Sex offender returns to Manchester NH

"Sex offender returns to NH"
By CAROL ROBIDOUX AND MARK HAYWARD, New Hampshire Union Leader
May 8, 2008

MANCHESTER – Convicted child killer Douglas Simmons, who tried to move to Derry from Connecticut in January -- but left after the community rallied against him -- had little to say when he answered the door of his 170 Amherst St. apartment last night.

"I'm just trying to build a new life," Simmons said, when asked why he moved to the city. "I'm just trying to do the best I can."

Manchester police last night confirmed that Simmons registered yesterday as an "offender against children."

In 1981, Simmons was convicted of killing 6-year-old Michelle Spencer in Norwich, Conn. Police said Simmons strangled Spencer with a telephone cord, sexually assaulted her and dumped her in a sewer drain. Simmons admitted he had assaulted Spencer, but never was charged with that crime.

A check of his registration by Detective Lt. Nick Willard last night noted Simmons was convicted of kidnapping. There was nothing about a murder conviction or sexual assault listed.

That is due to a plea deal Simmons made in his home state of Connecticut. His murder conviction does not show on the state's list of registered sex offenders against children --" even though he admitted to molesting his victim.

Simmons, 47, moved briefly to Derry in January where he registered in New Hampshire as "an offender against children." The information, which was published by the state on Jan. 31, showed that he had pleaded guilty to kidnapping in 2003.

But prior to that, Simmons served 21 years of a 35-year sentence in prison on a murder charge in Connecticut.

When Simmons became eligible for release, Connecticut authorities realized they had erroneously added probation to the end of his murder sentence --" something the state does not allow.

So in 2003, Simmons agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of kidnapping. The five years probation was meant to keep him under court supervision.

At the time of his release, Michigan officials scuttled his attempt to move closer to his mother, who lives in Grand Rapids.

His arrival in Derry in late January launched a firestorm. Parents packed hearings, and the town council considered an ordinance that would prohibit sex offenders from living near schools, day-care centers, playgrounds and parks.

But the Derry Town Council killed the initiative, after Police Chief Edward Garone warned it would drive sex offenders underground. Simmons moved out about a week after moving to Derry, leaving as quietly as he arrived.

He returned to Connecticut, where he was arrested March 1 at a shelter in Hartford for failing to verify his address there as a sex offender in 2006.

According to court records, Simmons was found guilty Monday in Hartford Superior Court on those charges, listed as statute 54-251, "failure to register as a non-violent offender against a minor," a Class D felony, and was released on an "unconditional discharge."

As of yesterday, the New Hampshire State Police listed 227 child sex offenders on its public registry of child-sex offenders in Manchester.

Last night, Willard explained there is no provision in the state law to notify neighbors when someone registers.

"After reading his registration form, this guy is a danger in my opinion and we believe immediate disclosure is warranted to ensure public safety," he said.

In February, Manchester aldermen considered an ordinance that would have prohibited sex offenders from living near schools, parks or other places frequented by children. But Manchester police said residency requirements were not the answer, and only a small fraction of sex crimes involve people who do not know one another. Most sexual assault victims know their assailant, police stressed.

Police at the time said they average about 15 compliance checks a week on sex offenders, depending on their case load.

"I could not see how the board could vote against this because it's for the children," said former state Rep. Leo Pepino back in February, who pushed for the Manchester ordinance.

Last night, Pepino called on Mayor Frank Guinta to appoint a committee to study the issue. Pepino said aldermen had directed Guinta to do so.

Had the ordinance been in place, Simmons would not likely have been able to move into the Amherst Street rooming house, Pepino said. Victory and Bronstein parks are just a half-block away. Also nearby are the city library, Central High School and St. Joseph Regional Junior High School.

On April 15 a bill went before state legislators that would close loopholes in the state's offender registry by categorizing offenders in three tiers --" from "peeping Toms" to murders and kidnappings involving sex assaults.

HB1640 unanimously passed the House and was recommended for passage by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, with an amendment regarding DNA testing .

That bill is scheduled to go today to the Senate floor for a final vote.

--

Readers' COMMENTS:

Beth from Raymond hit the nail on the head. Those who feel so sorry for this excuse for a human should stop and try to just imagine what that little girl went through. Not just the physical part of her attack but the total fear, inablility to understand whys someone would want to hurt her and why no one could help her. I have absolute zero tolerance for anyone who hurts a child. What a spineless, repulsive piece of work they are.
- Judith, Escondid, California

Sandra Kearns, Derry New Hampshire, Great Point. Thanks for the weblink. I will. I will email my District Reps...

Let's turn the whining into action...
- peter, stratham, nh

It seems so wrong that this fellow is out on the streets after taking that young life. How can the anti-capital punishment people justify this or look at themselves in a mirror?
- Tony, Goffstown

Do you honestly beleive he is the only person in New Hampshire who has killed/kidnapped/assaulted a child? If we call him out, let's call everyone else out as well. Yeah, it sucks, I have two young daughters, but I am sure that we walk by dangerous people everyday, I am sure we have stood near a sex offender in the grocery store or pumped gas near a murderer. The only thing I have to say... PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. It may not prevent situations in some cases but let me tell you about how many parents let ther kids walk around at all hours through the city, I just drove by a 3 year old on Union Street Monday. WATCH YOUR KIDS!
- Tonya Ferrara, Manchester N.H.

Whats next....do we limit thieves from living near a mall? Do we deport all tax evaders? Do we start castrating dead beat dads? This is America, a free society. And along with freedom comes an inherent risk that everyone must live among other free people. This guy served his time, leave him alone as long as he is willing to play by the rules under the already established sex offender laws. Just drive down the street during the day in downtown Manchester and look at all the "classy" citizens sitting on their stoops contributing absolutely nothing to society......they pose a much greater threat
- Cory, Derry

I can't believe anyone would say this person has served his time and should be left alone. That is a disgusting statement and I find whoever says this an uncaring and ignorant person. This was a child that was raped and murdered, there is nothing more heinous in this world.

