A 20-year-old woman named Candrea Cook was sentenced to 20 years in prison for her involvement in a carjacking and battery incident. The sentence came as a shock to Cook, her mother, and her defense attorney, who had expected probation or house arrest. Cook maintained that her legal counsel had promised her she would not receive a state prison sentence.
The incident raised questions about fairness and sparked controversy on social media, with many commentators expressing the belief that Cook’s sentence was too harsh. Cook had written letters to the judge expressing her regret and her fear for her life, as well as her desire to continue her education. The incident occurred when Cook arranged a meeting for sex with an older man, knowing it was a setup for a robbery by her boyfriend, who was also involved and was shot during the incident. The gunman has not been caught, and Cook was arrested several weeks later. Despite the controversy, Lieutenant Dan Dietrich of the South Daytona police department stated that the investigation had led to the identification of the gunman, and a warrant had been issued for his arrest.
a juvenile gunman could not identify himself to law enforcement, and the manager of the Long John Silvers where the suspect’s girlfriend, Cook, worked, recalled her as a quiet employee. Cook’s boyfriend had been causing issues, and she was giving him free food during her shifts, which led to an argument with the manager. Cook texted her manager the next day acknowledging her disobedience but expressed her boyfriend’s dire situation. Cook, a hard-working single mother, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for her role in the crime, which her mother believed was too harsh.
Cook had also mentioned in her letters to the judge that she was a victim of sexual abuse since she was five and couldn’t afford her $50,000 bail. The state had agreed to wave the sentencing guidelines in exchange for her guilty plea, but the judge, Foxman, handed down a 20-year sentence, which was not recommended by the state. The public defender, James Perie, pointed out that Foxman had a reputation for fairness and making just decisions based on facts. However, the Fifth District Court of Appeals had previously overturned one of his sentences for being too light.
the appeals court overturned a sentence given to a defendant named Militti, who was originally given probation and community control. However, the appeals court found that Militti did not meet the legal requirements for a downward departure.
Militti is scheduled to be sentenced again in August. Meanwhile, Cook, another defendant, whose case was being handled by the same lawyer, Scott, had new attorneys file a motion to withdraw Cook’s plea. The motion stated that Cook was induced to plead guilty and avoid trial, which constituted a manifest injustice that required correction. Scott’s supervisor, Pere, stated that he couldn’t comment on conversations Scott had with Cook due to attorney-client privilege. Pere added that he would have recommended Cook follow Scott’s advice to enter a guilty plea in the case.
