Former city councilman convicted of sexual abuse tries to get his sentence reduced
Published at | Updated at
IDAHO FALLS — Court was reconvened on Thursday, months after the sentencing of a former Ammon city councilman convicted of lewd conduct — this time he was attempting to reduce his sentence.
Byron Wiscombe, 45, was sentenced in March to a minimum of three years and a maximum of 33 years in prison by District Judge Dane Watkins Jr., after pleading guilty to felony lewd conduct with a child.
Wiscombe accepted a plea deal where the state would recommend a minimum of five years in prison. Shortly before sentencing, prosecuting attorney John Dewey agreed to instead, recommend a minimum sentence of three years.
During Thursday’s hearing, Watkins heard arguments over whether or not the maximum of 33 years in prison was too harsh of a sentence, and if the court should reduce it.
Wiscombe was absent during the hearing as Watkins ruled that he would not reduce the sentence and denied the motion.
RELATED | Former city councilman going to prison after molesting girl for seven years
Wiscombe’s defense attorney, Curtis Smith, filed a motion to reconsider the sentence on May 24 under Criminal Rule 35, which can “correct a sentence that is illegal” correct or reduce a sentence “imposed in an illegal manner,” or correct a courts calculations of credit for time served, according to the Idaho Supreme Court.
The Hearing
The hearing began with a statement from the victim in the case, who reminded the court that only four months ago, she had told the court about some of her most profound trauma in front of her abuser, family and friends.
“I’m here not because I want to but because I need to. Just this last March, I felt heard by my family and friends as well as the judge. For a year and a half leading up to that day, I had felt unseen and unheard,” said the victim. “After leaving that courtroom in March, surrounded by my closest friends and family, I felt absolutely relieved that my family had 33 years to heal. I realized quickly that I would have 33 years to start my own family in safety.”
Smith then argued that because Wiscombe accepted a plea agreement, he protected the victim and her family from further trauma that a trial could cause.
“When my client came to me about this, he did not want to inflict more pain on the family by having a trial or claiming that he was innocent,” Smith said. “In fact, from the day that he walked into my office, he accepted responsibility.”
Smith then argued that Wiscombe is a ‘model prisoner’ to the point where he could run out of available jail programs to help him with rehabilitation.
“I checked with the correctional facility, and they indicate that my client has an excellent attitude, that he is a model prisoner, that he has been very upfront and forthright in requesting any help that he can receive while there,” said Smith. “It is a little disconcerting to me that we have a system, that if we have somebody who is in a position where their attitude is good, and they want and need the help, we still only have the opportunity to incarcerate them and let them sit in a cell.”
Bonneville County Prosecutor Randy Neal then argued that the original prosecutor was wrong, and accepted a plea agreement with too light of a sentence for how severe the crime was.
“My name appears on these documents and the individual who argued and made the recommendation did so in my name,” Neal said. “Now, his arguments are being used to bolster the defense’s argument to reduce.”
Neal explained why prosecutors should make productive sentencing recommendations, not just predictive ones based on what they think the judge will allow.
“Often we’ll try to fashion a recommendation that we think would be in line with the court’s thinking, simply because if we make recommendations that are extreme every time, the court will stop listening to us. And I think that’s what happened in this case, is we had a recommendation that was more predictive than productive,” said Neal. “The severity of this case just can’t be overstated. The years of control and absolute deception, that a reputation became more important than correcting the horrific damage that he was doing.”
Watkins then ruled that he would not be reducing the sentence and that if the attorneys had not come to an agreement during sentencing, Wiscombe might have been given a much different sentence.
“I understand the work that goes into the discussions, and it’s trite to say negotiations. I don’t want to use that word in this context because people’s lives are affected,” said Watkins. “There is pain that will endure for certain individuals, in this case, throughout the rest of their life. At the same time, I listened to Mr. Wiscombe provide an allocution, and this court perceived he was in anguish for his wrongdoings.”
Watkins ended by explaining that due to the persuasiveness of the attorneys, he was able to give a sentence that he remains comfortable with.
“The court has great respect for the attorneys involved in this discussion and how they got to that three years fixed. And I might say, this court may not have accepted the agreement, but for this court’s respect for those attorneys,” said Watkins. “The parties were persuasive in bringing the court to that three. There was great work to be done there. And there was a benefit to the defendant.”