By Mia Machado
SACRAMENTO – Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette Friday rejected a defendant’s request for suspended probation in a child molestation case, despite pleas that he “led an extremely difficult life.”
Judge Marlette did blame the people responsible for “broken” 21-year-old defendant Cobey Beemus, who was sentenced to the low term of three years in state prison for the molestation of an eight-year-old child in November of 2019.
But he said the crime also left a “broken” victim.
Seeking a three-year probation term in lieu of jail time, private defense attorney Thomas Johnson argued to the court that the case had “proceeded rather expeditiously” and that his client is “very sorry for what he did.”
Despite Johnson’s claims that Beemus is “a very fragile person” and that “prison would be incredibly difficult for him,” Judge Marlette ruled in favor of the prosecution, stating that he believed Beemus lacks “any self-regulation” and that probation was not warranted in this case.
Court began with opening remarks from defender Johnson, who requested the court consider suspended probation in the sentencing of Beemus, in order to give him the opportunity to rehabilitate himself.
Citing his early admission of guilt, Attorney Johnson pleaded that his client had “tried in every possible way to accept responsibility early,” and was remorseful for his actions. Johnson referenced the 
defendant’s young age, and argued that there is still “something to be salvaged.”
Before proceeding with victim impact statements presented by Deputy District Attorney Nancy Cochrane, Beemus was allowed to read a personal statement to the court.
Addressing the court, the defendant said that he was a good candidate for probation because he “want[s] to be a good person,” citing his difficult childhood and his desire to fix his mental state, and explained that he was “sorry for [his] conduct.”
After his brief statement, the court proceeded to hear impact statements from three individuals close to the victim. The first and longest of the three statements was from the now nine-year-old victim’s mother.
Speaking of the wishes that “all parents” have when raising their children, the victim’s mother explained that “no child should understand the loss of innocence and the reality of monsters in our closets at the same age that Barbies and Disney are at the forefront of their innocent minds.”
Since the day of the incident, the mother said, her daughter’s life has been “shattered,” and “nightmare realized.” The victim’s mother spoke to the impact of the incident on her daughter after she had “met the monster that all parents dread.”
The nine-year old victim now suffers from mood swings, a fear to sleep at night because someone could enter the home, and a dissociation from her sisters—all things the victim’s mother say act as a “daily reminder of what happened.” The mother’s biggest fear, however, is that her daughter now speaks of suicide.
Following that were statements from the victim’s stepfather and the father of a partial witness. Both expressed frustration that “the now confessed pedophile and real-life monster” is facing a sentence of possibly only three years in jail, “until he would again be free to do as he pleases, and even again shatter yet another child’s world.”
Having finished the impact statements, DDA Cochrane shared her own thoughts to be considered for sentencing, explaining that the situation involved a then eight-year-old girl and her young stepbrother being in the home of their grandparents, and that the defendant took advantage of his position within the family. After the incident, the defendant threatened the two children not to tell.
Cochrane argued that “this is not what a big brother does, and this is not what happens in my big brother’s room at my grandparent’s house.”
Through the victim statements, Cochrane explained, “we can see the trauma as it plays out, that Beemus started,” and that “we can only hope that [the victim] will survive this, and that she will not become a statistic.”
In reference to the proposed jail time, Cochrane clarified that the low term of three years was offered to the defendant due to his early admission responsibility, but that it should still be imposed as punishment.
In a final remark to the court, Cochrane addressed the defense argument around experiencing a difficult upbringing by saying “a lot of people have lived terrible lives, but they do not molest children.”
Judge Marlette said that making a choice between probation and state prison is “horribly difficult” and that it is clear that the defendant is “a broken person…if the people who broke him were here, they should share in that responsibility.”
However, Judge Marlette reasoned that “now, [the victim] is a broken person, and the person who broke her is standing in front of me, and he bears responsibility for that.” He noted the defendant’s letter makes no mention of his damage to the victim, and he does not believe that Beemus has “any self-regulation” or empathy.
The judge said he does not believe the defendant has the ability to rehabilitate, and he denied probation in the case, sentencing Beemus to the low term of three years in prison, in light of his early admission of responsibility.
In a final statement to the defendant, Judge Marlette lamented that “I don’t expect your time in prison to be easy, and that’s the unfortunate side of the system,” but probation was out of the question.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
