Final appeal denied for murder accomplices
|
The defendants, halfbrothers Franklin De la Cruz, 31, and Luiz Gomez, 24, have been denied in their petition for post-conviction relief following a hearing before Circuit Court Judge Bart Stanley, the same judge before whom the men entered their guilty pleas almost three years ago. The men will continue serving their 36-year sentences for second-degree murder and arson.
They are serving the sentences for their roles in the burning death of Gina Thompson, 35, in September 2003. The woman was set on fire by Ruben Pimentel, 34, as she slept on a couch inside her trailer, as Pimentel wrongly believed she had stolen cocaine he had just smuggled from New York to set up a drug business in the United States. Investigators would later determine the cocaine had slid deeper into an air conditioning duct in the car and Pimentel, being morbidly obese, had been unable to fit his hand deep enough into the duct to find his drugs.
The halfbrothers, recruited off the streets of New York days before the burning incident to be Pimentel’s drug lieutenants here, reportedly held back witnesses as Pimentel doused the victim in gasoline and set her on fire. She died eight days later from the burns. Pimentel is serving life in prison without chance of parole. The brothers were going to be used to testify against him had he gone to trial as they entered their pleas on the same day as their former drug boss.
The motion for post-conviction relief cited several issues, including ineffective assistance of counsel. Both were appointed death-penalty-qualified attorneys since they originally faced death if convicted.
The brothers also said they were ‘unlawfully induced’ to accept the plea agreement and that they did not understand the consequences of their plea agreement. They also maintain the court did not explain the meaning of the plea bargain, something former District Attorney General Dale Potter said is incorrect.
‘The court (Judge Bart Stanley) took his time explaining in detail the plea agreement,’ Potter said. ‘He made sure they understood the interpreter. The court probably took more time going into detail on these agreements than any case I’ve seen, so I don’t understand how they can say they didn’t know what they were getting into.’
Both defendants were also asked if they felt they were properly assisted by their attorneys, with both brothers saying they were satisfied with their representation. The brothers maintain they were coerced into taking the plea bargain because they were told their sentences would be much longer if they were convicted and sentenced. The brothers also maintained the evidence, at trial, would have been lacking and not overwhelming.
Barring further evidence in favor of the men, their appeal days are over since they have used up their post-conviction relief appeal.