ALAMOSA — In a 26-page document issued last Friday afternoon, District Judge Crista Newmyer-Olsen has ordered that Daniel Brandt Jr., the juvenile charged in alleged connection with the Oct. 27, 2022, shooting of Alamos Police Department Officer Mollee Heeney and Alamosa resident Ricardo Rangel, will be prosecuted as an adult.
The order followed an emotionally charged five-day transfer hearing in late August where Newmyer-Olsen heard extensive testimony presented to the court by 12th Judicial District Attorney Anne Kelly and opposing testimony presented by Cobea Becker and Maralina Schoenfelder, who were representing Brandt.
As Newmyer-Olsen chronicled in the order, on Aug. 22, the court found probable cause to proceed in the prosecution of Brandt Jr. for two separate counts of attempt to commit first-degree murder and three counts of first-degree assault. If those crimes were committed by an adult, they would be class 2 and class 3 felonies, respectively.
State statutes list 14 factors to consider in trying a juvenile as an adult, but which factors are weighed more heavily is at the discretion of the judge.
Over half of Newmyer-Olsen’s 26-page order was devoted to a meticulous recap of the evidence presented where the prosecution centered on the events of the incident, Brandt’s behavior before and after the shooting, and the impact of the event on the victims, officers with the Alamosa Police Department and the community, at large.
Kelly also presented evidence from the 16-year-old’s past that indicated he was reluctant to engage in treatment and resistant to attempts to help him.
Attorneys for Brandt Jr. brought experts to the stand who testified his “adverse” past marked with domestic violence, incarceration of parents, a school system that failed him, and substance abuse from a young age were significant contributors to his behavior. Experts were unanimous in their recommendations that Brandt remain in the juvenile justice system where supportive relationships, therapy and services could help lead to rehabilitation.
But the judge also noted one expert who conceded that due to “the personality traits Daniel has…sustaining a working therapeutic relationship could be difficult because of intense ambivalence and resentment.”
In her order, the judge addresses all 14 of the factors to be considered but several stand out in terms of her emphasis.
She discusses the seriousness and violence of the event, the impact on the community, about which Newmyer-Olsen wrote, “…this offense was…beyond the limits of violent crime to which the community is accustomed. The silence from the community in support of Daniel speaks volumes. The Court did not hear testimony from a single friend, family member, or community member in support of Daniel at the hearing.”
As to likelihood of his rehabilitation, the judge wrote, “Any human wants to believe that any young person with Daniel’s history can be rehabilitated if only they are offered the right services and opportunities…Based upon the evidence presented, the Court can and does find that there is a possibility that Daniel could be rehabilitated and his life altered by the use of facilities available to the juvenile court, but the Court cannot find that this is likely or probable.”
Newmyer-Olsen goes on to write, “The community’s interest in the imposition of a punishment commensurate with the gravity of this offense is high. Again, this offense was committed in a residential neighborhood, in the middle of the street, and in the middle of the afternoon.”
She further stated, “The court considers the potential risk to the public if the case remains in (juvenile) court, the juvenile is (found guilty) of committing a delinquent act and rehabilitation fails. In those circumstances, the public would most certainly be subjected to further, very serious, criminal acts.”
In her concluding statements, she writes, “This determination is not an easy one and the Court does not make it lightly. Balancing all 14 factors, and keeping paramount public safety, the Court finds that would be contrary to the interests of the public for the juvenile court to retain jurisdiction.”
At the time of the alleged shooting, Brandt was “just a few days shy of being 15-and-a-half.” Barring any action by a district attorney, the case would have been prosecuted in juvenile court where, if convicted, sentencing would range from a maximum of three to five years with access to therapy, education, and rehabilitative services in the hope of Brandt becoming a “productive member of society.”
DA Kelly filing the motion that has resulted in Brandt Jr. being tried as an adult means — if convicted — the 16-year-old is looking at spending 32 to 96 years in the Department of Corrections (DOC), depending upon how the judge orders the sentences be served.
