Appeal denied for man who raped woman
The state Superior Court has denied an appeal by a Warren man convicted of raping his estranged wife in front of her child.
Kameron M.J. Osborne, 22, was sentenced last year to 10 to 20 years in state prison on a rape charge and another 30 to 60 months for endangering the welfare of a child by Judge Gregory Hammond.
Police said the victim reported that Osborne threw her on the bed, held her down, and raped her.
The victim reported kicking, pushing, hitting, and yelling at Osborne to get him to stop, according to the affidavit.
Additional details surrounding the case were revealed when Osborne attempted to have his bail reduced several months ago. District Attorney Rob Greene said during that hearing that the victim told police Osborne threatened her children in order to gain her compliance.
“‘He grabbed me and said, if I don’t stop, ‘I’m going to hurt (the child),'” Greene said.
The victim told police Osborne then called the child, who was close by and said, “Come here. Whatever happens is mommy’s fault,” according to Greene. The victim then stopped resisting.
The sentence handed down by Judge Gregory Hammond was the maximum allowed by law.
The Superior Court in a Sept. 8 opinion upheld that decision.
Osborne, per the opinion, challenged both Hammond rejecting his attempt to withdraw his plea as well as Hammond’s discretion in handing down the maximum sentence.
The opinion states that Osborne felt pressured in entering his plea, did so with questionable information from his counsel and said during a hearing that he didn’t want to register as a sexual offender for life.
“Here, Osborne sought to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing because he did not want to register for life as a sex offender. He did not claim he was innocent,” the court found, “much less put forward a plausible claim of innocence of identify a colorable claim of a flaw in the Commonwealth’s case.
“Osborne has failed to show that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary.”
On whether Hammond abused his discretion by handing down the maximum sentence, the opinion states that the a sentence shouldn’t be changed in this way absent a “manifest abuse of discretion.”
The court found that Hammond “stated on the record its reasons for deviating from the guidelines for each count” and cited heavily from his opinion filed as part of the appeal.
“The court indicated that the sentence would be outside of the guidelines and gave specific reasons for that on the record and in the written sentence order,” he wrote. “First and most important, (Osborne) raped the victim in the presence of their young child…. Frankly, this circumstance alone justifies the imposition of the maximum sentence.”
He went on to suggest that Osborne’s conduct “greatly outweighed other considerations, including (Osborne’s) lack of a prior record.
“This court can’t imagine a defendant more in need of a lengthy period of incarceration and rehabilitative services than a man who would forcibly rape… while threatening to harm both mother and and child, in front of the child. This court can’t begin to fathom the long lasting trauma and devastating emotional harm suffered by the victim.
“The impact of (Osborne’s) conduct upon the lives of both victims in this case is immeasurable. It outweighs all other considerations.”
“The trial court did not abuse its discretion,” the opinion concludes. “We cannot say that…Osborne’s sentence was unreasonable.”