Life in prison with no daylight or the death penalty. Period. This disgusts me.
- J, Manchester

ok folks I see 44 comments. what if we all made just one call to our local Reps and Senator urging them to make the state of nh a less desirable place to live? call today and ask them to pass nh's adam walsh act! their info is posted on www.nh.gov under "legislative branch". let's turn our outrage into activism!
- Sandra Kearns, Derry New Hampshire

Anybody who is saying he paid is debt can't possibly have any children of their own.
- gregg, manchester, nh

Mike- You act like this guy ran a red light or hit a street sign. Do you actually get what he did? Did you think about what a horrible disgusting crime he commited? Can you put yourself in the parents shoes? This is not a mediocre crime that can be paid off by spending some time in jail, this is unforgivable.
- Julie, Manchester, NH

Julie and others,

You're all starting to sound an awful lot like God. What he did is inexcusable but no one, NO ONE, has the right to kill another person. He should have been locked up for life!
- Justin, Hooksett

Why would he return to a state that didnt want him?Does he feel in manchesterwith over 200 other child abusers that he would go unnoticed.The sad thing is the city is full of drug dealers who also prey on our children.We need to have laws that prevent them from living around schools,playgrounds etc..Which in Manchester would leave few places that child abusers could live.How fast can we encourage him to leave our city also?
- karen shutt, manchester

I too, have never posted a comment on these blogs but feel so strongly on this issue that I had to. How dare you, Sandy and anyone else who agrees with her say that this man has a right and needs a place to live? This is beyond scum, he is not even human. He took a poor, innocent, precious little child, did heinous things to her and after all that took all he could-her life. Then you sit here and say he "paid his debt" like hell he did. There is no amount of time that can pay for this horrid act. He is worse than an animal, they don't even do these things to each other. What if this had happened to your own child? Would you still be saying he has rights? He sickens me and so does anyone who believes that he deserves a second chance. He should, at the very least, be locked up forever and have the same things done to him by fellow inmates that he did to this innocent girl. These are the kind of people that ruin and take lives and have no right to be breathing.
- Julie, Manchester, NH

Why is one Manchester Detective's opinion of "immediate disclosure is warranted to ensure public safety" relevant? Is he insinuating that the other 226 registered sex offenders in Manchester are safe for the public? Should one of these offenders reoffend in the city, is the city now liable for not ensuring public safety by disclosing so vehemently with the press the addresses and pictures of residences of offenders?
- Jim, Manchester

Such hatred by people on this blog. I guess the real question is, as a society we believe in criminals going to jail. That is fine. What happens when the criminal serves his or her time? They are released. We live in a society of rules and regulations. You break the rules (laws) you go to jail. Once you have served your time, under our justice system, you have the right to be free. Unfortunately, based on the comments on this blog, people don't believe in the system. The biggest fear at this point isn't this offender as much as it is the people who want to create a witch hunt after this guy. Very sad. Very very sad.
- Mike, Manchester

I used to live in NH. I experienced s. assault as a 6 yr old in NH. I currently live in NC. I have found that despite what happened when I was a child NH is indeed a safe place to raise a child and the freedoms and liberties we take seriously are often ignored in other areas. Balance is the key. Responsible citizenship, information and maybe as Florida does pink license plates....
- Darlene, Former Resident, Manchester

Douglas Simmons is clearly the poster child for stiffer punishment and the fear and anger that his reprehensible crime insights are clouding reasonable people from using reasonable judgment. There should be tougher laws and punishment for those individuals that pose the greatest risk, but that punishment and prevention should be metered out at the time of sentencing and as a life time condition of parole should an individual be deemed dangerous. There should be better safe guards while any criminal offender is incarcerated to identify their propensity for violence against anyone and then they should be counseled and monitored closely after release. For individuals who have served their time and are no longer subject to stiffer guidelines there should be a review process to determine an individual’s dangerousness and risk of re-offense. Similar to Massachusetts SORB.

The Adam Walsh Act and HB1640 is the State's poor attempts to comply with the Federal Mandate to keep those Federal Funds coming in and punish everyone equally instead of offer some type of relief for those individuals that pose little to no threat and used poor judgment in the past. These laws paint everyone with the same broad paint brush. I'm sure that there are some people who know an offender who has to comply with these laws and believe that person may be innocent or does not pose a risk or danger to the community. These are clearly questions for a finder of facts (judge) to determine if an individual should be subject to life time supervision based on certain criteria should they ever be released from prison. These laws do not add an ounce of prevention or deter a convicted or non convicted perpetrator from committing a crime and it certainly does not make your children or mine any safer than they are now or where before these laws were enacted

What makes Douglas Simmons worse than say John Morgan of Portsmouth NH recently arrested for Driving without a license while being certified as a Habitual Offender. He has 7 DWI convictions from 1976, 1979, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1999 and 2001. He was fortunately arrested on those occasions, but any of the other 1000+ times he was not he could have taken the life of an entire family. This individual obviously does not care about the life of your child or mine. Mr. Morgan had this to say while being arraigned for his resent crime "I do have a drinking and driving problem, but I've never missed a court appearance," Morgan told the judge. "As far as my past record goes, yes it looks bad, but if I was let out on personal recognizance, I'm not going to leave the state, or the town." At least we know Douglas Simmons committed his crime once and must obviously know he was wrong and deserves his punishment. He was sentenced to 35 years and was released after 21 so he must have made some progress in order to be released.
- Paul, Portsmouth, NH

To answer where the sex offenders should live.
In my opinion they shouldn't be living at all- but if they must have some place to live, let it be in their own little commune far away from anyone except their own kind.
Put up a Super Walmart- there, now they have a place to work and get all their needs.
As for just informing your kids about these guys- how are they supposed to defend themselves from a kidnapper? Why do WE have to go so far as sleeping in our kid's rooms so no one comes in at night and takes them?
Firing squads are the only answers. We put a message out there for future wanna-be offenders and eliminate the need for a list or the police to keep track of them.
Their debt to society is never "paid".
I, for one, am getting sick of supporting them.
- Kristine, Salisbury

this goes out to Sim and Greg...how dare you say he did his time and he needs a second chance, his time was way too short, actually it should have never ended...he should have got life or death. He killed a child. What don't you understand about that. It's bad enough he molested her, but he had to kill her too. Would you say the same if it was your child????? I'm ashamed in both of you or anyone who feels the same as you two do.
- Mary, Manchester

As the family member of another little girl from Connecticut whose life was stolen from her in a most horrific way- raped and strangled, then tossed out like yesterday's garbage, I have a hard time considering Douglas Simmons a man. I consider him an animal.

