Taylor reaches plea deal in sex abuse case

Terry Taylor of Sisters faces five to six years in prison as the result of a plea agreement reached in a sex abuse case on Thursday, January 2.

Taylor entered an "Alford" plea on two counts of third degree sex abuse, one count of first degree attempted sex abuse, and two counts of second degree sex abuse. All counts involved incidents involving his stepdaughters occurring between 1999 and 2001. (See sidebar below)

Under the "Alford" plea, Taylor does not admit to the allegations but agrees to accept the plea agreement offered by the District Attorney's office. The "Alford" plea is a guilty plea.

The plea agreement calls for a range of 60 to 74 months in prison. Sentencing was set for Friday, January 24. The victims are expected to testify at sentencing.

Judge Michael Sullivan emphasized repeatedly to Taylor that there is no going back from his plea.

"I will listen carefully to what the victims and attorneys have to say at the time of sentencing, but it's basically going to be between 60 and 74 months, period," Sullivan said.

Taylor faced a maximum of 15 years in prison and $210,000 in fines if he had been convicted at trial on the five counts. The original indictment contained 37 total felony and misdemeanor counts.

Taylor was released pending sentencing. He is not to have contact with any minors except for his own sons.

Alford plea explained

Under an "Alford"plea, a defendant pleads guilty, though he does not admit to the underlying facts of the allegations against him.

Such a plea is entered by a defendant who wishes to take advantage of a plea deal offered by the state.

The "Alford"plea has the full effect of a guilty plea and is not the same as a "no contest"plea, where the defendant is neither admitting nor denying guilt. An "Alford"guilty plea may be used against a defendant in a civil action, where a no contest plea may not be used.

This type of plea gets its name from a 1970 Supreme Court decision, North Carolina v. Alford, which said that "an accused may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even though he is unwilling to admit participation in the crime, or even if his guilty plea contains a protestation of innocence, when ... he intelligently concludes that his interests require a guilty plea and the record strongly evidences guilt."

That decision involved a murder case in the 1960s in which Henry Alford of North Carolina, facing the death penalty, pleaded guilty to murder though claiming he did not commit the crime.

The case was appealed on the basis that Alford's guilty plea "was involuntary because it was motivated principally by fear of the death penalty."

The Supreme Court ruled that a "guilty plea that represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available... is not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment because it was entered to avoid the possibility of the death penalty."(Sources: "North Carolina v. Alford"; Black's Law Dictionary.)