Sentencing Proposal

Ashlyn Nicole Hemmerling

Case No 208-CR-40
March 8, 2020

State of Kansas vs Ashlyn Nicole Hemmerling

In consideration of the nature of crime and the sentence

it carries, I ask the courts to look at all aspects of this
case. I seek a durational downward departure,
(state vs Looney 2014 299 kan,) the reasoning behind
such request is that of which a young woman who not
only came forward but who has openly admitted their
faults and has come to terms of what her actions have
brought. Ashlyn Nicole Hemmerling, a sister to three
younger sisters, a positive influence to her community
sites now with her future hanging in the hands of the
prosecutor and sentencing Judge.
Ashlyn has been charged with Premeditated 1st degree
murder. She is currently in custody at the Jefferson
County Jail and has been a resident of the said county jail
for nearly 2 years now.
We must take careful complete, and methodical analysis
of the physical evidence to ensure that neither the
defendant nor the community are irreparably put at risk
due to the incarceration of an innocent woman, rather
that that of a guilty woman. (Rontarus Washington Jr.
Nov 2014) We must look at the guidelines and the rules
that our government has laid for us in determing this
young woman’s future.
Here are the facts as we see them,
A young man, Taylor has lost his life.
One man has been tried and convicted by a jury of his
peers and sentenced to the hard 50.
Ashlyn is charged with 1st degree murder
We know that Legislature has granted sentencing Judges
the authority to depart from statutorily established
presumptive sentence or disposition, provided of course,
substantial and compelling reasons have been presented.
So I ask what some of these compelling and substantial
reasons my look or sound like?
Jessica’s law, 301Kan ksa 21-4643, 25 to life. Under this
new law we have before us a set of new sentencing tools,
the factors that are looked at with this are as follows;
-the lack of criminal history
-taking responsibility, state vs Bird Kansas Supreme Court
103,855
-was the defendant under any mental or emotional
duress
-what was the defendant’s role in crime and how minor
was the accused’s
-acted under the complete domination of another
person.
More reasons for a departure may come in the form
-what kind of fine can and will be imposed
-how much if any stress of pretrial incarceration
-will good time be imposed.
-what will the destruction of livelihood look like for
defendant.
Facts surrounding the initial reported crime include that
defendant is who reported the crime. After the co
defendant was detained it was then that Ashlyn
Hemmerling age 18 of 45 days was then requested to
return to the sheriffs office of Douglas county where she
was then place under arrest for the crime stated above,
And interrogations began. The law states that an illegally
coerced plea may be analogized to an illegally obtained
confession. Due process test of voluntariness in a
confession require the court to consider the totality of all
the surrounding circumstances and the details of the
interrogation and whether the defendant was overborn.
Factors may include,
--age
--education
--intelligence
--length of detention
--physical and mental chrematistics
In short, the carrot be any less coercive than the stick.
In the 7th edition of Blacks Law, define voluntary as
something done unconstraint by inference, not
compelled by outside influence. Such a thing may not be
as easily obtained when looking more closely out the
surrounding events that take place in the accused’s life.
The family, friends and the hope of the minimizing of the
sentence are all outside influences. The powerless
defendant and a prosecutor who can exercise a great
deal of influence over the future the defendant may
have.
Voluntarily is itself laden with ambiguity. It is an antonym
of coerced which may be due to various forms of
nonforce or non-threats. There is no clear definition of
voluntary for all legal purposes. Even in criminal las plea
context is unclear whether voluntary means freedom
from any coercion wrongful or undue. The defendant in
this case was unaware of criminal procedures and had a
lack of legal knowledge. When read her Miranda rights
the defendant asked if she needed a lawyer, she did not
receive an appropriate answer and the interrogation
continued. She then asks if she may have a lawyer and
was told yes, but the interrogation continued rather than
concluding what the state had obtained at that point.
This clearly show the lack of knowledge in all criminal
procedures.
The defendant here has great remorse and accepts
responsibility for her actions in this case, (state v. Bird
Kansas Supreme Court no 103,855) which are minor
compared to that of the codefendants, (ksa -21-4643(a)
(1))
There was a fiduciary relationship between defendant
and co defendant as that it was her brother in law for 7
said years. He was entrusted with the upmost respect
she had for him. It was in her best belief that he had her
best interests at heart. Free from harm he was entrusted
to deliver.
The defendant who stands before you today is not the
same as the one back in March 2018. She stands here as
a clear minded clean from drugs and free from any
outside influences. In a letter recently written by
defendant she has clear and convincing remorse and has
great guilt for being a survivor of such a heinous crime
that the co defendant committed. In her words, “I will
never forgive myself or forget, because forgetting is to let
go and I will never let go, I will always have Taylor in my
heart. He is my brother. “This defendant has endured a
great amount of pain and suffering and has been
traumatized by the actions of the codefendant.
In conclusion we ask that you look at all mitigating and
aggravating circumstances and conclude a accepting the
proposed durational departure and give good merit to
the time she has served her in county jail.
Thank you for your time in this matter.