I find it appauling that people think that this person would be able to be rehabilitated or "serve his time." I also find it disgusting that to think that the Sex Offender Registry could be compared to a DWI Registry. I understand the impact that someone driving drunk can cause as I have experienced a drunk driving loss of someone close to me, but how can you compare such actions as choosing to drive home after having too many with violating a little child. And should those children live, they will have to carry their burden with them forever. Both are awful acts, and both ruin lives, but I can see someone being rehabilitated for a drinking problem before someone who has a preference for small children.

One doesn't kill children and take advantage of their bodies, and then wake up and say "Well that was wrong. I'm not going to do that again!" Because if you have that it your soul, if you have it in your mind to do it in the first place, I don't believe there is much hope for you. This is an animal that should be exterminated. But for some reason, CT cannot get it together and deal with their mess. Good luck, Manchester. Good luck all of us.
- Beth, Raymond

Maybe everyone should start sending letters to his landlord in manchester now. Manchester has schools and places for children all around, this guy has plenty of options to prey on young innocent children. Makes me sick. Luckily I live in a nieghborhood tucked away from the city although in manchester no one on the list is near me. It still upsets me that this creep resides here esp. since I have young children myself. What a disgrace to society. Why was he let out???? That little girl is gone from this earth!
- christine, manchester,nh

This is what happens when you don't have or use the death penalty. Connecticut's criminal justice system is an absolute disaster. They refuse to bring anyone up for the death penalty, including Simmons. Had the Connecticut justice system actually done it's job, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. They found him guilty of a felony this week and immediately released him "unconditionally". But if you are alleged to owe a motor vehicle property tax bill from 10 years ago, they will track you down and haunt you forerver.
- Brian, N. Sutton

When that poor little girl was taken from this world by that person ( doesn't deserve the right to be called a man). He lost his right to live in this world, and I don't mean behind bars.

Why should we the tax payers have to pay for these people to keep on breathing they lost all rights when they decided to take someone else's life.

As the Good Book says " An Eye For and Eye".

I would have no trouble takeing his or anyone else's life that took someone from family.
- Carole, Rindge

Someone please tell me how you inform your 6 year old about a man who raped and killed a little girl just their age and tell them to stay away? I know its a parents duty to teach and protect their kids but that doesn't mean that its the parents fault if these horrible things happen to their kids. I highly doubt that it was Michelle's parents fault that this happened to her.
I agree with Craig and Dave. Conn. should keep him if they think he is so safe to live next to and I also think that second offenders should get the death penality. A lot of people think the DP is wrong because peoples convictions have been overturned due to new evidence and what not, but if you're convicted of a sex crime twice chances are you commited them both and you'll do it again. It also costs about $40,000 a year for us to house each inmate. Why should our tax dollars go to housing and helping keep these convicts alive and allowing them to continue commiting crimes in jail. I don't even make that much money each year, my family struggles to survive and these horrible "people" get a free $40,000 every year. I know that they don't get to spend it however they want but I can think of so many other things to spend our tax dollars on.
- MC, Hampton

At the maximum, shouldn't a convicted child killer get the death sentence? And minimally, a convicted child killer should get life in prison.
- Alan Lanel, Manchester, NH

Bill of North Carolina, did it ever occur to you that NC may have sex offenders also...DUH! I cannot believe that they do not......I was born and raised in Manchester and would never consider it a hell hole. I have also lived in the south and believe me the crime is just as prevalent as in our City. Growth of any city means growth in all aspects of cities which includes crime, unfortunately......
- Pat, Manchester

Some may say "let him have a second chance, he did his time", yeah, I don't think so. What about the 6 year old little girl, what about her time? She doesn't get a second chance, and neither does her family. Simmons took Michelle's only chance at life away, and now, this pervert gets a second chance? While he is moving from place to place, trying to begin anew, Michelle's family have to live day to day with the fact that this animal is still walking around a free "man" (and I use that term very loosely). Where is the justice in all this?
Simmons was sentenced to prison, and was released, while Michelle was sentenced, by him, to death. He acted upon what was/is in his heart (if you can call it that), and mind, to take the innocence, and life away from her. Again, some may say give "him a second chance", and "he needs a place to go". I'll give him a second chance when Michelle gets hers, and I can think of a few places the animal can go, and it's not in my neighborhood.
Ultimately, with it's decision, the justice system has failed Michelle's family, and society.
- Me, Litchfield

As a father of a six-year old girl, I am so outraged about this story. This animal wrapped a telephone cord around this little girl's neck, then sexually abused her? I can't even believe he's free, out on the street. How did he get out of jail? Just take a minute, think about what this little girl went through that day. How she must have struggled, cried. Think about the fear she must have felt.
Further, the Leader isn't reporting important aspects of this story: Is this "man" employed, and where? How does he pay his rent?
Twenty-one years behind bars for killing a 6-year-old? God bless America. This blows my mind that he could be out on the streets here. Wow.
- Steve, Manchester

It's interesting to learn that no other communities, or even North Carolina, have sex offenders. I never realized...

Best wishes from deep inside the hellhole!
- mick, manch

you know all of you are protesting this one person. What about the other 276 registered offenders on Manchester and the ones that are not registered. Think about it . It is our responsibility to keep our children safe, and if we do that then there is nothing for us to compain about.
- Sim, Allenstown

OK. So we know he is nasty, we know he is ugly, we know he did horrible things. We can't undo what was done. YOU know what he looks like so STAY AWAY from him... and keep your kids away too. Post his pic on your fridge if you have to. No one is gonna go near him or befriend him.
- D., Hooksett

This former human being gave up any rights to lead a peaceful life when he took the life of an innocent, helpless child. He deserves not peace nor mercy. He should never feel welcome or wanted in any community as he will always be a threat to innocence as long as he draws breath.
- Suzanne, Rochester

Seriously! Give him a second chance. I agree with redemption and second chances, depending on the crime. This guy strangled a 6 yr old child, assaulted her and threw her down a drain. Do you think this guy is OK???!!!! NO I don't believe he deserves a second chance. LOCK this guy up! Maybe Labarre deserves a second chance too.
- MB, Manchester

Parents- now you know where he is. It is YOUR responsibility to inform your children. Plain and simple. He is a monster yes- or was perhaps 21 years ago- but he has paid his debt to society and that's what due process is all about, and everyone seems to forget this. This is why we are America. He has to live somewhere and unfortunately for all you lamb-basters out there with your pitchforks and fire we dont have an island to exile him. So, the responsibility falls on the PARENTS to make sure their kids know what to do when. All in an uproar about the ONE you know about- ever stop to think about all the ones you DONT?

