Judge, DA argue over gun sentence: Potter doesn’t want man who dropped gun to get weapon back
|
The defendant, Steve Sweet, was granted the six-month judicial diversion Tuesday by General Sessions Judge Larry Ross to the charge of carrying a weapon on school property. The diversion, which works like probation, allows Sweet to have his record erased if he gets into no further trouble in the next six months. He will also have his .45 caliber Colt handgun returned to him at the end of the six months.
The judicial diversion, which was rendered by Judge Larry Ross following a short hearing Tuesday, was not welcomed by District Attorney Dale Potter.
“We didn’t feel this case supported a judicial diversion,” Potter said. “We do not agree with a judicial diversion given the circumstances and Mr. Sweet’s attitude after the fact and we certainly don’t agree with the gun being returned to him.”
In response, Judge Ross said Potter’s office did not object to the diversion during court, pointing to a tape of the proceedings where Assistant Attorney General Larry Bryant is heard saying the state “will remain silent” on the issue of whether the court will grant a diversion. Prosecutors suggested six months probation, a fine and public service work be given to Sweet for the offense, noting the defense was asking for a diversion.
Ross pointed out Sweet has no prior criminal record and the offense he committed was the result of an accident. Ross noted, while the court has the authority to authorize a diversion even without consent of prosecutors, he cannot recall ever granting a judicial diversion over the objection of prosecutors.
“If Mr. Potter’s office didn’t want Mr. Sweet to have a diversion, then they should have voiced it in court instead of in the paper two days after the fact,” Ross said. “If you go back and listen to the tape, they never oppose a diversion nor returning the gun.”
Sweet was charged after his cocked and loaded handgun was found by a kindergarten student and his mother near the circle drive in front of West Elementary. The gun was taken into safe custody by school officials and police were called.
A subsequent investigation revealed Sweet had been at the school minutes earlier, picking up his child. It is believed that while playing with his child near his car, the gun fell onto the ground without Sweet realizing it was gone. Sweet returned to the campus when he realized his firearm was missing.
While lawmen do not believe Sweet had any ill-intent in carrying the gun onto school property, police charged him because he was in technical violation of the law which bans any firearms from being carried on school property. They pointed out signs were clearly visible, warning that possession of firearms on school property was illegal. Sweet normally carried the gun in his role with a private security firm and had a license to carry the gun, but the license did not extend onto school property.
During his appearance in court, Sweet said he normally did not carry his gun onto school property, but had forgotten to remove it from his person on the day in question. Sweet said he believed the gun must have fell out of his holster as he was running with his daughter toward his vehicle. Sweet noted he reached out to catch his daughter who was about to fall and the gun must have fallen out that point.