Opinion ID: 2087919
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Poulin

Text: [¶ 25] Poulin was sentenced to a total of 65 years. Assuming that he obtains the benefit of current good time calculations, he will be eligible for release in approximately 54 years. See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1253. This sentence in total is significantly longer than most sentences meted out in Maine. Poulin will not be released until he is into his eighties. It is clear from the discussion at sentencing that the judge intended to prevent Poulin from gaining access to any more children for many years. [¶ 26] We must determine whether, on the facts of this case, the sentence is simply too long. In particular, we review the court's decision not to suspend any portion of the sentences imposed for abuse of discretion. See Pfeil, 1998 ME 245, ¶ 19, 720 A.2d at 578. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the sentencing justice and unless the justice has exceeded the bounds of his discretion or made a positive error of law, we will not disturb the sentence imposed. See id. [¶ 27] Poulin's sentencing was unusual in that the court had before it Poulin's personal journal chronicling in detail his thoughts, desires, and actions relating to the sexual abuse of children. The lengthy journal, which Poulin does not dispute contains his own writings, was written during 1994 and 1995. The charges on which Poulin was sentenced alleged dates of crimes during 1996 and 1997. The journal therefore provided the court with significant and rare insights into the events that led to Poulin's convictions. [¶ 28] The journal unquestionably played a significant part in the court's decision. It contains a disturbing record of Poulin's efforts and successes in obtaining sex from children. It also sets out Poulin's involvement with N.A.M.B.L.A. and his belief that sexual relationships between adult men and young boys are acceptable no matter what the moral majority believes. The journal openly addresses his intention to ignore the laws criminalizing this behavior and to continue to practice this activity regardless of the possible consequences. During a period of incarceration he wrote a novel of man/boy love, but threw it away before he was released because I had heard that they search all your belongings before they let you go. Discussing Sweet, Poulin wrote: Richard was a boy lover but the years he spent in jail, I believe, scared him away from the practice. His honest desire for boys is greatly suppressed, which is not good. I believe there is no such thing as a reformed boy lover. Sooner or later, Richard is going to be attracted to a boy and he's going to cross that line that society and the judicial system has put between men and boys. (Emphasis in original.) [¶ 29] In a chilling passage, Poulin demonstrated his understanding of the vulnerability of certain boys. Ahh, the boys of Water Street. They are usually from broken homes or troubled ones at least. Alcohol is almost always a factor. They are despondent and need love .... These are the boys I love. The journal also contains graphic passages of Poulin's sexual activities with several boys and frequently discusses possibilities of new contacts with other boys. As one relationship with a boy came to an end, Poulin wrote: In the meantime, I must have him introduce me to one of his friends. I have to have another link before the chain falls apart and I have to start anew. It is significant that the journal disclosed Poulin's understanding of when to disclose his penchant for sex with children and when to hide it or to give the I Look But Don't Touch speech. [¶ 30] During the sentencing hearing, the court indicated that it had reviewed both Poulin's journal and his statement submitted in support of sentencing. The court gave particular weight to Poulin's own statement that there is no such thing as a `reformed boy lover.' The court noted that Poulin had inflicted physical pain, through anal intercourse, on one of his victims at the same time that he acknowledged in his journal how much pain he had suffered himself when he was first penetrated anally. [¶ 31] The court also had before it the victim impact statements gathered by the victim witness advocates regarding the three boys victimized by Poulin's assaults. Those statements spoke volumes about the destruction left in the wake of Poulin's activities. Dr. James Jacobs completed an evaluation of Poulin for sentencing and concluded that Poulin has difficulty understanding the effects of his victimization on the children and that empathy, lacking in Poulin, is felt to be one component in reducing risk of recidivism. He further opined that Poulin probably does not have a good prognosis in sexual offender treatment due to the underlying personality disorder components. [¶ 32] We conclude that the court did not err in determining that Poulin is not a good candidate for probation. Control of his activities could be attempted only through intense supervision and conduct management. Even with such resources in place, resources that are scarce in our current system, Poulin's well-documented ability to fool those around him and still gain access to vulnerable children is amply demonstrated in this record. [¶ 33] Finally, we conclude that the sentence, although extraordinary in length, is sufficiently supported by the facts in the record that it must be affirmed. We note that a sentence of this length will be appropriate only in the most unusual cases and would not be appropriate in the absence of the multiple aggravating factors present here. Indeed, in his sentencing argument to the court, the prosecutor indicated that on only one prior occasion in a 25-year history had his office recommended a sentence as severe as the one recommended here. In that case, involving a defendant named Elwood Twist, the defendant was sentenced to 85 years (reduced after appeal to 68 years as a result of a defective indictment) for multiple unrepented acts of sexual assaults on children. See State v. Twist, 528 A.2d 1250 (Me.1987). [¶ 34] Here, the number of victims, the length of time during which the activities continued, the nature of the sexual activities, the dire effects on the victims, the defendant's own statements to the effect that a boy lover never changes, and the extremely significant risk of his reoffending upon release have all combined to warrant a sentence of significant length. We cannot say that the sentence structured by the court in this case exceeded the bounds of the court's discretion or reflected any error of law or principle. The entry is: The sentence imposed on Richard Sweet is affirmed. The sentence imposed on Paul Poulin is affirmed. CALKINS, J., with whom DANA, J., joins, concurs in part and dissents in part and files opinion. CALKINS, J., with whom DANA, J., joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part. [¶ 35] I respectfully dissent to that portion of the opinion affirming Poulin's sentences. I do not fault the manner in which the sentences were imposed. I agree that the heinousness of the commission of the offenses and the prior criminal record were sufficient to warrant sentencing in excess of 20 years. [7] I cannot disagree, at least in the abstract, with the discussion of consecutive sentences. [¶ 36] I dissent because the totality of Poulin's sentences is excessive. [8] Although a court follows the established sentencing procedures and principles, a sentence which is excessive will be vacated. See State v. Frechette, 645 A.2d 1128, 1129 (Me.1994) (vacating four sentences of 20 years each imposed consecutively). In reviewing the propriety of a sentence, see 15 M.R.S.A. § 2155(1) (Supp.1999), excessiveness is considered. See Daniel E. Wathen, Disparity and the Need for Sentencing Guidelines in Maine: A Proposal for Enhanced Appellate Review, 40 ME. L. REV. 1, 11 n. 32 (1988) (quoting State v. Carter, No. AD-76-824 (Me.App.Div. Jan. 2, 1979)). [¶ 37] A measure of excessiveness is the range of sentences for similar offenses. I am not aware of any gross sexual assault cases, in which the sentences were reviewed by us or the former Appellate Division of the Supreme Judicial Court, where the sentences imposed upon a single defendant approximated the 65 years imposed on Poulin. The longest such sentence I have found in the reported cases is 40 years. See State v. Lobozzo, 1998 ME 228, ¶ 6, 719 A.2d 108, 110 (affirming sentences of 40 years on kidnapping and gross sexual assault and lesser sentences on unlawful sexual contact and assault, all to be served concurrently). [9] [¶ 38] In my view Poulin's sentence of 65 years is outside the reasonable bounds of discretion. The total length of his sentences, combined with the court's refusal to suspend even a few years, is excessive in light of the totality of circumstances, which include, in addition to those mentioned by the sentencing court, Poulin's relatively young age and his age at the release point. I fear that the affirmance of this sentence will substantially raise the bar of sentences generally.