Get a grip people.
- SRT, Manchester

Well, I guess publicizing his whereabouts will do wonders in terms of his rehabilitation! Perhaps we should also start a DWI offender registry and publish the names, addresses, and Plate Numbers of ALL who have been CHARGED with a DWI offense. AND, of course, notify all the neighbors, and not allow those people to live near bars and/or roads. How about those who have been SUSPECTED of DWI?! Those people put ALL of us at risk!!! Oh, that's not the law!? Not to worry, just do it, as long as it is viewed as being "a good idea", we need not be concerned about anyone's "Civil Rights". Those are reserved for me and my friends, Right?!? I guess we should not be surprised at an increase in vigilanteeism if this keeps up!
- Ken Anderson, Gilford

I can't believe this guy is out of prison. He killed a chld, a young girl!!! These people never change, it's in their system and they should be locked up forever. How many times are they released and do it again. How many of children murderers were in prison before they took someone's child. I have no pity on them and they should not be able to walk the streets free to harm another child.
- Jen, Manchester

In my opinion, I agree with CRB from Manchester. They should not live in any community but jail. If that, they take lives, they should lose theirs. He did a horrible crime, with intention, he should be burning in hell now. Where is the justice???
- RND, Derry

I'm happy I just moved out of Manchester. I was there for one year and I have had enough.
- James, Derry

I hate these child molesters as much as anyone...But they do have a right to live somewhere....Preferably in a jail cell for life...
- dennis, nashua

What I can't understand is how this man was let out of prison at all. The girl he murdered would be in her mid-30's. Maybe even with children of her own. She doesn't get the chance to be free to live her life. Her family never got to see her grow up. How unfortunate that we live in country where we need registries to protect the public from child murderers. The best way to protect us would have been to keep him in jail for the rest of his life. If 6 year old Michelle Spencer was robbed of her life, he should have been robbed of his freedom at the very least.
- Sarah, Nashua

Derry citizens were able to drive this rapist/murderer out of Derry just by raising a stink. A few brave citizens legally got together at certain meetings and let these guys know what they thought about them living in town. Manchester should do the same.
- JJ, Derry

Geesh, the guy has to live somewhere. Obviously what he did was disgusting, but he has paid his debt to society. I am so sick of all these people who think that the world has to be a perfect place and every possible inconvenience for them has to be removed immediately. Here's an idea parents, teach your children not to talk ot strangers, accept rides from them etc., instead of complaining that a guy who has a legal right to live there is there, and registered, so you know he is there.
- Greg, Manchester

Sandy in Manchester asks where someone like this should live.

I suggest a very hot place, very far below the ground.
- Thomas Quinton, Manchester

There are tons of different crimes out there. Sexual assault has to be one of the worst, the victims live with it forever. Now, add to the fact children are the victims makes me disgusted. I would like to see dealth penalty in all 2nd offense sex crimes. I could care less how hard it is on the criminals to find housing, he did the crime, monitors and death penalty will be a positive solution, if not permanent.
- Craig McIntosh, Chichester

What a sad state of affairs.
Policemen (including the chief) live out of town and the city is filling up with sex offenders.

Our lawmakers are NOT doing their job if these perverts are allowed to live anywhere near a school or playground.
- Bill H., Exeter, NH

I understand the concern but if the people are aware of his presence then the children will be aware or at least the should be. The parents need to start doing there jobs as parents and inform and educate their children. As for the offender they need someplace to go, everybody jumps to conclusions that it will happen again and I understand that but he did his time let him have a second chance
- Sim, Allenstown

The real danger is the pedophiles we don't know about, that is why the registry is useless. If you live near a registered sex offender you should be cautious, if you don't, you should be just as cautious. Don't let your kids play unsupervised on Amherst Street, or any where else in the city, or suburbs, or in the country. It's up to us to protect our own children and to know where they are every moment...
- LD, Manchester

Perhaps making the offenders wear a scarlet letter would work? Probably not, I guess we tried that hundreds of years ago. I agree with Sandy from Manchester, where would the people commenting in this post have the offenders live? If as a society we decide that we do not belive in redemption - or jail as payment for crimes, then we need to come up with a solution fair to everyone. I see the media whipping this issue into a frenzy and only bad will come of that. Frankly, the postings on this topic scare me. Do we no longer believe in our justice system or the rule of law. If not, we are in for rough times.
- Mike, Dover

If Connecticut let him out of jail, Connecticut should contain him in their state. This guy committed the most brutal act imaginable, I can't believe he's a free man.
- Dave, Fremont

He must have read the UL article about how 2 Dems introduced a bill which softens the sex predator law.

Thanks Dems.
- DFM, Salem, NH

Another reason I'm glad I was able to move my family out of Manchester. The place is a hell hole.
- Bill, North Carolina

Do I want him living in this community? NOPE! Am I overly concerned? No, not at all....He has only gotten a major public announcement for his arrival in the community. Everyone will know who he is, where he is from and what he did...forewarned is forearmed. I would opine that at this point, it is less safer for him than it is for our kids, as people seem to be so overly emotional about this. I know where my kid is 24/7. It is also fair to point out that a great number of our citizens are legally armed by obtaining a N.H. Pistol/Revolver License. However, given all the press, I don't think this guy is going to bother anyone.
- Rick Olson, Manchester

Yep, there are 276 other registered sex offenders in the city. That is largely attributed to the fact that Calument House is located at 126 Lowell Street. For those who are not aware, Calument House is the N.H. Department of Corrections Transitional Housing, many of which subsequently transition into the community. If one looks at the list, it can be noted that the highest concentration of offenders seem to be the street blocks around Calument. The Second reason is that Manchester is N.H.'s largest city. the only other community that has a higher sex offender population is Concord, for obvious reasons. MPD does a really good job tracking registered offenders...N.H. DOC is on the transitional guys like "white on rice" People forget...when a sex offender is on probation or parole, NHDOC can pay him or her a visit ANYTHIME...no warrant needed! Do I want Doug Simmons living in the community? NOPE!
- Rick Olson, Manchester

