Beerys Ruled Ineligible For Work Release Program

By | January 24, 2019
Mug Shots

Former ARBCA church members, Mary and Caleb Beery each plead guilty to two counts of child abuse – Class 6 felonies. They were ordered to report to Pinal County Jail over two months ago, but have successfully avoided doing so. Below is the latest information on their case. There was a telephonic hearing today. Let’s hope the judge has ordered them to report to jail!

Below is a quote from the Sentencing Document:

“It is ordered that the Defendant be incarcerated in the Pinal County Jail for a period of 180 days (FLAT) commencing November 12, 2018 with credit for zero (0) days served.

Defendant will be released on May 11, 2019. Respondent/Defendant is eligible for work release provided that he/she meets the Sheriff Departments’s Work Release Program requirements.” Source document.

As you can see below, according to Rodney States, attorney for the Pinal County Sheriff’s office, the Beerys are not eligible for  the Department’s Work Release Program per A.R.S. 11-459.

[Editorial note: I received a comment today from “Anonymous” which pointed out that my article is in error regarding the reason the Pinal County Sheriff’s office has deemed the Beerys are ineligible to participate in the Work Release Program.  “Anonymous” seems to be informed on this case, and perhaps is an attorney; but at any rate, I failed to recall that the Beerys plead guilty to “CHILD ABUSE, a class 6 undesignated felony, non-dangerous and non-repetitive…”  therefore the statutes I quoted below would not apply to the Beerys.

I apologize for my error, it was not intentional. I strive for the truth in my writings and always welcome comments bringing errors to my attention.]

I know not everyone reads the comments so here is the relevant part of the comment:

“As Rodney States has apparently informed you, [Editor’s note: I have had no contact with Rodney States] the jail refused work release pursuant to its authority under A.R.S. § 11-459, but not pursuant to the prohibitions under subsection B. Rather, the refusal is pursuant to the jail’s authority under that statute to set its own policies for work release programs. The jail had adopted a policy refusing work release to all persons convicted of any crime in which the victim is a child, but had never advised the court or the prosecuting agency of that policy. Neither the prosecutor, the defense, nor the court were aware of this policy when the parties arranged and the court accepted, an agreement with the intent that the jail time should not interfere with the Beerys’ employment. Had you more thoroughly examined the record, you might have learned from the judge’s comments that this has created the same problem not only in this case, but in multiple cases. This is precisely why the court has approved a delay to ensure that the jail time can be served as intended.”

You can read A.R.S. 11-459 here

[Note from Editor – I have removed all the statutes I quoted because they do not apply to this case.]

I say the Beerys have delayed long enough. It is time for them to pay their debt to society – they should be sent to jail immediately to begin their 180 day sentence – with no work release.  I don’t feel it’s attorney States’ job to find possible alternatives that would make the Beerys eligible for the Work Release Program.  Again, I refer to their sentencing document:

“Respondent/Defendant is eligible for work release provided that he/she meets the Sheriff Departments’s Work Release Program requirements.”

The Beerys have been ruled ineligible for the Work Release Program, the case should be closed. But no, the Beerys are now attempting to see if there are “options other than having the Defendants serve their jail terms in Pinal County.”

2019-1-24 Caleb and Mary Be… by on Scribd

Subscribe
Notify of
Name
E-Mail
91 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments