At the pretrial conference today for Sandra Kay Martinson, her attorney Frederick Loats told First District Judge Fred Gibler that he and Bonner County Prosecutor Louis Marshall had reached a tentative plea agreement. Martinson would agree to plead guilty to one count of grand theft in return for a suspended prison sentence (local incarceration optional with the judge), supervised probation, and restitution for an amount to be determined.
Judge Gibler directed that a pre-sentence report be prepared and delivered to him. Martinson will be sentenced at 10:00 a.m. on October 24, 2011. The judge is under no obligation to accept all or any of the plea agreement. At sentencing, if Judge Gibler rejects the plea agreement, Martinson would be allowed to withdraw her guilty plea and request the jury trial be rescheduled.
Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney Barry McHugh had requested Marshall be appointed as a special prosecutor to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest.
If found guilty at trial, Martinson could have been sentenced to up to 14 years in state prison and required to pay a fine of up to $5,000.
What? No Alford plea?
Comment by Dan — August 19, 2011 @ 4:10 pm
I’m reasonably sure that was discussed between Marshall and Loats, but her attorney might have felt she would get a more favorable sentence under a guilty plea. Going to trial has risks for both sides, so I suspect the sticking point is more the amount of restitution than anything else. That’s my speculation, though.
Comment by Bill — August 19, 2011 @ 4:22 pm
Restitution of an amount to be determined? How about working at the transfer station at $5.75/hr (minimum wage?) until all the monies ($100,000+) are recovered by the county. At least she would be able to sleep in her own bed til she dies. I’m pretty fed up with this crap. Can’t do the time, don’t do the crime,at any age or gender.
Comment by Ancientemplar — August 19, 2011 @ 7:17 pm
Ancientemplar,
Actually, I’m in favor of attaching her PERSI retirement payouts until every dime she embezzled has been repaid with interest to Kootenai County.
The 800-pound gorilla (question) is how was she able to get away with such clumsy embezzlement for ten years? Was Dan English really that dense? Did the state never do independent surprise audits of the counties to ensure some county employee wasn’t embezzling money or creating accounts that “just popped up” where unaccounted-for money could be stashed for who knows what?
Comment by Bill — August 19, 2011 @ 7:43 pm
Doubtful anything will be paid back. Title 18 Chapter 57, misuse of public moneys by public officers and public employees, requires restitution if found guilty and allows for repayment from their retirement. The most perfect fit for the crime that was committed since it was public monies, but the charge was not brought from this statute rather just grand theft. I feel for her condition although she, Mr. English, and current County officials have intentionally been dishonest regarding my contacts many times.
Comment by Appalled — August 21, 2011 @ 9:20 am
Easy to get away with considering the integrity of whom she was working for. Several statutes require auditing County officer’s accounts and all accounts of the County in addition to Officers turning over all accounts for that purpose. Sandy illegally operated several other bank accounts that have never been audited by an outside auditor. Numerous statutes were violated with several accounts operated by the former Auditor and Deputy Auditor while much of the same continues today operating these un-audited accounts nearly identically to how Sandy and Dan did.
Last year Dan English under oath, subordinated by the deputy prosecutors, committed perjury stating no outside accounts exist, that all banks are approved, and more. The aftermath of Sandy’s crime spurred a BOCC meeting with several elected officials on 2/1/11 that verified eight outside accounts, Mr. Hayes contacting the FBI, the use of a unapproved bank, what the long time outside auditor knew, a special Sheriff’s account and more.
This County has more attorneys in the BOCC’s office then Commissioners and has operated this way for many years. The elected officials have long been assigned attorneys who are now deputy prosecutors since 2009. Not one county attorney was present at the 2/1/11 BOCC and Elected officials meeting regarding what they worked hard to hide. Still no legal opinions were sought by the BOCC only what the Auditor was going to look into. The auditor never looked into the accounts themselves, sources of revenue, and expenditures. This involved seven accounts of the Sheriff while nobody from the Sheriff’s office or his attorney was present. Rubberstamped!
First under oath the accounts don’t exist. Then in December former commissioner Curry stated a dozen outside accounts existed that was brought in during his time is totally untrue. On 2/1/11 the BOCC is simply told the accounts were audited and it will take three months to bring the outside accounts in. Nothing has changed and in the name of the Sheriff still exists seven outside accounts today. This activity is simply as covered up as it ever has been.
Comment by Appalled — August 21, 2011 @ 9:27 am
The 2/1/11 BOCC minutes state that when the outside auditor learned of the outside accounts they went out and audited them. I can find no record of that happening and here is why. The minutes of this meeting also state the Sheriff was just then considering allowing an account (he amassed over 100 thousand dollars in) this year to be audited for a first time. This surely did not happen before this meeting. It is the auditor who facilitates the outside auditor and Mr. Hayes has no records of this account for the last two months of the last fiscal year. Auditing through the auditors office simply never happened.
The seven outside existing accounts today that process checks are still done with one signature violating several statutes in particular IC 31-1511. Currently I confirmed where the Sheriff spends at will beyond his budget from the above account no vouchers are being forwarded to the Auditor still that violates yet more statutes. This process has not and does not involve the BOCC, Treasurer, and Auditor. Article 7 Section 14 of the Idaho Constitution limits specifically how money can be drawn.
With out question the time to report and settle is required and is a must do quarterly by IC 31-3101 and Constitutionally Article 18 Section 9. The problem is no county officer enumerated by IC 31-2001 has done this at least the past several quarters and who knows for how long. The one account of the Sheriff received $4000.00 from Wal-Mart and even paid a Wal-Mart credit card bill yet nothing so regarding is reported or settled. A stiff penalty IC 31-3102 with routinely dozens of financial statutes being violated monthly, quarterly, and yearly.
