News Talk 94.1/AM 1600 Where The Upper Cumberland Talks
The State Appeals Court has denied the appeal of a Van Buren County man charged with raping his eleven-year-old daughter.
Joel Ernest Blanton faces 212 years in prison after being convicted on seven counts of rape during the 2018 trial. Blanton also convicted on one count of aggravated sexual battery involving his ten-year-old daughter. Blanton appealed the verdict citing insufficient evidence. His attorneys also argued the sentence was excessive.
The evidence issues surround some inconsistencies involving the testimony of the two girls as to whether there was penetration, masturbation or oral sex. The attorneys argued that the stories of the girl were not specific enough or changed slightly between the time of the incidents and the trial.
“A rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engaged in the unlawful sexual penetration of the victim, and we decline to reweigh the evidence or to substitute our inferences for those drawn by the jury,” Judge Camille McMullen wrote in the opinion.
In the sentencing, Blanton’s attorney argued the trial court erred in using an enhancement factor in imposing the sentence. In this case, the court considered whether Blanton had committed the crime “to gratify [his] desire for pleasure or excitement.” The court found he had.
“We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing partially consecutive sentencing and properly considered the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act,” Judge Camille McMullen wrote in the opinion. “The trial court appropriately determined that the effective sentence in this case was reasonably related to the severity of the offenses, the Defendant’s extensive criminal history, and the compelling need to protect society from further criminal conduct by the Defendant. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing partially consecutive sentencing and properly considered the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act. The trial court appropriately determined that the effective sentence in this case was reasonably related to the severity of the offenses, the Defendant’s extensive criminal history, and the compelling need to protect society from further criminal conduct
by the Defendant.”
The incidents began in early 2017.
