revokes probation recommendation for sex offender, court
By Rebekah Bradway
December 4, 2006 | A Smithfield man charged with multiple
counts of rape, rape of a child and sodomy, has been
given a new sentencing date after the state revoked
its recommendation that he to participate in probation.
Christian E. Poole, 40, was originally charged with
nine counts rape of a child, seven counts rape and two
counts forcible sodomy, according to the case information
from Feb. 9.
The defendant's attorney Herm Olsen argued Thursday
to Judge Clint S. Judkins in the First District Court
that the state should not be able to withdraw its recommendation
for probation as was agreed upon in a plea bargain.
"It is a matter of institutional integrity that the
State be required to honor its agreement, to keep its
word, and to be bound by the benefits and burdens freely
and voluntarily negotiated between parties," stated
a document written by Olsen in objection to the withdrawal.
After months of negotiation, according to the document,
Poole pleaded guilty to one charge rape of a child under
the condition the State would recommend probation.
"The state agreed to dismiss 15 similar counts, and
further agreed to recommend probation," the objection
In a letter Poole wrote, he said, "I am frustrated
with the pre-sentencing interviewer. I am frustrated
with the State. I felt that the interviewer ignored
every effort on my part to show remorse for my sins."
In the letter, Poole stated he felt the plea agreement
fit for him and felt he would do well in therapy. He
wrote, "I do not see the benefit in spending the next
21+ years of my life in prison."
The state, represented by Cache County Attorney N.
George Daines and Deputy Cache County Attorney Barbara
King Lachmar, defended the decision to revoke the recommendation.
In a notice delivered to Olsen on Oct. 24, Daines
gave five reasons for the retraction: refusal to admit
to crime charged, misinformation and incomplete information
in presentence report, misinformation to family members,
failure to meet four standards of Section 76-5-406.5
and no cooperation of family members.
"Even if the defendant did qualify legally, it is
still within the Court's discretion as to whether this
lenient probation should be allowed," the notice stated.
"In addressing that exercise of discretion the Court
is asked to determine whether probation is appropriate
given the nature, frequency and duration of the conduct.'"
Daines also argued the defendant should be incarcerated,
saying, "His being out has caused an extraordinary amount
of difficulty... He needs to go to jail, Judge|. We
want him in jail."
Daines said Poole was possibly in contact with the
victim's family against a court order. Judkins said
if there is evidence of contact shown, a bench warrant
will be issued immediately to pick Poole up.
Judkins declared the state was not bound to its previous
agreement, and he rescheduled Poole's sentencing for
Jan. 8 at 9 a.m.