Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 3 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
James Robert Smoot, 41, of Flint Hill, who was charged in connection ^-with a series of thefts in the Flint Hill and Huntly area during November and December 1987, was sentenced last Thursday to 12 months in jail.
Smoot, who was charged along with Robert Lee Ramey with six fe. > lonies and two misdemeanors, was ; found guilty after a jury trial last month. Ramey pleaded guilty to the ;: _charges and testified against Smoot i t his trial. • i ~ The two were accused of a series of thefts of Christmas trees and ; other ornamental shrubs, the killing ;, - ?nd slaughter of a cow, and the breaking and entering and theft of a .,. i chainsaw, food and sodas at Foster’s ., Packing House outside Flint Hill. ; The last charge of breaking and , * entering was later dismissed in ■ Smoot’s case.
Smoot’s attorney, Roy Bradley, asked for leniency for his client, calling him “a man of obvious limitations.” He told Judge W. Shore Robertson that, although Smoot did not steal to feed his family, neither did he steal to feed a drug habit or to . buy a car. Vi Blaming the crime spree on ex, cessive drinking and associating with “bad friends,” Mr. Bradley told the judge that a jail sentence would result in Smoot’s losing his job and ‘**ftis family losing their home. He suggested a lengthy probation with strict conditions, and treatment and bounseling for alcohol abuse.
Commonwealth’s Attorney Peter ’Luke argued that, although Ramey • was the “ringleader” in the thefts ' And Smoot a “bystander,” the thefts represented multiple offenses. “He had plenty of time to think. When ' they stole the Christmas trees, they ’ went back three times. He went along voluntarily — and those trees 1 were stolen to be sold for money.”
Addressing Mr. Bradley’s plea for consideration of Smoot’s “limitations,” Mr. Luke called them “no ex• Tuse for his actions. If that were the case, an accused person would have ,an absolute defense. The law clearly does not recognize that.”
Mr. Luke pointed out that Smoot has a prior criminal record. “He has
88.8%