Monticello Live

In July of 2013, Victoria Pedraza pled guilty in Drew County Circuit Court to permitting abuse of a minor, in the death of her 2 year old daughter, Aubriana Coke. She was sentenced to serve 5 – 20 years in ADC.

She has appealed, arguing that the circuit court judge erred by (1) requiring her to register as a sex offender, (2) engaging in inappropriate conduct during her sentencing trial, and (3) not disqualifying himself from presiding over her sentencing trial (which was held with a jury).

The State Court pf Appeals considered that Pedraza and her husband, Daniel, were charged with capital murder and permitting abuse after Pedraza’s two-year-old daughter died as a result of multiple blunt-force injuries.

A jury sentenced Ms. Pedraza to twenty years’ imprisonment for permitting abuse, and an order to this effect was entered in July 2013.

I. Sex-Offender Registration
At sentencing, there was discussion of whether Pedraza was required to register as a sex offender or whether the circuit court had discretion in the matter; the court asked the parties to brief the issue. The State filed a brief explaining that the crime to which Pedraza pled guilty, permitting abuse of a minor, is defined as a sex offense in Ark. Code, and that the registration requirement applies to those adjudicated guilty of a sex offense, the sentencing court “shall enter on the judgment and commitment or judgment and disposition form that the offender is required to register as a sex offender.”

In a letter opinion dated July 24, the court denied Pedraza’s motion, explaining that the statute was “explicit” that permitting abuse of a minor is a sex offense and that sex-offender registration was mandatory.

The Appeals Court ruled that the Circuit Court had no choice but to do so pursuant to the governing law, ordering Pedraza to register as a sex offender.

II. Inappropriate Conduct
Pedraza contends that the circuit court erred by conducting its own investigation, questioning witnesses, making objections, and commenting on the evidence throughout her sentencing trial.

At that time, Pedraza made no objections to the court’s statements, did not move the circuit judge to recuse, and did not request a mistrial.

III. Disqualification
Pedraza argues that the circuit judge should have disqualified himself from presiding over her sentencing trial. Rule 2.11 of the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge must disqualify himself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned.

Victoria Pedraza argues that the circuit judge should have recused because he was biased against her, as evidenced by the judge’s actions throughout the trial and, in particular, by statements in the order denying Daniel Pedraza’s motion to recuse, which was filed under seal until February 2014. She argues that the judge’s “attitude, facial expressions and comments” contributed to her receiving the maximum sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment and that the judge should have recused on his own motion.

Again, the Appeals Court agreed with the Circuit Court, since Pedraza did not ask the court to recuse based on its actions during the sentencing trial.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 11:48 am and is filed under Court, Police /Legal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.