Transcription
The court considers Mr. Folk to be particularly violent, dangerous, and callous. That's what his actions showed me that night.
You've heard from the family today how Tim Brown was a son. He was a brother, an uncle, a cousin, a coach, a mentor. He was a helper. Um, he showed up for people. He made a significant impact on so many people, not just his family, but the community as well. And his family has showed up for him today. I think you can tell by the packed courtroom just how beloved Tim was. Um, the loss, the impact that his death has had is immeasurable. You've heard the family talk about the physical impact of the intense pain from losing such a key part of their family. But most importantly, Tim was a father. He leaves a little girl, a legacy um behind, and I know that she will do amazing things with her life because she has the support from her family.
When it comes to crafting a sentence, I know that the court has an incredibly difficult task. However, there are some statutory aggravators that I would ask the court to consider. Obviously, no sentence that is imposed, no number of years will come close to filling the void of Tim's loss to his family. But not just Tim, there were five other people that were injured that night. Five people who had just gone to the bar to have a good time, whose lives were also impacted that night. So I would ask the court first and foremost to consider the nature and circumstances of the case. Mr. Folk circumvented safety measures that were in place. He snuck a gun into a place where guns are not allowed for probably very obvious reasons. You can't have guns in a bar full of people who are intoxicated. It's crowded. It's dark. But he did it anyway. He did it anyway. And then for some unknown reason, perhaps an argument that took place, we don't really know what happened that caused him to fire a gun. And you saw the video during the trial. That gun is pointed straight at the crowd of people. And he fired it again and again and again. And he struck Tim five times. And he struck five other people. People who then left with broken bones and scars and emotional trauma from that night. Not only that, he terrified hundreds more. That bar, the video was so impactful as you watch a sea of people just drop to the ground, terrified for their lives because of Mr. Folk's actions. So, not only did he impact the family of Tim and his five other victims, Raymond Rigggins, Vincent Fernelis, Jeremy Dickerson, Malcolm Montgomery, and Dwayne Little, all of those people were impacted that night. And so I would ask the court to consider the nature and circumstances of the event because it was so overwhelmingly uncalled for and risky. It is a miracle that no more than the six people who were injured or killed were injured that night.
The second aggravator I'd ask the court to consider is Mr. Folk's history of criminal behavior. He has a lengthy juvenile history that involves a number of arrests, a number of true findings, and with those true findings come again and again failed components. He went to juvenile DOC, I believe, twice. His juvenile true findings include intimidation is a D felony, theft is a D felony, burglary is a level four felony, as well as another number of other arrests. Then I would ask you to look at Mr. Folk's adult history. His first conviction is the burglary as a level four in 2017. And on that sentence, he had a community corrections violation and ended up in the Department of Correction. He then had a number of other arrests including a strangulation in 2021. He also had a theft in 2023 with again a probation violation where he was sentenced to the Marion County Jail as well as another theft case with the same outcome, a probation violation. Again and again and again, Mr. Folk encountered the criminal justice system from the time I believe he was 14 in his first arrest until today. Additionally, while he was in custody, he has had a number of violations as well as being charged with a new offense. He had violations in July of 2024 for assault. He had a violation in April of 2025 for assault on a staff member. He had a violation also in April of 2025 for disruption of jail operations.
And then the final um aggravator that I would ask the court to consider is the fact that he has recently violated the conditions of his probation, his parole, community corrections, or pre-trial release. I went through the um pre-sentence investigation and I noticed that the cases just overlapped and overlapped and overlapped. And so I looked um at all of the different offenses and I did the math on them. And since 2014, I believe, or 2016, Mr. Folk has only been not under the supervision of the court for either a filed case or some sort of a community correction sentence or at the Department of Corrections or the Adult Detention Center for 292 days. That is the only amount of time where he has been just walking around as a completely unencumbered person in this city. The entire rest of his life has been committing one offense after another after another after another. At times only a week to two weeks in between. He was on pre-trial release or on probation, I apologize, for two offenses when this offense occurred. So, I would ask the court to consider all of those mit those aggravators. There are some mitigators that the court could potentially consider. However, I think the only one that really truly potentially applies is the fact that Mr. Folk has children and that it would be a hardship on them. But I would argue that it's not necessarily an undue hardship because I don't know what kind of impact he was having on their life when again he is constantly being arrested, constantly serving sentences. No other mitigator applies because this crime was harmful to so many people and it threatened the harm of so many others. There's no indication that this wouldn't reoccur. There's no indication that this wasn't provoked in some way. And he is incredibly unlikely to respond affirmatively to any type of reduced or community corrections type sentence. So based on all of these aggravators, I would ask the court to to impose an aggravated sentence. I would ask the court for count one to impose a time of 63 years for the murder of Tim Brown. I would ask the court for counts two, the battery with the deadly weapon on Raymond Rigggins to impose a sentence of five years. The same for count three for Benson Felis, a sentence of five years. For count four, the aggravated battery of Malcolm Montgomery, I would ask the court to sentence Mr. Folk to 14 years. For counts five and six, the battery with a deadly weapon on Jeremy Dickerson and Dwayne Little. I would ask the court to sentence Mr. Folk to 5 years for each of those crimes. Additionally, because we have six different victims here, I would ask the court to impose each of these counts consecutively. I believe if I've done the math correctly, that's a total sentence of 97 years. I think that is appropriate when the court weighs the aggravators and the mitigators in this case. And I think that 97 years will not come close to making it up for the family with what they've lost. It won't come close to making the other five victims whole again, but it will hold Mr. Folk accountable in the most appropriate way under the law.
Right. Defense, please.