When I first spoke to Mr. Hayes about a couple of accounts he volunteered and adamantly informed me that he thought this Sheriff’s favorite account was not legal and that it would not continue under his administration unless proven otherwise. Likewise on 2/1/11 the minutes state the Auditor will look into this account instead nothing at all happened. Five accounts are still mailed to the Sheriff that are not regularly and given to the Auditor more so when I request them. One account is given over much later then the others that is the Sheriff’s account he recently spent thousands from that is not reported, settled, or overseen by any higher authority at all.
Comment by Appalled — August 21, 2011 @ 9:33 am
Sandy stole from a bank account not cash on hand. Bringing in his own former bank fraud auditor would make one think the accounts are being reviewed, not true, this was only for the handling of cash for the most part. Likewise with the State Controller for cash handling and disbursements. The perfect time to address outside accounts, one signor, including the legality of a account Mr. Hayes himself challenged, but they were not here for that.
The auditor’s office has long operated two accounts on behalf of the sheriff, these are the accounts in a unapproved county bank where State law requires the BOCC to certify the bank twice a year has not happened one time in years. For years these accounts rob Peter to pay Paul and often involve transfers for no legitimate reason other then one account might be getting to low. Sandy wrote one check that voided six other monthly checks where the Court’s money was not forwarded for a year and a half.
This year even the Finance Director became a sole signor back dating a check to a Sunday before the period closed to even calculate the amount of the check. Checks are still held for weeks and months at a time. In so far as these accounts I found several instances of missing monies this year and contacted Mr. Hayes about this he would not reply.
One statute requires the BOCC to compare the books of the Treasurer at least twice a year – this has never happened one time in years, even with the current BOCC. Another statute requires an annual settlement in the presence of the BOCC that also has never happened in years. Currently settlements between the Treasurer and Auditor are not timely according to statute – the Treasurer hasn’t even attended a BOCC meeting to report according to statute for months leaving the county financially on autopilot of merely hoping nothing rally bad happens.
In so far as the Sheriff’s un-audited, not reported or settled Donation account he calls it the Idaho Attorney General outline Idaho laws that prohibit a Sheriff from retaining and controlling seized drug proceeds. Even the Idaho Association of Counties states only that only the Treasurer can have bank accounts.
Where bank accounts have existed for a long time outside lawful control such activity only continues lacking integrity of those charged and who promised to address them. I often have challenged different County officials to refute the facts and my findings regarding the above but no reply. Why should they because they have attorneys who go to great lengths defending and hiding what is illegal while not advising to follow the law.
Comment by Appalled — August 21, 2011 @ 9:33 am
Appalled,
Kevin L. Perkins (Assistant Director – Criminal Investigative Division, FBI Headquarters) instructed that persons with information regarding allegations of corruption may forward that information to the FBI’s Salt Lake City Field Office, 257 East 200 South, Suite 1200, Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2048, telephone 801-579-1400. Although there is an FBI resident agency in Coeur d’Alene, its parent field office is in Salt Lake.
Comment by Bill — August 21, 2011 @ 10:20 am
Appalled, that is quite a stinky mess of rotten garbage you just dumped on the ground. It definitely needs to be determined how or why it accumulated to such an odoriferous state. Bill’s recommendation that you ask the FBI to poke around in it, is good advice.
In the meantime, it is interesting to note that Bill posted within hours on this blog the breaking news, that Martinson’s pretrial conference resulted in no jail, supervised probation and no agreement on restitution. It wasn’t until late the next day that Huckleberries picked it up. There was no online report on the CDA Press Blog at any time, nor any newspaper account on Saturday and only today on page 7 appears an brief AP release.
What is going on here? The Coeur d’Alene Press puts very local news on the front page all the time in addition to more local news in the section entitled LOCAL. Yet nothing on this.
Is this news management designed to thwart public outrage over the indifferent attitude by prosecutors on this criminal action?
Comment by Gary Ingram — August 21, 2011 @ 10:48 am
Gary,
Thank you. I went to the pretrial conference hearing, because I fully expected she would be entering an Alford plea. Although I was wrong on that, she did enter a guilty plea. There are differences, but the outcome is pretty much the same: Thanks to that plea, if accepted by the Court, there will not be a trial where evidence of the violations alleged would be heard. Should Judge Gibler reject her guilty plea after he reviews the pre-sentence report or should she withdraw her guilty plea on October 24, then there could be a trial. I’m confident there will not be a trial. The last thing some Kootenai County officials want is any trial that would expose any of the details about some of these off-the-budget accounts that Appalled has mentioned and documented. McHugh and Watson will do everything in their power to ensure Martinson does not go to trial. They simply want her case to go away as quietly as possible without attracting too much attention to those accounts.
Under the terms of the plea agreement, Martinson would receive no state prison time, however the judge could impose local incarceration if he chose. Since “local incarceration” would be in the Kootenai County jail, it would be for one year or less. But here’s something to consider in light of Martinson’s purported knowledge and involvement in some of the off-the-budget accounts in the Sheriff’s Office: What if Kootenai County Sheriff Rocky Watson tells the judge that the jail does not have the facilities to properly house her because of her medical condition? It seems unlikely, then, that Gibler would jail her. Of course, the public will never know, because the pre-sentence report is not subject to disclosure under the Idaho Public Records Law.
Comment by Bill — August 21, 2011 @ 12:44 pm
Where are the GOB’s defending her now? Hmmmm? Hey John, wanna jump in and tell us why this is a “good deal”? Hey Dan, how about it?
{{{{CRICKETS}}}}
Comment by justinian — August 21, 2011 @ 7:04 pm