Dennis Lee Purdy

Dennis Lee Purdy, former owner of Dairy Queen in Camdenton, Mo., on May 23, 2016, pleaded guilty and admitted to groping an underaged employee. Purdy now faces a maximum sentence of seven years in prison and will be registered as a sex offender. He is scheduled for sentencing in July. 

CAMDEN COUNTY, Mo. — The former owner of a local Dairy Queen admitted in court on Monday that he groped an underaged female employee in the restaurant’s basement.

Dennis Lee Purdy appeared for trial at 9 a.m. on May 23, 2016, in the Camden County Courtroom with Judge Kenneth Hayden presiding. Purdy accepted a plea arrangement from the State before the trial began. 

As a result, he now faces a maximum of seven years in prison, to be decided by Judge Hayden, and will be registered as a sex offender with the State of Missouri.

Purdy was charged in June of 2013 with three counts including 1) Forcible Sodomy – Deviate Sexual Intercourse by Forcible Compulsion (an Unclassified Felony),  2) Statutory Sodomy – 2nd Degree (a C Level Felony) and 3) Sexual Abuse (a C Level Felony).

The incident occurred in the basement of the Dairy Queen on Business Route 5 in North Camdenton, which Purdy owned and operated at the time. The victim, KRB (a minor at the time of the occurrence) worked at the Dairy Queen and alleged that Purdy sent her to the basement for supplies, and then followed her there. She said Purdy then placed his hand inside her clothing, touching her genital area and placed his hand on her breasts, without her consent.

Camden County Prosecuting Attorney Michael Gilley and Defense Attorney Fawzy Simon informed the court of the plea arrangement; Gilley also noted that the third count, Sexual Abuse, had been dropped. Purdy, standing before the judge, was sworn in and agreed to the terms of the plea. But, what was expected to be a seamless plea deal became complicated when Purdy said he could not recall some specifics from the incident in the Dairy Queen basement.

Before accepting an open guilty plea from a defendant, the Court must establish a factual basis for the plea by allowing the defendant to describe his exact and specific actions during the commission of the alleged crime. Through his description, the defendant must convince the court that his or her actions actually fit the definition of that crime. 

The point of contention arose as to the exact and specific placement of Purdy’s hand. In describing his crime to the judge, Purdy could not confirm that his hand had actually made contact with the victim’s genitals. This undermined his ability to plead guilty on the first count with which he was charged: Forcible Sodomy.

At that point, the court allowed time for defense counsel to confer with his client, after which P.A. Gilley amended the criminal complaint and the defendant reentered the courtroom. 

Purdy withdrew his previous plea entered a few minutes prior, and the court accepted an Alford Plea on Count 1, as the defendant admitted to parts of the allegation but denied certain specific details. In an Alford Plea, the defendant does not acknowledge his guilt but admits the State likely has sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime. Also in an Alford Plea, the State must convince the judge there is evidence sufficient to result in a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Gilley stated the exact charge listing the element of genital contact by the defendant’s hand and the victim’s statements to examiners immediately after the incident, which included the contact. It was consistent with the victim’s deposition taken by the defense attorney, which also specifically described the exact nature and place of Purdy’s hand. The court found that information from Gilley to be sufficient, and accepted the Alford Plea.

As to Count 2, Purdy entered an Open Plea, admitting to touching the victim's breasts and genitals over her clothes and reaching his hand down her pants. An Open Plea constitutes acceptance of whatever sentence the Court imposes. 

Judge Hayden will sentence Purdy on July 12, 2016. He advised Purdy he would be allowed to confer with his attorney concerning the results of the sentencing report, which will be created before the sentencing, and would further be allowed to address the court prior to sentence being handed down.

0
0
0
0
0

(0 Ratings)