I hate to admit it but I am relieved he is not living in Derry. I hope the legislators that took all those things out of 1640 put them right back in to help make NH safer. I just don't get why they want to protect these people as opposed to our citizens. As for Sandy in Manchester, I do think felons should have a place to live after they serve their sentence. But if they have raped a child or a woman for that matter, I'd like to know where they are living.
- Dana, Derry

Thank you Detective Willard!Public, imagine if we didnt have the policeman that we have in Manchester.
The public needs to educated itself on the series of events that lead up to a sex offender's actions. The arrested crime is usually just the tip of their iceberg.
Parents know what your children are doing and going all the time. Make it hard. Your not here for easy parenting. They arent your best friends. Your here to teach and care for them.
Keep them safe and speak out!
We as parents need to use our voices and not expect police will be able to take care of this or crimes like this,we need to help them .Believe me, most have children and dont want this person or sick murders like him anywhere around children.
- Laurie, Manchester

I read the comments almost everyday but have to finally make a comment. What i read up top is disturbing yes he lives near Central High and St.Joseph but dose anyone recognize that the New Hampshire department of corrections halfway house is right there too?? How many criminals reside there?? How many sex offenders went through the doors and watched our kids walking to school? Everyone needs to take control of there own and warn there kids of the dangers out there. I do not think there is a safe place unless you move to a population of zero and start your own town good luck to our future our kids.
- Kell, Manchester

Where should they live? They shouldn't. If they have to it should be in jail and not next door to two churches with youth groups.
- CRB, Manchester

Does any one know what his fascination with New Hampshire is all about? What makes a sex offender from Connecticut so determined to live in New Hampshire?
- Nicholl, Manchester

I'm not sure that there are any communities in the US where no children reside.

Where does the public propose that felons who have served their time should live?
- Sandy, Manchester

Electronic ankle GPS monitoring is the answer. When will this state look into it. It costs the taxpayer nothing and we know where he is at all times. c'mon NH get the technology and be a leader in preventing this kind of stuff. Saves lives as well. At least let the companies who supply the equipment and do the monitoring provide a presentation. Please!
- Bob Ahern, Derry

This is not allowable...if Derry can reject him as a resident then why should we take all the rejects. I live on Amherst St. this is not allowed. He needs to move especially if he is living near St. Casmir's, St. Joseph's and Central High. Once a sex offender always a sex offender. Get him the hell out of here. Who owns this building? They are not better.
- mln, manchester

Too bad the Senate panel gutted the bill. What a timely story.
- Heather K, Derry

How can Conneticut consider this guy "non-violent" after he killed a child? Are you kidding me? At least Manchester police see out dangerous he is!
- Alex, Manchester

Just the sort of neighbor we need to clean up the neighborhood. Guess I won't be looking for property on Amherst St to build my white picket fence and raise my 2.5 children. I can guarantee you would not recognize the sleezebag after I got through with him if he approached either of my daughters on the playground.

But quite honestly, it appears there are 276 others just like him in Manchester, and these apparently are only the ones we know about, so what do you do? And these pedophiles are probably intelligent enough to lurk at other than the most obvious places.

Nice city we live in. And the funny thing is (not ha-ha funny) is that NH received all these accolades for being one of the safest states to live in. Would hate to see #50.
- Craig, Manchester

--

►Sex offender who left NH is arrested (8)
►Derry may restrict where sex offenders live (10)
170 Amherst St. in Manchester
SIMMONS

--
----------

"Tough and fair: Updating the sex offender laws"
NH Union Leader, Editorial, May 22, 2008

NEW HAMPSHIRE'S sex offender laws are about to get a comprehensive overhaul -- for the better.

Most significantly, House Bill 1640 will split sex offenders into three categories -- Tier 1, 2, and 3. The worst offenders will be classified as Tier 3 and will be placed on the public sex offender registry for life. Included on that list are offenders who have committed aggravated felonious sexual assault, felenious sexual assault on a child younger than 13, murder and kidnapping.

Tier 2 offenders, including sex offenders against teenagers, will be registered sex offenders for life. But they will be able to petition a court to remove their names from the public sex offender registry after 15 years on the list. The court "may," but does not have to, grant the request.

Tier 1 offenders, such as people who committed sexual assault against a minor between the ages of 13 and 16, would be registered for 10 years. They would be eligible for removal from the public registry after five years.

Categorizing sex offenders this way makes sense and has the backing of the state attorney general. The bill also requires the worst offenders to register quarterly, which is an improvement.

Some changes should be made in conference committee. For instance, the bill allows local police departments to take DNA samples from offenders, but does not require it. It removes the current madate that offenders report their place of employment. And it should change the definition of child pornography to include material involving 16- and -17-year-olds.

But overall, this bill improves New Hampshire's already tough sex offender laws. We're glad to see it has such broad support in Concord.

--

Readers' COMMENTS:

A classification system based on the crime is simply punishment and a waste of money. The original system based on likelihood of re-offense was better. Judicial stats show that the tier system actually puts those at higher risk of offense into the lowest tier.

Solution for the 90% offenders with no priors? Take everyone's DNA.
- Robert Daveys, Minneapolis MN

Thank you Union Leader for folowing this issue so closely. I depend on your paper to keep me updated on bills like this so that I can call my Reps and Senator. I will call them about the Committee meeting next week and ask them to fix the bill.
- Andrea Douglas, Manchester

As an offender from another state, I commend the NH Legislature on this new law. It is clear to me that there are different levels of offenders and therefore, there need to be a different set of consequences and standards that are fair and equal.

While it is true that the registry was made to protect, the problem is that over 90 percent of all sexual offenses are committed by a person who has never committed a sexual offense before. Now, just how is the registry supposed to stop them? There needs to be more awareness and prevention to help parents identify who the "at risk" individuals are for their children.

Without a law like this one, the offenders who have shown themselves to be safe and responsible have no hope of ever becoming productive again in life. Instead, they are forced to live in government housing, supported by government programming that all of America pays for, including those of you who say we should all be locked up or shot. The best sex offender is a tax-paying offender.

