Dr. Doug Muell on Danny. Pinal, you should question Vanderpool's judgment.

People of Pinal - Your superior court judge, Janna Vanderpool, prior to sentencing Danny Hicks on 7/17/09 states,

"I've reviewed the pre-sentence report, the letters filed on your (Danny) behalf, the statements made on your behalf, the statement made by the victims and any other information, letters provided with regard to the victim impact and victim perspective on this. And also there's the unofficial recommendation not to be filed."

Question her judgment...  Try it now.  The judge states that she's reviewed letters filed on Danny's behalf.  Here's ONE (of 6).  Read it and see how you feel about her judgment call...

_______________________________________________________________________________

February 12, 2009

The Hon. Judge Janna Vanderpool

P.O. Box 986

Florence, AZ 85232

Dear Judge Vanderpool,

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request the court take into account extenuating circumstances when considering the sentencing of Mr. Dan Hicks. I have known Mr. Hicks for the past 6 years. In that time I have found him to be a kind, honest, hardworking, generous, caring man. He truly is the kind of person who would literally give someone in need “the shirt off of his back”. I am very distressed to find him in his current circumstances and beg the court to show leniency to this fine member of society who has made a terrible mistake.

(Jp note, 4/2011: Now I know that Danny probably made the smartest move of his life by entering his home carrying  his handgun.  They intended to kill him.)

Mr. Hicks has been a law abiding, productive member of society his entire life. After a productive, 30 year career managing a utility company back east, 6 years ago Dan followed his dream to move to Arizona. His history of abiding by the law is evidenced by his ability to pass the extensive background checks to become a DOC Corrections Officer where he served this state with distinction for the pasts 5 years. In fact, I was a reference for Dan on his DOC application. In the entire time I have known Mr. Hicks, I have never seen him exhibit any aggression or open hostility toward anyone.

Mr. Hicks’ very qualified Public Defender I am sure will introduce to the court the circumstances surrounding his current dilemma so, to be brief, I will not reiterate them here other than to say Mr. Hicks is the victim of an internet predator who manipulated him into signing his life away. While Mr. Hicks’ actions with regard to the use of his handgun were clearly wrong, please note, he did not pull the trigger, he never chambered a round; he never took the safety off and left the scene without physically injuring anyone. He is also deeply remorseful and has made no attempt to obscure the circumstances, cover up, or lie to protect himself. He admitted to everyone when questioned the nature of his wrong, and showed clear remorse for his actions. Mr. Hicks is a man of honor who made a stupid mistake.

With regard to sentencing, please know, in my 11 years as Director of Loss Control for Arizona Counties Insurance Pools, I have become intimately familiar with detention and corrections operations. Mr. Hicks, purely due to his service to this state, has served the harshest time one can in a detention facility in protective lockdown. I have an extensive background in human behavior, have visited and spoken with him while in jail and I can assure the court that his former fiancé and her rapidly acquired live-in lover are in no danger whatsoever from Dan and that he will not repeat his mistake. On the other hand, they won. They have his house and possessions and he has lost everything. A man, who until recently, has lived an impeccable and honorable life. A man who was closing in on retirement (he turned 61 in jail), and just wanted to fish and find love. I beg the court to show leniency to Mr. Hicks. He has learned his lesson. To incarcerate him will not make society any safer. From a loss control standpoint, given his background as a Corrections Officer, he will be a tremendous burden on an already overcrowded, understaffed, underfunded prison system and could also represent significant liability to the state if he should be killed or severely injured while in custody – an outcome that is not unlikely given his service to this state.

To conclude, I respectfully beg the court to give Mr. Hicks supervised probation. If the court feels that incarceration is necessary, please allow him house arrest with GPS monitoring. This will alleviate the burden on DOC personnel, limit liability for the state, and I firmly believe, both professionally and personally, that prison time will not serve any societal interest in this case.

Sincerely,

D. M. M., Ph.D., SPHR

__________________________________________________________________________

7/18/2009 - After Sentencing - Dr. Doug chimes in...

The Probation Department recommended just supervised probation for Dan. He even passed the tests on Domestic Violence and they felt he didn't represent any threat at all and recommended he not be required to participate in the diversion program.

The Prosecutor's Office wanted to modify the plea deal and wanted to keep him in jail for 365 days, then divert him to the Domestic Violence program and plead that case.

Judge Janna Vanderpool took it upon herself to ignore these more lenient requests from both sides and sentence Dan to 3.5 years in prison. She has lost my vote as I am a resident. I can't believe this miscarriage of justice. Essentially, she and the predator who landed Dan in this spot (not withstanding Dan's stupidity for pulling the gun) have given him most likely a death sentence as he most likely won't make it through this without getting shanked. Dan is most likely a dead man with his background as a corrections officer.

Judge Vanderpool obviously has an ax to grind with regard to domestic issues as a quick internet of her name and accomplishments will show. She vented her one sided views on Dan today. He is also required to pay 1000.00 in court costs and "victim" restitution in the amount of up to 10K, the amount of which will be determined in an upcoming hearing.  I am aghast at this.

Sometimes the bad guys win, but today it was at the expense of the life of a good man, a scheming, manipulative woman, and a deluded judge with an ax to bear.