Since the St. George's statement was uncovered I've wondered this: Whose statement is it? If it was the vestry's would it say that? It's listed under "Rector Recommends" on their website. I've got to wonder if the only one who saw this before it went up was Armstrong, and whoever "admin" is (also Armstrong?). If the statement does represent the vestry or "the parish", don't bogart that joint my friends. Pass it over to me.

We don't have these pleas in Illinois, but I had always understood that "no contest" was what you plead if you know you can't win at trial (which is pretty much what your like stated), and you couldn't afford to take full responsibility for your actions because of the potential ramifications in the (anticipated) civil action to follow.

That action might be the ACNA presentment speculated about here.

But what I want to know is: the Cafe talks about pleading to a felony, while his side keeps harping on a lesser included misdemeanor. Which is it? And how many? Is there a transcript of the proceedings Out There anywhere?

An Alford plea is also known as a plea of nolo contendere. It is accurate to say that it is not an admission of guilt, but it does admit that sufficient evidence exists that a conviction is likely.

The main effect of a plea of nolo contendere as compared to a plea of guilty is that on a plea of guilty, the essential facts are taken as admitted for the purposes of a subsequent civil action for restitution. On a plea of nolo contendere, the facts are not taken as admitted in a subsequent civil case. So basically, it's a procedural tactic to make it more difficult for the parish to get restitution of the money that he stole, by forcing the parish to go through a potentially lengthy and expensive civil trial in order to get the money back.

The Cafe's source is:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16105628#ixzz0zsddPfD2

"Pueblo Special prosecutor Stephen Jones announced today that former Episcopalian priest Donald Armstrong, ex-pastor of Grace Church in Colorado Springs, has entered a "no-contest" plea to felony theft in exchange for a deferred judgement and sentence."

Besides the "no contest" to felony he ALSO plead guilty guilty to a misdemeanor.

Knowing what a deferred judgment means in Colorado might be helpful.

"As a result of a plea agreement with the prosecution, you plead guilty to one or more charges. You are placed on probation prior to sentencing and prior to any entry of conviction. If you successfully complete your probationary period your guilty plea is withdrawn and the case against you dismissed... The record shows that the charges against you were dismissed so your record remains clean. If you are alleged to violate the terms of the deferred judgment, a hearing will be held. If you are found to be in violation of the terms you will be sentenced on the charge or charges to which you plead guilty. If you are found to be in violation of the terms of the deferred judgment, you do not have the right to a trial on whether you were guilty of the charges to which you plead guilty on a deferred judgment basis.

Normally, if you plead guilty or are found guilty of criminal charges the case proceeds to sentencing. If you obtain a deferred judgment the case is frozen between the guilty plea and sentencing. If you comply with the terms the case is dismissed and never proceeds to sentencing. If you are found to violate the terms of the deferred judgment the case proceeds to sentencing. You have the right to a hearing to determine if you violated the terms of the deferred judgment. You do not have a right to try the underlying charges."

If Don meets all the terms of the agreement somewhere down the road he can have these records sealed and of course say: "I was never convicted. They just made up all that stuff."

It does say FELONY. So, that probably means some type of restitution and community service. And you will note that the court does not have to accept the deal they have worked out.

Deacon, these are Armstrong's words posted at Virtueless Dave's;
"Plea agreements are always slightly messy and always a matter of give and take. Bottom line here is that they started with 20 Felony counts and we walked out of the court room with a misdemeanor, not to mention avoiding a trial in which no wins from the slug fest, and in which you risk the jury spitting the baby no matter how rock solid your case is, just because they like the prosecutor or something.

So, on Friday a fictitious 21st felony count that had no basis in fact or history was created and added to address the original grand jury indictment and to assure proper jurisdiction. I plead no contest to that and it was differed (sic). That was a procedural means to get to the real end, a misdemeanor. A fictitious misdemeanor was added, also without content-basis in fact or history, to which I entered an Alford plea...in other words, not an admission of any guilt but to accept the offer to reduce 20 felony counts to single misdemeanor.

So, long story short: 20 felony counts reduced to a single misdemeanor. I still maintain my total innocence, but have avoided a lengthy trial in which everyone looses, and put an end to this religious embarrassment."

So we remain where we were. The Cafe and it's source, the Denver Post, say "felony," while Armstrong, according to David V, says "misdemeanor." So let's go to the source: the court transcript. Anybody got one? (But until contradicted by that or a comparatively authoritative source, between believing the Denver Post and Vice OnLine, I'm going for responsible journalism: it's a felony.)

Ms Spivey: Thank you for your description of "deferred judgment" under Colorado criminal law. It sounds roughly the same as "Supervision" or "710/1410 Probation" in Illinois. With the one, judgment is deferred pending noncompliance with the terms; with the other, judgment is rendered but, in effect, a motion to vacate is entered and deferred, pending compliance.

Maybe he'll move to Chicago and I'll get to be his probation officer!

Alford Plea

In an Alford Plea, the criminal defendant does not admit the act, but admits that the prosecution could likely prove the charge. The court will pronounce the defendant guilty. The defendant may plead guilty yet not admit all the facts that comprise the crime. An Alford plea allows defendant to plead guilty even while unable or unwilling to admit guilt. One example is a situation where the defendant has no recollection of the pertinent events due to intoxication or amnesia. A defendant making an Alford plea maintains his innocence of the offense charged. One reason for making such a plea may be to avoid being convicted on a more serious charge. Acceptance of an Alford plea is in the court's discretion.