I, like Paul, have not re-offended, have been married, have a decent job, (in spite of the laws, by God's mercy and grace) and would welcome the chance to have my name taken off of the registry. As in Pauls' case, some of us made some really poor decisions in our lives at one point or another. Seeing our error, we wish now only to have the chance to take care of our familiy.
- Darrin, Missouri

I think this is a good idea but could use some tweaking. I am all for letting parents know about DANGEROUS sex offenders in their area. But I happen to know of someone on the registry that happened to have sex with a minor that lied about her age... He is now stuck on that registry forever. They need to really revamp this thing. Put the really dangerous ones on there, not people that made mistakes and have to suffer forever because of it. Sure, they can be on there for a few years, but people grow up and learn from their mistakes. I hope something like this does pass and maybe it can get a few tweaks in the future.

Paul, you are exactly the kind of person I think about when I wonder why the regulations aren't updated on the list. There are some sick people out there, but clearly you are not one of them. Every time I see the charge as someone over 13 but under 16 and age difference of more then 3 years, I think of things like that. I try not to judge someone on the registry and understand that some people do change, and of course some others don't, and that is why they have multiple charges. Those are the ones I actually take notice of and worry about.
- Amy, Concord, NH

Kudo’s to Paul of New Castle and Dana (and Linda) of Derry. You are a voice of reason.

Please make sure you encourage friends, family and neighbors to contact their state and house rep.

Please ask them to email their rep to:
*OPPOSE the changing the definition of child pornography to include materials involving 16 and 17 years old.
*SUPPORT the mandate of local police departments to take DNA samples from offenders.
*SUPPORT the mandate for offenders to report place of employment.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wml.aspx

We must make sure New Hampshire doe not become a safe haven for child predators.
- Peter, Stratham

To Dana in Derry who said, "If you went to trial is that really taking responsibility for what you did? ".....ahhh hello Dana, isn't it up to the State to prove a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Don't defendants hav e a right to a FAIR trial by a jury of their peers? Or is it that you simply live by your rules and your thoughts. We live in a country, like it or not, where we have a great document called the United States Consitution. Read it. We also have a Bill of Rights. Try taking the time to read these documents before you go bashing someone for going to trial in a criminal case.
- Mike, Manchester

I thought that the registry was for the public to protect our children from dangerous predators. Paul does not sound like a dangerous predator that would want to hurt my child. I think it is a waist to have someone like him on the registry. Yes he made a mistake to get drunk and have sex with someone who was also drunk. This was 18 years ago. Too bad we are not all perfect. I am a female that would get really drunk and have sex with my date that I barley knew, and would not have had sex with if I were sober. I don't know, he could have felt the same way. We could have been predators as well. The difference was that we were not under a certain age. Paul is obviously not a predator. I wish you the best of luck.
- Jennifer, nh

Paul, this legislation helps people like you. It allows people to get off the registry once they prove they are not a threat to society (children OR adults). You should volunteer your time meeting with high school students and letting them know that a person who is drunk cannot legally consent to sex- tell them your story. There are always ways to make Lemonade out of Lemons. Griping that the law doesn't do enough doesn't help change the system.
- Paul, New Castle, NH

To Paul in Portsmouth,
If you went to trial is that really taking responsibility for what you did?
If you were at a college party wasn't the girl you had sex with in college (obviously you couldn't ask her age because she was "asleep or unconscious")? Why would you be on the public list? Maybe because she was under age?
I am sorry but if someone is getting minors drunk and having sex with them they belong on the list.
If it was a college girl I don't think you will be on the list. Although I hope you re-read what you wrote and recognize your young and stupid excuse really doesn't cut it.
If you are really a parent you're telling me you don't want to know if a child rapist is working someplace near your home or somewhere you go? Give me a break. Maybe instead of think about yourself you should think about the safety of others.
Our legislators are working hard to strengthen our laws and protect our children.
No one is forcing you to move although what you suggest is that if NH is tough on sex offenders they will leave our state. Hopefully that means they'll stop moving here as well.
- Dana, Derry

This legislation does nothing more than to categorize offenders into a Level System based on a conviction. It does not attempt to determine if an offender is a danger to the public using any clinical type of risk assessment to make that determination. Once you see the words SEX OFFENDER and LEVEL 3 you’re led to believe a conviction for one of the numerous crimes that are categorized as Level 3 offenses is a reasonable basis for classifying someone as a LEVEL 3 offender and they must be plotting their next offense in the shadows or something.
I was convicted of one count AFSA in 1992, while I was in college, for an incident that occurred in 1990 where a group of us consumed alcohol in a dorm room party. I had sex with a woman, who I believed was a willing participant and consented. Subsequently three other individuals had sex with this same woman, while they believed she was asleep or unconscious. She later said she had consumed alcohol to the point where she could not move, talk, speak or open her eyes, but she could hear and smell and was thus able to identify people by their voices and cologne.
I went to trial and was found guilty of one count of AFSA. I Spent 2 years in Prison and 2 years on Parole. My co-defendants pled guilty to felonies and received probation and I’m pretty sure I am the only one who has to register. I have been out of Prison for 12 years, married for 10, and have 4 beautiful children and own my home. I am classified as a Level 1 Offender in Massachusetts because that is where I work and will petition to be non-classified in the near future.
I have been accused of not taking responsibility for my behavior/actions that night and that is clearly not true. Once I knew of the allegations and learned further that there were other individuals that had sex with this woman I contacted the police and informed them of my involvement and everything I knew. I was certainly prepared to take responsibility for my involvement and be punished if what I did if it was a crime. I deal with the guilt of knowing I possibly could have prevented the assaults if I had chose not to have casual sex with an acquaintance while drinking….but I was 20 years old, intoxicated and obviously my judgment was impaired. It has not happened since.
This legislation gives people like me absolutely no relief from registration as a Level 3 Offender in this State. Soon my picture will be on the State Website, my employer’s name (there goes that job) and my home address. So now I can worry about harassment, my children being treated poorly by people, my family’s safety and my ability to find work so I can support my family. So the real objective of this legislation is obvious. Retro-active punishment, humiliation, alienation, loss of economic viability and forcing people to move to other States.
- Paul, Portsmouth

While progress has been made, We the People who find that DNA should be mandated and that kiddy porno of 16 and 17 years olds is unacceptable should write and call your District Senate.

Reasonable and rational parents understand the risk that this still poses to our children. By lowering the age opens New Hampshire to predators who seek out high school girls and boys for pornography. Kiddie Porn of high school children is not the industry we want to encourage in NH. If we don’t speak up for our children then who will?

