With Purdy Statutory Sodomy Guilty Plea Thrown Out, What's Next?

CAMDEN COUNTY, Mo. — A high-profile case in Camdenton took a surprising twist when the judge threw out the defendant’s guilty plea last week. Now Dennis Lee Purdy, who had confessed to sexually abusing a teenage employee at the Dairy Queen restaurant he owned, will now likely go to trial with a not-guilty plea.

Former Restaurant Owner Admits Groping Underaged Employee, Pleads Guilty

CAMDEN COUNTY, Mo. — The former owner of a local Dairy Queen admitted in court on Monday tha…

The problem arose at Purdy’s sentencing hearing on July 12, 2016. There, it was revealed that Purdy’s sworn statements made under oath when he entered an Alford plea on May 23, 2016 before Judge Hayden contradicted statements later made to the Probation officer. Whether a verdict by jury or by judge, defendants go through a sentencing assessment process conducted by the Probation and Parole Office. Purdy went through such a process prior to his scheduled sentencing on July 12.

According to Missouri Court Procedures, a Sentencing Assessment Report (SAR) is “required in all felony cases … and includes a recommended sentence, in addition to an identification of the offender’s risk level, based on the nature and severity of the offense, prior criminal history, and other relevant factors.” This report also contains the offender’s version of events related to the charges. Purdy’s version of the events for the SAR differed from his sworn testimony in court.

The original charges against Purdy were Count 1) Forcible Sodomy, Count 2) Statutory Sodomy, and Count 3) Sexual Abuse. In his plea agreement, he offered an Alford plea to the first count. This means he accepted the fact that the State could most likely prove the charge of Forcible Sodomy without admitting to the elements of the crime.

As to Count 2, Purdy entered an open plea. This means he admitted to the elements of the crime without any expectation of a sentencing outcome whereas other types of plea agreements may be tied to particular sentencing outcomes. Count 3 was not a factor as the original plea agreement included only the first two counts.

In order for the Court to accept a plea, a defendant must offer a factual basis for the plea. In other words, defendants must explain the actions constituting the elements of the crime. In Purdy’s case, Count 1, Forcible Sodomy, includes deviant sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion. Therefore, Purdy had to describe for the Court under oath that he did not have consent from the victim, but he gave differing descriptions of events—in relation to the victim’s consent—for the SAR and the Court.

On July 12, 2016, Judge Hayden found the difference in those descriptions to be so significant that the Judge declared a mistrial and allowed the defendant to withdraw his prior plea of guilty. That original plea petition was then sealed by the Court.

Further, Judge Hayden recused himself as a result of his knowledge of facts from previous court proceedings and the details of the SAR. The matter has thus been reassigned to Judge Stan Moore, Camden County, 26^th Circuit, and a new trial has been scheduled for Aug. 8, 2016 at 9 a.m.

Inconsistency in a defendant’s statements at this point in the sentencing process is somewhat rare and could lead to an unfavorable outcome, including harsher or longer sentences because the outcome will be in the hands of jury going forward rather than the result of plea arrangements.