Archive for Friday, January 11, 2013

Conviction affirmed of man sentenced for robbing Lawrence convenience store

January 11, 2013


— A panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals on Friday upheld the conviction of a man sentenced in the 2009 robbery of a Lawrence convenience store.

Sedryck Welch, now 24, was sentenced to 17 years in prison. A jury convicted Welch of aggravated robbery after prosecutors accused him of using a shotgun to rob a clerk on Aug. 3, 2009, at Conoco, 2447 W. Sixth St.

At the time of his sentencing, Welch had already been sentenced in a Topeka robbery.

The robbery in Lawrence was captured on a security camera, but the image of the robber wasn't clear.

The state called witnesses who testified about Welch's characteristics in relation to the person on the video.

Welch said the testimony shouldn't have been allowed, but the appeals court panel said the testimony was proper because the witnesses were not allowed to testify as to the specific identity of the person on the video.

Welch also argued that he was mentally handicapped and that made him less culpable for conviction and sentencing. But the appeals panel said Welch failed to provide a "diminished capacity" defense during his trial.


conlawgrad 5 years, 4 months ago

Not that I disagree with this ruling...there really didn't seem to be any appealable issues for this case. But for me, it always came down to the question of the veracity of the eye witness. She was smiling when the gun was pointed at her, no one does that when there's an actual threat of the gun being used. Second and this was always something I thought about...the fact that she said she had seen the robber before because he had been in the store before but did not recognize Mr. Welch. Those things are inconsistent with each other. But what does Mr. Branson care? He got a conviction and it was upheld on appeal. I bet they're as giddy as the day he was sentenced!

AmyR 5 years, 4 months ago

Why slam Branson? 12 Jurors believed the guy was guillty and the appeals court up held it. If there were witness issues, the defense had an opportunity to discredit those witnesses. But I would agree with you the guy could have probably had a better attorney to help convince the jurors of your observations if they were as blatant as your describing.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.