Archive for Thursday, July 9, 2009

Sex offender sentenced to two years of probation following no-contest plea

July 9, 2009

Advertisement

A Topeka man will serve two years on probation after he was convicted last month of attempted aggravated sexual battery.

District Judge Michael Malone handed down the sentence to Randy Selsor Thursday after Selsor entered a no-contest plea on June 5 for his role in an incident with a Lawrence woman in January.

Prosecutors originally accused Selsor of raping a 22-year-old woman before he pleaded to the lesser charge on the eve of the trial. Police have said Selsor and the victim were acquaintances.

Selsor’s attorney, Jason Billam, said the two sides reached the plea agreement because they realized that cell phone records would be unavailable for the trial. The records were significant because they would have helped map out a timeline of the events in the case, he said.

Because of Selsor’s criminal history, the most severe sentence he could receive under state guidelines was probation. Malone said if he violated his probation terms, Selsor would have to serve 18 months in prison after he has already served five months in jail.

Amy McGowan, a chief assistant Douglas County district attorney, told Malone that the victim in the case maintains that she was raped and disagrees with the plea agreement.

Selsor must register as a sex offender and seek treatment.

Comments

helter_skelter 6 years ago

Attempted sexual assault? Slap on the wrist. Next.

in123 6 years ago

"Because of Selsor’s criminal history, the most severe sentence he could receive under state guidelines was probation."

Does that make any sense? If he did not have a criminal history, what would he have got?

50YearResident 6 years ago

It just doesn't make much sense, a man with a criminal record can plea bargain rape down to "attempted sexual assault and get probation!

monkeyspunk 6 years ago

"Selsor’s attorney, Jason Billam, said the two sides reached the plea agreement because they realized that cell phone records would be unavailable for the trial. "

Inexcusable lack of further information here. Why would they NOT be "available"?

Defixione 6 years ago

<<“Because of Selsor’s criminal history, the most severe sentence he could receive under state guidelines was probation.”

Does that make any sense? If he did not have a criminal history, what would he have got?>>


I think that is the LJW's awkward way of saying he did not have a criminal record instead of saying he had never been arrested.

igby 6 years ago

Lets ask Sotomeyor, but she would say that the law is too harsh and if it were up to her he would get only a years probation instead of 5 years probation. Then she would go into this long rant, about 100 pages long, about how the laws need to be changed to protect the lessor criminals because after all they're just poor thugs who don't know any better.

been_there 6 years ago

We need new prosecutors that can do their job.

Bandwife75 6 years ago

Damn Malone. Put these guys in front of Shepard. She has no shame throwing a contempt order on child support. She would at least give them 6 montsh i would hope.

MarchSadness 6 years ago

As I have said many times on this site...."Lawrence, KS: Where criminals run free!".....this is an embarrassment for the prosecution. I can't wait to get out of this liberal hell hole! I can understand being liberal on several issues, but being this liberal on almost all judicial matters is completely unacceptable.

Kontum1972 6 years ago

mb he will run for the US Senate or possibly a Governorship...he has the credentials

beawolf 6 years ago

Depending on the evidence, or lack thereof, this is probably a "he said/she said" case. This may have been the best scenario. I can't believe how many people, who have such little understanding of the judicial process or of the actual case itself, are so quick to whine and complain.

Marchsadness, Lawrence may be a better place after you leave, so please expedite the process.

BlackVelvet 6 years ago

If the victim was against the plea agreement, why did the DA's office go for it?

compmd 6 years ago

"If the victim was against the plea agreement, why did the DA's office go for it?"

Because the DA represents the People of the State of Kansas, not the victim. It is in the People's interest to score a conviction.

The sentence fits the guidelines, the judge acted appropriately. If you want to complain, write your congressman.

Oh, MarchSadness, your outburst of invectives shows your true ignorance; sentencing guidelines are promulgated equally across Kansas, you won't be free of them even in your beloved Johnson County. Do you understand that or did I use too many big words?

monkeyspunk 6 years ago

@ compmd and beawolf

You are VERY quick to excuse the actions of the DA's office, the judge and local law enforcement without knowing WHY the phone records were not available. If these were so critical to the prosecution's case, why are they not available!?

This should be information that is available to the public. Was it a matter of not being able to retrieve them from the communications company or was it a case where the information was not admissible? Did the communications company refuse to provide the information? How did this realization about the lack of these phone records come about?

George Diepenbrock, this is your story, more information please, or at least explain the lack of an explanation...

compmd 6 years ago

"You are VERY quick to excuse the actions of the DA's office, the judge and local law enforcement without knowing WHY the phone records were not available. "

Who did I excuse? The reason why the records were unavailable is irrelevant. If the strength of the state's case was compromised, then the state's chances of a conviction on the charge are decreased. However, they do not go to zero. So, in the mutual interests of the state and the defendant, an agreement is reached. Why? Because even without the records, the defendant doesn't want to risk 4.5 years in prison (which is what he'd get if convicted of the original charge).

herenthere 6 years ago

He should have got prison time. Probation is nothing compared to what he did. The woman has to deal with the memory of what happened the rest of her life while this sexual predator is out roaming the streets. He should be locked up for life. He was sick enough to rape once whos not to say he wont do it again. The victim was very against the plea agreement but the DA went with it so that he would at least have the sexual crime on his record and he would have to register as a sex offender. Its very unfair but sometimes you have to take what you can get, and no its not always because they have a lack of evidence. Amy McGowan is great at what she does and alot of times does what she thinks is in the best interest of the victim.

Loretta James 6 years ago

DON'T LIKE LAWRENCE

GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.