I am contacting my district senate representative today:

To find yours please go to:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wml.aspx
- Peter, Stratham

We can do more! Next week they are meeting to talk about what to do with the bill 1640. Call the Statehouse and go there and let them know we want these things to stay in. Take DNA and make the age 18 not 16 for porn. (it should be 21 but that is for another day)! If you go they will listen. I have been involved for a while and being there does make a difference! Lets protect the children BEFORE something happens.
- Linda R, Derry, NH

I too appreciate the work our legislators have done to make our families safer. I am concerned about the things that are being left out though.
I am still confused about DNA. I don't understand why that's optional. DNA should be taken from these guys.
I agree on the age thing for all the reasons stated below.
I DEFINITELY want to know where these guys work. Douglas Simmons may be living in Manchester, but if he's working in Derry how can I protect my kids if I don't know that?
Like Erica, I think this needs to be fair. But the priority must be the safety of our children.
- Dana, Derry

Yes Lara, we should be cangratulating the senate for putting the protections back in. I still want to know why they took them out to begin with, and what they're gonna do to fix the porn and DNA and employment parts they never put back in. once that happens there will be reason to celebrate. thanks to the UL for being the voice of reason on sex offenders in NH. I don't usually agree with your editorials, but you're right on target with this one!
- Robin, Portsmouth

"I'm still shaking my head over the fact that a SIXTEEN year old can pose for porn in the state of NH. That's taking "live free or die" way too far."

I'm not surprised anymore. After all, a 14 year old girl can obtain an abortion without parental consent or knowledge in this state.
- Bess, Concord

Congrats to the NH Senate who fixed the bill on the Senate floor. In particular, thanks to Senator Foster who convinced the Senate to make the changes. Senator Foster is truly a leader in the fight against sex offenders and for that the state is proud!
- Lara, Concord

I think the politicians in NH believe that the average voter like me does not understand these issues and that we're all a bunch of scared parents who want to burn offenders at the stake. This is simply not true. I too believe this is fair. It allows offenders to get off the list. It doesn't place restrictions on where they can live. I am a little concerned that our lawmakers took out the pieces that take DNA from felons and lists their employment. I'm very concerned that they think a 16 year old can make a decision about creating pornography. I'm wondering if this is linked to the democrats and their stance on parental notification. If there is not a political reason for them to take out the piece that moves the age to 17, then there must be some ugly personal reason. Either way, the average voter would like to know what the reason is.
- Erica Sanborn, Hollis

Amen! I'm still shaking my head over the fact that a SIXTEEN year old can pose for porn in the state of NH. That's taking "live free or die" way too far. I also can't believe that certain legislators voted to keep the age at 18. Only in NH.
- Jim E., Nashua NH

----------

"Mayor Demands Convicted Child Killer Be Removed From City: Man Placed In Manchester Boarding House After Release"
WMUR.com, September 9, 2008

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta and the Board of Aldermen are demanding that a convicted child killer be removed from the city.

Raymond Guay was convicted of killing John Lindovski, 12, of Hollis, N.H., in 1973. He was released from prison on Monday and is living at an undisclosed rooming house in the city.

Guinta said that he contacted Thomas Tarr, the chief U.S. probation officer for New Hampshire, and demanded that Guay be removed from the city.

"Mr. Tarr's support of this relocation greatly troubles me and causes me to question the judgment of his agency," Guinta said. "This is an affront to the law-abiding citizens of Manchester."

Tarr said the original plan was to send Guay to Los Angeles.

"They could not find a program out there or placement for him," Tarr said. "Their only plan was to bring him to a shelter."

Despite an outcry from New Hampshire's attorney general, the chief judge in Los Angeles decided that sending Guay back to his home state, where he has family, would be best. But the state was only left with one option after Guay's brother in Washington, N.H., decided not to let him move in.

"Manchester was never a destination point at any time," Tarr said. "It became a default location."

An unnamed religious group helped Guay get temporary housing. Tarr said he is not under any restrictions as far as coming and going, but probation officials plan to monitor him.

When Guay was sentenced to up to 25 years in prison in 197s, there was no sentence of life without parole available, according to Warren Rudman, who was attorney general at the time. Guay is also not on the list of registered sex offenders.

"The law as it existed 35 years ago and the absence of any evidence of sexual assault -- although I have no doubt that was the intention -- kind of allowed Mr. Guay to drop between the cracks, so to speak."

Guinta said that if Guay isn't removed from Manchester, he will hold a special meeting and demand that Tarr attend.

----------

"Mayor Guinta's Statement On Guay's Relocation", WMUR.com, September 9, 2008

Statement From Mayor Frank Guinta On Raymond Guay's Relocation

The following statement is posted unedited from the Mayor of Manchester, Frank Guinta.

Mayor Frank Guinta contacted Thomas Tarr, the chief U.S. probation officer for New Hampshire, demanding that he remove convicted child killer Raymond Guay from Manchester.

"Mr. Tarr's support of this relocation greatly troubles me and causes me to question the judgment of his agency. This is an affront to the law-abiding citizens of Manchester," Mayor Guinta said. "It is beyond comprehension that Mr. Tarr would not consult, or even inform, the city of this decision. I demand that the Bureau to remove Mr. Guay out of Manchester immediately.

"The action of Mr. Tarr and his agency is unconscionable and will not stand. The people of Manchester refuse this decision and we will do everything within our power to stop the actions of this agency. If this agency continues on this path, I am prepared to call a special public hearing to discuss this matter and I will demand Mr. Tarr's attendance at this meeting."

The following is a motion that Mayor Guinta requested be sent to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, to vote upon in an emergency phone poll:

"As Raymond Guay posses a serious risk to our citizens and the children of the city, a motion to oppose the placement of Raymond Guay in the confines of the City of Manchester by the US Department of Probation. And we further demand his immediate removal from the City of Manchester by the US Department of Probation, or any other duly authorized federal or state agency."

The vote was approved by the BMA and, as of now, there are 10 votes in support and none in opposition.

----------

"Raymond Guay Relocated Out Of New Hampshire: Convicted Killer Placed In Structured Release Program", WMUR News, September 15, 2008

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- A convicted child killer has been moved out of New Hampshire after state and local officials raised objections to his living arrangements.

Raymond Guay, 60, was living in a rooming house in Manchester since his release from prison in West Virginia. Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta, Police Chief David Mara and Gov. John Lynch had all demanded that the U.S. Bureau Probation Office find another home for Guay.

