DISTRICT COURT
125 North Spruce St.
Grand Junction, Mesa County, Colorado
DATE FILED: December 5, 2016 11:40 AM
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
v.
RAYMOND CAIN,
Defendant.
Attorney or Party Without Attorney
Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
FAX Number:
Atty. Reg. #
▲COURT USE ONLY▲
Case Number:
95 CR 547
Division: 10
Courtroom: Flynn
SENTENCING ORDER MODIFYING THE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE FOR
FELONY FIRST DEGREE MURDER TO A LIFE SENTENCE WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE AFTER FORTY YEARS, PLUS LIFE ON PAROLE
Having considered the record, evidence presented during the hearings, and
the arguments of counsel, the Court finds and orders as follows:
1. On February 17, 1995, Defendant (who was 17 years of age) was charged
as an adult alleging that he had committed a number of violent crimes on
or between January 31, 1995, and February 1, 1995.
2. On December 12, 1995, the jury returned verdicts convicting Defendant of
conspiracy to commit first degree murder after deliberation; conspiracy to
commit aggravated robbery; first degree felony murder; attempt to commit
first degree murder after deliberation; and attempt to possess
methamphetamine.
3. The jury also found that Defendant, or the person with whom he was a
conspirator, used, possessed or threatened the use of a deadly weapon (a
handgun) during the commission of the crime of conspiracy to commit first
degree murder after deliberation.
4. The jury also found that Defendant, or the person with whom he was a
conspirator, caused the death of S.F. during the commission of the crime
of conspiracy to commit first degree murder after deliberation.
5. The jury also found that Defendant, or the person with whom he was a
conspirator, caused serious bodily injury to S.B. during the commission of
the crime of conspiracy to commit first degree murder after deliberation.
6. The jury also found that Defendant, or the person with whom he was a
conspirator, used, possessed or threatened the use of a deadly weapon (a
handgun) during the commission of the crime of conspiracy to commit
aggravated robbery.
7. The jury also found that Defendant, or the person with whom he was a
conspirator, caused the death of S.F. during the commission of the crime
of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery.
8. The jury also found that Defendant, or the person with whom he was a
conspirator, caused serious bodily injury to S.B. during the commission of
the crime of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery.
9. The jury also found that Defendant, or the person with whom he was a
conspirator, used, possessed or threatened the use of a deadly weapon (a
handgun) during the commission of the crime of attempt to commit first
degree murder after deliberation.
10.
The jury also found that Defendant, or the person with whom he was
a conspirator, caused serious bodily injury to S.B. during the commission
of the crime of attempt to commit first degree murder after deliberation.
11.
The jury found Defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree
after deliberation and conspiracy to commit theft.
12.
On January 18, 1996, Defendant was sentenced to twenty-four
years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit first degree murder after
deliberation; eight years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit
aggravated robbery; life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for
first degree felony murder; twenty-fours imprisonment for attempt to
commit first degree murder after deliberation; and three years
imprisonment for attempt to possess methamphetamine.
13.
All of the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, except
that the twenty-four year sentence for conspiracy to commit first degree
murder after deliberation was ordered to be served consecutive to the life
without the possibility of parole sentence.
2
14.
Though the U.S. Supreme Court did not entirely rule out the
possibility of a life without parole sentence for a juvenile, on June 10,
2016, Governor Hickenlooper signed into law Senate Bill (“SB”) 16-181,
codified at § 18-1.3-401 (4)(c)(I)(A), C.R.S.
15.
Pursuant to § 18-1.3-401 (4)(c)(I)(A), C.R.S., the Court is now
required to reduce the previously imposed sentence of life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole for first degree felony murder and the
Court is left with two choices as to the new sentence that must be
imposed: 1) a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after
serving forty years, less any earned time, plus life on parole; 2) a sentence
of thirty to fifty years in prison, less any earned time, plus ten years of
mandatory parole.
16.
The Court may only impose a sentence of thirty to fifty years in
prison for first degree felony murder if the Court finds extraordinary
mitigating circumstances, otherwise the Court must impose a sentence of
life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after serving forty years.
17.
After holding a hearing, the Court is required to determine whether
extraordinary mitigating circumstances exist by considering: (A) The
diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change associated with
youth; (B) The offender's developmental maturity and chronological age at
the time of the offense and the hallmark features of such age, including
but not limited to immaturity, impetuosity, and inability to appreciate risks
and consequences; (C) The offender's capacity for change and potential for
rehabilitation, including any evidence of the offender's efforts toward, or
amenability to, rehabilitation; (D) The impact of the offense upon any
victim or victim's immediate family; and (E) Any other factors that the
court deems relevant to its decision, so long as the court identifies such
factors on the record.
18.
When he was in his early teens, Defendant started abusing alcohol.
When he was fifteen, he was using methamphetamines, ecstasy, and
psychedelic mushrooms and was committed to a friend group that was
regularly using controlled substances.
19.
Thirteen days before he murdered S.F., Defendant turned seventeen
years old.
20.
At the time of the murder, Defendant’s prefrontal cortex had not
fully developed (consistent with all other juvenile offenders) and it is likely
that an adult would have had a better ability to assess the risks associated
with Defendant’s sensation seeking activity.
3
21.
When Defendant entered the department of corrections he had many
evidence based family risk factors, including family conflict, inconsistency
in discipline, parental substance abuse, and his mother had left him
during a crucial period of his development.
22.
There are approximately 30,000 individuals who are imprisoned in
the Colorado Department of Corrections.
Only one-third of those
individuals (10,000) belong to a gang and of those individuals only ten
percent (1,000) are considered by the Colorado Department of Corrections
to be a management problem.
23.
Defendant holds the rank of General (the person who directs the
criminal activity of the gang within the prison) in the 211 Crew. As a
result, he is dangerous and it was necessary to hold him in administrative
segregation for approximately ten years until he was transferred to a
federal penitentiary in 2014.
24.
After the defendant was transferred to the federal penitentiary, he
added a 211 Crew tattoo that is in large letters across the top of his back.
25.
Ms. Rock’s expert opinion that it is more than ninety percent likely
that Defendant will not engage in future criminal activity (a percentage she
later admitted was not reliable) is also not reliable as Defendant misled her
with regard to his past and current membership in a gang.
26.
The evidence presented regarding Defendant’s most recent conduct
while he has been imprisoned in a federal penitentiary indicates that he
has some capacity for change and potential for rehabilitation.
27.
S.F. was a smart, young, and happy Native American woman who
was at the prime of her life. I have considered the evidence that was
presented by S.F.’s immediate family and conclude that they have been
significantly impacted by her murder.
28.
Having considered the diminished culpability and heightened
capacity for change associated with youth, Defendant's developmental
maturity and chronological age at the time of the offense and the hallmark
features of such age, including his immaturity, impetuosity, and inability
to appreciate risks and consequences and his capacity for change and
potential for rehabilitation, including Defendant’s efforts toward, or
amenability to, rehabilitation and the impact of the offense upon S.F’s
immediate family, I conclude that extraordinary mitigating circumstances
do not exist. Therefore, the sentence imposed for felony first degree
4
murder is reduced to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of
parole after serving forty years, less any earned time, plus life on parole.
29.
I agree with the prosecution that a modification of the Defendant’s
other sentences, including the twenty-four year sentence for conspiracy to
commit first degree murder after deliberation that was ordered to be served
consecutive to the sentence that was imposed for felony first degree
murder is not required and is not otherwise warranted.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Brian J. Flynn, District Court Judge
5