However, in many states, a plea which "admits sufficient facts" often results in the case being continued without a decision and later dismissed. A conviction under an Alford plea may be used as a conviction for later sentencing purposes. However, one state supreme court has held that an Alford plea, unlike a criminal trial, does not provide a full and fair hearing on the issues in the case, and therefore does not preclude later litigation of the issues.

In North Carolina v Alford, the Supreme Court noted that:

"An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime *** when *** a defendant intelligently concludes that his interests require entry of a guilty plea and the record before the judge contains strong evidence of actual guilt"

Thanks to Larry Graham

Most interesting to me are the comments above about deferred sentencing. Let's put them up against another comment that pleading no contest means that in a civil trail there would be higher costs for the party seeking restitution than if there had been a criminal trail finding of guilt to felony.

Bonnie Spivey above seems to be saying that there's a workaround if the deferred sentence means restitution.

(Also: I don't think I'm getting through to you Dcn. Armstrong can trumpet that he only plead guilty to a misdemeanor in an effort to drown out the facts, but the fact is that he also entered no contest to a felony. The Cafe is not contradicting the guilty plea, but rather giving a full account.)

Hi John--That is not what I am saying. He just has to meet whatever the terms are which may or may not include restitution.

There is finally a story in the Colorado Springs Gazette quoting Dennis Hartley, Don's lawyer, which says that he pled to a misdemeanor.

The diocesian website says he pled to a class 3 felony and one misdemeanor count (class not specified). So obviously there is some confusion somewhere. Here is the link to the diocesian website:

http://www.coloradodiocese.org/06_newsandevents/PDFs/diocese_stmt_Sept2010.pdf

The minimum sentence for a class 3 felony in Colorado is 4 years and a 3,000 fine. The maximum is 12 years and a 750,000 fine.

John - thank you, but I'm pretty sure I did get it. Armstrong entered an Alford plea, a "nolo contendere," just like Spiro Agnew did all those years ago, and so he, in effect, pleaded guilty without admitting guilt.

In any event, and whether felony or misdemeanor or both, I don't see how Bp Minns has any choice but to present and depose him, if ACNA is to have any credibility whatsoever.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/armstrong-104949-indicted-don.html

Hmmm.

"On the felony count, Armstrong has been placed on four-year’s probation. If violated, he will be a convicted felon and could face four to 12 years in prison, Thiebaut said. A restitution hearing will be held, probably in January, to determine how much money Armstrong must pay back to Grace Church."

And, under the headline "Priest and Pueblo attorney general interpret plea agreement in different ways

Read more: Priest and Pueblo attorney general interpret plea agreement in different ways",

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16127040

quote/
However, [prosecutor] Thiebaut said it was "a fairly complicated plea agreement" with more to it than a single misdemeanor count.
According to the plea agreement, obtained by the Post Monday, Armstrong pleaded "no contest" to one class-three felony, the theft of $15,000 or more. The other 19 charges were dismissed.
The sentence for this count will be deferred for a period of four years. The El Paso County Probation Department will supervise Armstrong during this period. If he complies with terms set by the judge, no conviction will be entered.
If the judge revokes the deferred sentence, the conviction is entered and the court could imprison him.
Armstrong also entered an Alford plea, which means pleading guilty with a protestation of innocence, to a single misdemeanor charge. The agreement states there is no factual basis to the misdemeanor charge, but the defendant pleads to it to obtain the benefit of the plea agreement.
The judge will consider ordering Armstrong to pay restitution at an upcoming hearing, but no amount or date has been set.
With the misdemeanor conviction, the judge also could fine Armstrong up to $5,000 or sentence him to up to 18 months in jail, Thiebaut said.
/unquote

To put it in layman's terms:

Armstrong avoids a trial by agreeing to pay restitution (note that St. George's statement refers to a restitution hearing to follow) to Grace/St. Stephen's and/or the diocese.

Provided he complies, pays the restitution, and keeps his nose clean for the next several years, the case is eventually dismissed without a finding. Thus he has no criminal record, and Martyn Minns is spared the embarrassment of having to bring disciplinary proceedings.

Also, there's no finding of fact or admission of guilt which the Internal Revenue Service could use against him in any tax fraud prosecution (which is separate from the state fraud and theft charges). It doesn't mean that the IRS investigation against him is dropped.

Also, the plea doesn't necessarily preclude a civil action against him by Grace/St. Stephens or the diocese, but if they receive restitution, they will probably waive any claims. If Armstrong had lost the criminal trial (or entered an unqualified guilty plea), the findings would have been prima facie evidence against him in a civil suit.

All in all, it's a pretty good deal for Armstrong. He gets to keep his job, avoids a criminal record, and dodges a lengthy civil suit. He'll have to pay back some of what he stole, but it probably won't leave him destitute.

So who is paying the high-priced lawyers who worked out such a good deal for him?

So the real question might be: Who is paying the high-priced lawyer(s) that got Armstrong this get-out clause? Would that be CANA? And will they also be paying the fine?