July 31, 2017 at 4:37 p.m.
Martinson wants sentence reduced
Defense brief: Bloom erroneously exercised his discretion
Martinson wants sentence reduced
Ashlee Martinson was sentenced to 23 years initial confinement last June, after pleading no contest to two counts of second-degree intentional homicide.
In a motion filed July 26, Martinson's appellate attorney Mark A. Schoenfeldt argues Judge Michael Bloom "erroneously exercised his discretion" by placing on the defendant "an obligation to perceive and make rational choices at a time when, as a matter of law, she was incapable of perceiving and making rational choices."
In a brief in support of the motion, Schoenfeldt cites the 22-page Agreed Statement of Facts filed by Martinson's trial attorneys Thomas Wilmouth and Amy Lynn Ferguson, and accepted by Oneida County District Attorney Michael Schiek, on March 11, 2016 when she entered her no contest plea. The document outlines the physical and sexual abuse Martinson suffered at the hands of nearly every adult figure in her life.
Bloom repeatedly cited this statement of facts during the sentencing hearing on June 10, 2016.
In the motion for post-conviction relief, Schoenfeldt cites the section of the document which explains that Martinson was in the process of leaving the Ayers' residence and moving in with a friend in the days leading up to the murders.
"On the morning of her 17th birthday, March 6, 2015, Facebook records reveal that the defendant texted her friend Ryan Daniel Sisco '... I woke up this morning to my step (-) dad beating my mom ... I can't take that (expletive deleted) anymore, he's gonna kill her if she doesn't leave soon and I don't want to be around w[h]en that happens,'" the statement reads.
According to the statement, Martinson had been trying to get her mother to leave Thomas Ayers and had hoped that might happen soon.
The statement goes on to relate that on the morning of March 7, after they had examined her Facebook account, the adults confronted Martinson about her relationship with the 22-year-old Sisco, telling her she could no longer contact him, and taking away her vehicle keys and cellphone. Thomas and Jennifer Ayers argued over Martinson's future, with her mother saying she should leave the house while her stepfather argued she should be home-schooled "and that she should essentially be placed on house arrest for the foreseeable future," according to the statement.
Martinson then gathered some of her belongings and attempted to walk to a neighbor's house, but Thomas Ayers followed her, and made her get into his truck and took her home. On the way back, the statement says, he told her "that it was in her best interests to remain in the Ayers' home."
Upon arriving home, Martinson went to her bedroom and armed herself with one of the many loaded shotguns in the house with the intention of killing herself, the statement continues.
Thomas Ayers came upstairs a short while later and began banging on the door to the bedroom. It was at this point that Martinson shot Thomas Ayers, first in the neck, then a second time with the barrel directly on his temple.
Jennifer Ayers came upstairs and instead of comforting Martinson tended to her husband while yelling at her daughter about what she had done. She then came at Martinson, after arming herself with a knife. After a brief struggle, Martinson was able to get the knife from her mother and then stabbed her more than 30 times, according to the statement.
"According to Captain (Teri) Hook (of the Oneida County Sheriff's Department), the death of Thomas Ayers occurred within feet and within moments of the death of Jennifer Ayers," the statement of facts concludes. "The defendant acted upon provocation premised upon a reasonable belief in the conduct of Thomas Ayers and Jennifer Ayers, completely losing control at the time of the commission of the homicides, demonstrating anger, rage and exasperation as a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence upon similar circumstance would have done."
It is this point that is at the heart of Schoenfeldt's argument for reduced sentence.
He lays out the various factors that a judge must take into consideration when handing down a sentence, along with the two reasons a sentence can be appealed: did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in imposing the sentence and, if discretion was abused, is the sentence excessive?
Among the many cases Schoenfeldt cites in the brief is the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in McCleary v. State in 1971 which states that "[A] good sentence is one which can be reasonably explained."
He also cites Ocanas v. State where the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that sentencing is left to the discretion of the trial court, however, that decision may be reviewed if it might be found that the trial court erroneously exercised that discretion if the following circumstances can be shown:
• A failure to state on the record the relevant and material facts which influenced the court's decision.
• Reliance upon factors which are totally irrelevant or immaterial to the type of decision to be made.
• Too much weight given to one factor on the face of contravening considerations.
He also cited the landmark State Supreme Court case of State v. Gallion from 1970 which established the criteria that a judge must use in determining a sentence. Under the terms of Gallion, Schoenfeldt says in the brief "the trial court is required 'by reference to the relevant facts and factors (to) explain how the sentence's component parts promote the sentencing objectives. By stating this linkage on the record, courts will produce sentences that can be more easily reviewed for a proper exercise of discretion.'"
The brief also includes the full transcript of Bloom's remarks at Martinson's sentencing hearing, totaling about 10 pages of the 19-page brief.
Schoenfeldt focuses on a particular section of the remarks where he contends Bloom erroneously exercised his discretion by failing to consider that the "adequate provocation that the court conceded existed at the time of the defendant's actions rendered her, as a matter of law, incapable of making rational choices."
"The record shows that, in the end, the reason for the court's decision was the court's conclusion that the defendant had a choice in this matter," the brief continues.
The lawyer then writes that Bloom, by reading the agreed statement of facts, was aware of Martinson's "horrendous history of a lifetime of exposure to sexual, physical, mental and emotional abuse at the hands of virtually every adult that she had more than incidental contact with."
Schoenfeldt argues that Bloom erred in saying it was Martinson's "duty to act in the same fashion and with the same knowledge of options as a 17-year-old who had not been abused and isolated for her entire life" and that she "was not a 'normal' 17-year-old" when confronted by an angry Thomas Ayers on March 7, 2015.
He also argues that Martinson had "adequate provocation" in her actions, a major distinction that led Schiek to amend the charges from the original two counts of first-degree intentional homicide. Schoenfeldt concludes the brief by arguing that someone who meets the definition of adequate provocation to the point of losing self-control has also lost the ability to rationally consider her options. A hearing on Martinson's motion is set for 10 a.m. Sept. 13.
Jamie Taylor may be reached via email at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.