being a 15 year mandatory minimum with his being NOT ELIGIBLE for parole or early release of any kind.. wth?

Just whenever you have time Lisa to reply because I'm quite certain that youll inform me that his attys have found a loophole to get him out of this supposed MANDATORY MINIMUM 15 YEAR SENTENCE.. :devil:

Thank you. Everything you said here really hits home.The problem is that Donnie was charged in 2007 according to the current statutes. His attorneys must have been aware of the mandatory minimum (I wasn't) and they demanded that he be tried and sentenced according to the laws in place at the time of the "alleged" assaults, which changed everything. The judge had to convert all the charges to that the equivalent 2002 statutes most nearly equivalent to the 2007 statutes. I presume the mandatory minimum, like civil confinement are new. Fortunately, I believe the civil confinement is an older law (2005?) that just hasn't been used. It IS on the books, and people need to be aware of it and have it applied to people like him.
 
The answer to your question would be section d: required notice.

If they didn't give the required notice, then the mandatory minimum doesn't apply. I imagine the reason would be that the offence allegedly took place many years earlier, the accused denied it plus there was no evidence other than the victims allegations. Unfortunately it is not uncommon for allegations like these to surface during or after contentious divorces, and that tends to cloud the water considerably. The prosecution could not be sure of a conviction. Allthough juries will usually convict on an allegation alone if an accused is charged, sometimes they don't and there is allways the possibility the allegation is false for various reasons. I imagine that if they were to give notice that they intended to ask for the mandatory minimum, the standard of proof that would be required would be higher. Presumably that proof wasn't there, and the prosecution had to rely on emotional arguments rather than factual arguments to win their case. Therefore they didn't serve notice as required by law.

When it comes to parole the primary consideration will the risk of reoffence. If the applicant has a clean record while in prison, has entered into programs while in prison, and doesn't have a record before the conviction, then there is no real reason to deny parole. Possibly he won't get it on the first attempt but sooner or later he will. Parole will likely continue for the remainder of his sentence, so it sounds like he will be monitored for many years to come if he is granted parole. If this guy doesn't present a special risk (after all, he apparently went crime free for the five years after the divorce until the allegation was made, and I assume wasn't pursueing the victim during that time) then why should he be kept in prison for life?

He did get 15 year sentences on each of several counts, however the judge suspended the majority of the 45 year sentence. He will be on parole/probation for 5 years after his release. We have reason to believe that Lauren was not the only victim, but his arrest was never mentioned in the press so nobody else came forward. His prior convictions include selling cocaine to an undercover officer and numerous assaults, breaking and entering, violation of probation, DUI, obstructing & hindering, and trespassing. He was not CAUGHT committing a crime for 5 years, however that could be because he was in the habit of telling any LE who asked for him that he was not home. I finally asked them to take along his photo and to see if the guy who kept saying Donnie wasn't there was him, and the next day they "found" him. It also turns out that after the divorce, he began using MY maiden name as his last name. This may have caused enough confusion to keep him from being arrested, but I don't know for sure.
 
We were negatively impacted by some of Lauren's personal correspondence via mySpace, as the attorney's subpoeanaed same. These were messages written in her early teens, NOT at the time the crime was committed, therefore the introduction of the material contained therein seemed irrelevent to us. They twisted what she had on the site to suggest she was a "delinquent". She was banned (by me) from facebook when I saw her page, 3 years BEFORE his trial, and she had not been on since, even to delete anything that could pose a problem for the prosecution. Her last status update was "Let's Do The Time Warp Again". a reference to a song/dance from The Rocky Horror Picture Show. His attorneys insisted she was delusionsal, and probably using psychedelic drugs, leading her to believe she had the power to influence time and space. This was just ONE of the many ridiculous things they tried. If I ever am charged with a crime, I want those slimy lawyers in my corner.

We were also disappointed to learn that, despite her having told several "Mandatory Reporters" (her psychiatrist, her school nurse, her school guidance counselor, the principal, the vice principal, and two teachers) I was the only person to report what had happened. Obviously this weakened our position, as it appeared we "lied" about her having told these people. Since they WERE Mandatory Reporters, it was posited that, if there was no report from them, she must not have told them.
 
I just wanted you to know that I did receive a response to my email...

Thanks for your input. We will add this to others for review on this case.
 
Both email and good ol snail mail have been sent re:Brunstetter.. looking forward to hearing there was a firm denial in his hearing attempting to have approval for early release/parole.. how about our system follow through with the guidelines of sentencing those convicted of a crime which carries a MANDATORY MINIMUM sentence.. otherwise really what is even the point of having sentencing guidelines that were established to keep those convicted FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR SENTENCE?? ..moo the MANDATORY MINIMUM in theory would be quite a deterrent in knowing that they could not be released so much as even a single day early from their full sentence.. but it certainly appears as tho the MANDATORY MINIMUM IS NOT MANDATORY AT ALL.. Arrrgghh!

That Mandatory Minimum is a 2010 law. His crimes occurred in 2000-2002, he was charged in 2007, convicted 2008. So it doesn't apply. I asked the parole commission to clarify, quoting the section of the criminal code you provided.
 
I, too received a reply email from both Blumberg and Ogle stating that my letter would be added to the file that is read and taken into consideration during the deliberations of the Commissioners re:Brunstetters early release.. Ruth Ann Ogle did however also take the time to explain to me why the MANDATORY MINIMUM statute did not apply in Brunstetters case...just as you posted earlier the reason is that this MAN-MIN statute did not go into effect until 10/1/2010..

I'll be praying for both you and Lauren in these upcoming weeks that God allow you both to be at peace about the difficult, yet necessary task of making this trip and ensuring Lauren's voice be heard loud and crystal clear to those whose job it is to deliberate and decide Brunstetter's immediate future...and that God allow the words to flow freely expressing just what it is that you want to express before these Commissioners ..

:heartbeat:
Jess
 
That's wonderful that you are receiving replies. Hopefully they are listening.

Keep it up and thank you so much for helping keep this predator behind bars.

Tricia
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
190
Guests online
3,951
Total visitors
4,141

Forum statistics

Threads
591,836
Messages
17,959,820
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top