Reduced sentence denied
LIHUE — A Waimea resident who was sentenced to five years in prison for sex offenses had his request for a lesser punishment denied on Thursday in 5th Circuit Court.
Ivan Brady Miguel, 28, was sentenced to five years in prison on Sept. 4, after a probation revocation motion that was triggered by an indecent exposure conviction on Aug. 6.
Chief Judge Randal Valenciano denied the motion to stay the prison sentence in favor of probation, saying that Miguel’s escalation of offenses made him a danger to the community. The first case involved a spy camera in a hotel athletic club changing room, followed by one stemming from wearing a miniature camera on his shoes, and finally one pertaining to stalking people in a public area for lewd sexual satisfaction at Salt Pond beach park.
With each offense Miguel moved further from a private setting and into the public until finally attempting to involve the victim within eye distance while performing a lewd act, he said. The lifeguards were already alerted to watch out for him, which meant that Miguel had been doing this previously, he added.
“If I could have given you more prison, then I would have given you more,” Valenciano said.
Court-appointed attorney Michael Soong asked the court for probation during the earlier sentencing. On Thursday, he asked the judge to reconsider the prison term now that Miguel has shown compliance with treatment and for his responsibilities to his family.
County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Lisa Arin objected to the motion for probation. She said that Miguel, in his initial probation, had a job, a new home and his family as incentives to stay compliant.
Miguel disregarded the tools he learned in treatment that would tell him to call someone when he had feelings of sexual deviance, Arin said. He reoffended when he had everything to lose.
Miguel was initially serving a five-year felony probation following his conviction of first-degree violation of privacy on Oct. 13, 2013. At the September sentencing hearing, Valenciano said the court may have considered probation had the violation been unrelated to the original offense, but that a second offense involving deviant sexual gratification was a matter of public safety.