State v. Cook
2011 ME 94
| Me. | 2011Background
- Cook pled guilty to eleven counts of gross sexual assault (Class A), one count of gross sexual assault (Class A) and two counts of unlawful sexual contact (Class B and C); aggregate sentence imposed: 12 years imprisonment and 30 years supervised release under 17-A M.R.S. § 1231(1), (1-A), (2)(C).
- Prior to sentencing, the court considered a presentence report, state forensic evaluation, victim impact statements, letters, and statements by supporters; evidence included sister-victim statements detailing abuse beginning around 2004 and continuing through 2009; Cook admitted the conduct to investigators.
- The sentence included a mandatory supervised release provision under § 1231(1-A) for 30 years, with conditions and monitoring; probation was not permitted due to victim age at the time of offenses.
- Cook argued the section 1252-C analysis was misapplied for maximum/final sentence and that the 30-year supervised release analysis was insufficient; the State defended the court’s discretion and statutory framework.
- The Sentence Review Panel granted Cook’s appeal on sentence; this Court vacated the 30-year supervised release term and remanded for a proper, articulated analysis specific to supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the section 1252-C steps were properly applied | Cook claims abuse of discretion in steps two and three | Cook contends misweighting of aggravating/mitigating factors | No error in the section 1252-C analysis |
| What analysis is required before imposing supervised release | Cook asserts lack of guidance and insufficient analysis | State argues statutory framework and federal analogy support the approach | Vacated 30-year term; remanded for articulated, case-specific supervised release analysis consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dalli, 8 A.3d 632 (Me. 2010) (three-step analysis; abuse of discretion review for steps two and three)
- State v. Hewey, 622 A.2d 1151 (Me. 1993) (established need for articulated sentencing process for supervised release cases)
- United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53 (2000) (supervised release is non-punitive; aids transition to community life)
- United States v. Work, 409 F.3d 484 (1st Cir. 2005) (separate consideration of supervised release from imprisonment; not limited by substantive maximum)