Sometimes, Common Sense Works…On Both Ends

One of the reasons why judges have traditionally had discretion in sentencing defendents convicted of crimes is because they are able to review the specifics of the case such as his/her actual intent, wheather anyone was hurt as a result, and the defendent’s previous criminal record, if any.  Unfortunately, legislatures wanting to appear tough on crime have taken much of that discretion away with the advent of  mandatory mimimum sentencing for certain crimes, mostly those involving drugs and firearms.  While the intent is generally good, there are situations where the result is not.

A perfect example of this came recently in the case of Davenport resident Orville Lee Wollard, who was convicted in Polk County Circuit Court of shooting into a dwelling, child abuse, and aggravated assult with a firearm.  Seroius charges, indeed, but did the situation justify the mandatory minimum 20 year prison sentence issued by Judge Donald Jacobson last week?

Wollard, 53, had no criminal record prior to this incident, which occured last year but was not reported to the Polk County Sheriff’s Office until weeks afterward.

Wollard, who is a former employee of Sea World in Orlando, had allowed his daughter’s 17 year old boyfriend to stay in the home rent-free.  On the day of the incident, the daughter and boyfriend had been arguing, and reportedly during the discourse he had punched a hole in the wall.  Mr. Wollard came out of his bedroom with his gun, unsure of what if any threatening situation may have come up.  He ordered the boyfriend to leave, which the teenager refused to do.  Reportedly in an effort to scare the boyfriend into leaving, the father fired a shot into the wall.  Noone was injured in the incident.

Understand that by no means here am I intending to justify the father’s actions, although as a father myself I can certainly understand what he did.  As Judge Jacobson noted during the sentencing hearing, “But when that firearm was discharged and came within probably inches of him and impacted your wall, that elevated this in the Legislature’s eyes at a minimum to a mandatory minimum of 20 years.”

His lack of a previous record, his claim of attempting to scare the boyfriend with no intent of shooting the boy, his likely belief that he or his family was being possibly threatened, and the fact that noone bothered to report the incident for several weeks, including the so-called victim…all of this meant nothing because of the mandatory mimimum guidelines placed on this case.  As the judge was quoted by the Lakeland Ledger coverage of the hearing, “I would say that, if it wasn’t for the minimum mandatory aspect of this, I would use my discretion and impose some separate sentence, having taken into consideration the circumstances of this event…But I think I am duty bound to apply the law as has been enacted by the Legislature.”

Certainly, there should be some consequence here.  After all, Mr. Wollard broke the law.  I should mention here that he was offered two deals — one which would have required him to serve three years’ prison time followed by long term probation; the other would only have been five years’ probation.  He refused both deals because it would have meant a felony on his record, which he did not feel he was deserving of considering the circumstances of the case as he saw them.

But a maximum minimum of 20 years prison for this?  The Legislature should seriously consider giving judges some discretion in these type of cases so that the end result more approprately fit the circumstances.