Monday morning, Lynch's office announced that Guay had been moved out of the state. His new location was not released.

"We understand Raymond Guay has been moved into a structured release program out of state, which I believe is in his best interest and the public's," Lynch said.

"My hope is that Mr. Guay gets the professional treatment that he needs in a facility that specializes in such cases," Guinta said.

Guay kidnapped and killed a 12-year-old Nashua, N.H., boy in 1973. He moved to Manchester after a housing placement in Los Angeles fell through and his brother in Washington, N.H., decided against letting him live there.

----------

"Bully for us" - cabinet.com (Milford & Amherst, NH) - Published: Friday, September 19, 2008

So we’ve managed to run Raymond Guay out of New Hampshire. How proud we should be, especially Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta who made political hay out of the federal Probation Office’s decision to place Guay, a convicted child murderer, into a rooming house in proximity to four schools.

That wasn’t the best decision but as Tom Tarr, the chief probation officer, told us, it was always meant to be temporary. He probably would have told that to Guinta, too, had the mayor asked. But why ask when you can make political capital?

Guay is gone, we know not where, and is now in a better environment for everyone — the kind of halfway house that will monitor him more closely than could, apparently, law enforcement officials in Manchester, be they federal, state or local.

In all of this mess that began when Guay got out of prison on Sept. 8, there have been three voices of reason — Tarr’s and those of Claire Ebel, head of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, and the principal of a Catholic school near the rooming house in which Guay lived.

The Catholic school principal, Andrew Maloney, didn’t panic — or, as in the case of Mayor Guinta, encourage panic — but told us his school had “protocols in place” for dealing with safety concerns. He proved to be a real leader — calming the fears of parents and students, if they had any to begin with that weren’t caused by Mayor Guinta.

Ebel wouldn’t talk specifically about the Guay case but said “the issue of prisoners returning is one that society has to face calmly and rationally,” especially now that so many Americans are in prison.

“And we in New Hampshire have to deal with the lack of programs in prison,” she said. “The prison system here is woefully short of programs to re-introduce prisoners back into society. Mr. Guay is not the last prisoner that we will have back. It was a heinous crime. I weep for the victims, but at the same time we have to dispassionately make decisions as a mature society.”

In the heat of passion, points of view like Ebel’s get lost in rhetoric and that’s too bad because, in the end, we’re going to have to do precisely what she said: deal with situations like those of Guay’s.

Are there no other dangerous felons living in Manchester? Does Mayor Guinta have them all under 24/7 surveillance? How is he protecting Manchster residents from them?

It is certainly true that Guay’s new situation — wherever he might have ended up — is better for everyone, even him, and it’s entirely possible that he was a distinct danger to others while living in Manchester.

But spreading panic didn’t help the situation.

We need to take our cues from people like Andrew Maloney and Claire Ebel — we need to think rationally and act in a strong, but reassuring, way.

Of course, it’s hard to make political hay out of common sense and good leadership.

----------

"Sex Offender Moves From Concord Garage To Manchester House: Police Say Man Has Five Days To Register"
WMUR.com, POSTED: 6:13 pm EDT, October 30, 2008

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- A sex offender who said that he was worried he would re-offend and who had been living in a Concord parking garage has now moved to Manchester.

Jonathan Perfetto said he is now living in a rooming house about a few blocks away from a city high school. He hasn't registered with Manchester police yet, but police said that when he does, his address will be public.

Less than a day after News 9 spoke with Perfetto in the garage where he had been living, a concerned citizen offered him a place to stay in Manchester, Concord police said.

"Everybody is going to be safe," Perfetto said. "I'm not going to do anything, and that's that."

Perfetto served more than seven years in prison for 60 counts of child pornography. He said that he also sexually assaulted young women and girls years ago, but he was not charged in connection with those incidents.

Perfetto said that if he lapsed off his medication, he would be concerned that he would re-offend, but he doesn't want to.

"Let's just say (I) was destroyed about what happened," Perfetto said. "I know personally, because I was molested as a kid, and so I know how it is. I ain't going to do it."

Perfetto is now living in the Bridge Street area, the same area where convicted child killer Raymond Guay moved in September before he was moved out of state.

"I am concerned about that location because it's in close proximity to schools and children," Mayor Frank Guinta said.

Central High School is a few of blocks away, but Perfetto said he avoids the students.

"I go away," he said. "I walk the other way."

Legally, the city cannot force sex offenders to move, but police can gather details and watch him closely.

"Exactly where he's living, vehicle information, where he may be going to college or school, his employment," Detective Victoria Catano said.

Perfertto said that's all information he'll willingly give up.

"Yeah, of course," he said. "You gotta do what you gotta do."

Perfetto has five days to register with Manchester police. He then has to reregister two times every year and let police know if he gets a job. His information will be listed in the state sex offender registry.

----------

January 8, 2009, 4:09 PM EST

"NH Supreme Court: Judge can't change sentence"
By KATHY McCORMACK, Associated Press Writer

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- The New Hampshire Supreme Court says a judge didn't have the authority to change a man's prison sentence after realizing a mistake in the law had been made.

The high court on Thursday ruled in favor of Dean Fletcher, who was sentenced in December 2007 on four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. The crimes were committed between 1981 and 1984.

Rockingham County Superior Court Judge Tina Nadeau originally sentenced Fletcher to 15 to 30 years in state prison. But prison officials later informed the state that because of the dates of the crimes, Fletcher was entitled to good time credit under an old law that was later repealed.

In January 2008, the state asked for the sentence to be amended, saying the current result would have Fletcher eligible for parole in fewer than 10 years, instead of 15 years. The state also said the probation argument, the state and Nadeau were operating under a "mistake of law" at the time Fletcher was sentenced.

Nadeau granted the state's motion to change one of Fletcher's sentence terms from concurrent to consecutive, which resulted in changing his total sentence to 22 1/2 years to 45 years in prison.

The state argued that an error was corrected to comply with its original intent, but Fletcher's lawyer argued that his due process rights were violated.

In a 5-0 decision, the high court found that original sentence was valid. The court also noted that the revised sentence to ensure that Fletcher serve at least 15 years resulted in a dramatic increase of the maximum sentence.

"On the facts of this case, we cannot say that the trial court was simply correcting a clerical error," the state Supreme Court said in its opinion, adding "a mistake of law does not create grounds to amend where the mistake of law does not result in an invalid sentence."

----------