By Kelly Young

kyoung@jacksonvilleprogress.com

A man who received 10 years deferred adjudication probation in 2006 after pleading guilty to the aggravated sexual assault of a child had his probation revoked last week and was sentenced by the presiding judge to 50 years in prison.

Kenneth D. Folmar will now spend the next five decades in confinement after it was determined he violated the conditions of his probation. Folmar was indicted in August 2005 for a June 2002 offense involving a child under 13 years old.

“He violated the conditions of his probation by spending the night in a residence where a child was, by possessing or viewing pornographic materials, by using alcohol and marijuana, and by committing an open container violation,” said District Attorney Elmer Beckworth. “Because he violated his conditions, particularly the ones that are specifically oriented towards child molesters — like the pornography — Judge Bascom Bentley III revoked him and gave him 50 years in prison.”

Beckworth said he is glad to finally see some justice in a case which he, at the time it went to trial, didn’t think he could win. The victim in the crime was so traumatized by her ordeal that after her initial outcry to her mother, she had became less and less communicative regarding what had happened.

“I remember this case well. In talking with her myself, she was not able to talk about it at all, and when the case came to grand jury she was able to talk about it only minimally,” Beckworth said. “With her inability to talk about it, I knew we were on real shaky ground. We went ahead and took the plea because there was the huge likelihood of him being found not guilty or even possibly of a directed verdict.”

A directed verdict is a ruling made in favor of the defendant by the judge in a jury trial when the judge concludes that the prosecution has failed to present the minimum amount of evidence needed to prove its case.

As hard as it was to swallow at the time, Beckworth said a plea agreement with Folmar was the right decision. Unfortunately, he said child victims are all too often either unable or unwilling to assist in the trial of their abusers.

“Many children just don’t want to talk about it, which is very understandable. But in a lot of cases, the mother half-way backs the perpetrator and pressures the child to recant. We see that too often,” he said. “The only reason people ever get probation for the aggravated sexual assault of a child is because the victim isn’t able to participate in the trial. It can be very aggravating as a prosecutor to be in a situation like this where the whole case falls apart because the victim’s ability to testify has been compromised.”

In a situation like Folmar’s, where the conditions of an offender’s deferred adjudication probation have been violated, the judge presiding over the revocation hearing has the authority to sentence the offender to any amount of time within the penalty range of the initial criminal charge.

For the charge of aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first-degree felony, Judge Bentley could have sentenced Folmar to as many as 99 years in prison. During the hearing, the state was represented by Assistant District Attorney Rachel Patton, and Folmar was represented by Allan Ross

“The main reason we tend to use deferred adjudication probation on first- and second-degree felony cases is because , if they violate it, they are probably looking at getting a lot more time than they would have had they taken a plea for time in the first place,” Beckworth said. “In my opinion, this is him getting the justice he should have gotten back in 2006.”

• • •

The DA’s office also announced that Otis Taylor — the man facing two counts of sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child for an incident which allegedly occurred May 3, 2008 — pleaded guilty to the charges in exchange for a 12-year sentence. Taylor was facing a maximum of 20 years in prison if the case had gone to trial.

Taylor’s trial was set to begin last Wednesday, and that morning the defendant agreed to the state’s offer of a dozen years.

“The victim and her family were willing to go forward with the case, but when he indicated that he would agree to 12 years to do, they were very happy to accept it. We never accept a plea agreement without consulting with the victim first,” Beckworth said. “That much time for a plea agreement, where the victim doesn’t have to testify and be cross-examined, is a good plea.”