Yes, judge. Um, I think there are two steps to aggravators. Um, I think number two, the history of criminal and delinquent behavior is an aggravator to consider. Um, also think that the recent violation of uh, probation number six is also um, an appropriate mitigator for the aggravator to consider. As far as mitigators judge as I see it, I think number two unlikely so the result of circumstances unlikely to occur applies as well as the undue hardship imprisonment will impose on Mr. Folk's kids. Um I guess I'll start with kind of throwing out there when you see what was presented at trial. Mr. Folk didn't go to the bar with the intent on any, you know, maliciousness or anything of that nature. What we know is he was at, you know, another bar beforehand. Everything was fine. He's outside dancing. He's having a good time at, you know, uh, L Sharks when, you know, he's, you know, first there. I think I agree there's nothing that we know based on the case as what happened inside the bar. I agree with that. But I started to say he's not someone who went into this situation knowing what was going to happen. I think this is the result of bad decisions that compounded is essentially what happened here. This is not someone who went in, you know, kind of with this evil intent to do harm to anyone in the bar. Now, obviously, again, he made a poor choice. But I as separate that from kind of some things that we know about Mr. P. We know he does have four children, two sexual twins. um that he was active and you know engaged in their life. We know that he was someone who was in school. We know he was someone who had a job. So he's someone who you know was trying to you know be a productive member of society. Um I think later PSI kind of is the juvenile things that the prosecutor talked about are kind of indicative of instability as a child, you know, and things that happened to him as a kid. I think throughout that he has tried to be productive, you know, a productive member of society as much as he can and I think he's someone who has tried. So I s to say judge, I don't think he is, you know, someone who could be considered the worst of the worst. He's not someone who, you know, had nothing going for himself. Um, he has family here in the gallery today. you know, he has people who, you know, kind of he's beholden to, he's accountable to, and who love him, and who, you know, want to see the best for him. Looking at all these things, I think I would ask to consider based on kind of the speed and the chaos to run some of these counts consecutively, concurrently, and not run them all consecutively. I understand the state's sentiments, but basically, we know what happened here. This is not something where, you know, it wasn't intentional. I mean, obviously the the jury said it was normally. So, I asked the court to kind of take that difference into account in terms of the results. I think it needs to be punished judge, but I don't I don't think that this needs to be an aggravated sentence. I think you know you're going to craft the sentence. You know you on I think take the perfect position. You've seen all the you know you've seen all you know the whole case you know from beginning to end. So I think you are in a good position far be for me to kind of talk about a number but I would ask that the court should consider at the very least a balanced sentence.
Judge if I may briefly add one thing.
Yes. And then I'll Mr. Mr. Folk will have the opportunity to to
Thank you. Um your honor, we're here for a number of reasons today. Gun violence is a complex social problem. Um Mr. Folk had an exercised agency that night. We are not minimizing that, although we do maintain that this was criminal recklessness. Um we are here in part because our government's abject failure to protect us from gun violence. We would not be here if our government had made appropriate efforts to protect our community from gun violence. So I wish to add again that this is a complex social problem um that cannot be laying at the feet solely of Mr. Folk. And so for those reasons, we are asking um for a more mitigated sentence than the state is requesting.
At this time, if you would like to make a statement, you may do so and I'll consider that before um deciding on your sentence. Sir, is there anything you would like to say?
No. Thank you, Judge. the pre-sentence report with the correction that was made with respect to the juvenile record. The evidence that was presented at trial, the evidence that was presented during this hearing, exhibits one, two, and a those were letters presented by both parties that the court had the opportunity um to read and then the to
The court has considered arguments at council. Court gave the defendant an opportunity to make a statement. He chose not to and he is not required to do so. With respect to aggravating circumstances, the um court um considers Mr. Folk's criminal history and his history of delinquency to be an aggravator. Mr. Folk's history is particularly aggravating in nature. He has a sustained history over many years of constantly constantly committing crimes or delinquent acts. Um it's also an aggravating circumstance that he was on probation with when this occurred. um the nature of the circumstances, as awful as they are, I'm not going to consider that as a separate aggravating circumstance because I think that that's captured in the six separate nothing that the court can ever do can can bring back a family member, a loved one who's gone. And so the nature and circumstances of of uh homicide matters, it's always horrible. And that's captured by the 45 to 65 year range.
With respect to mitiating circumstances, I did have the opportunity to read the letter that was submitted by the defendant's fiance. I understand that he has four children that this would be a hardship on the defendant's children. Um, and the court did note in the pre-sentence report that Mr. Folk had some level of instability in his childhood that the court will consider. Um, all of that being said, um, the court considers Mr. Folk um based on his actions, based on the evidence that the court was able to see during the trial, the videos that were presented, the court considers Mr. Folk to be particularly violent, dangerous, and callous. That's what his actions showed me that night. Um the court does not find that these circumstances are unlikely to occur. The court finds that if given the opportunity, Mr. Hulk would do something similar again, as his criminal history has shown us. Um, and none of us know exactly what Mr. Folk planned to do uh when he went into the bar, but the evidence shows that at some level, Mr. Folk made a decision that he was going to arm himself for some reason when he was inside the bar. His actions of retrieving the firearm from the individual that was with him and then later using the gun. I don't know what he was planning on doing, but he made a decision that he was going to ready himself to use a firearm. Then he used that firearm in a crowded bar filled with people and shot the firearm many, many times. This isn't a circumstance. It's as awful as it would be. This isn't a circumstance where he shot at one person then hit someone that was on the other side of a wall. You were in that bar. You saw all those individuals there and you fired multiple times moving around in the bar. I don't know why you did that, but you were aware of what you were doing. Um to disastr disastrous effect on the people that were shot, the other people that were in the bar. Um six individuals were shot, one was killed. Many people were traumatized as you saw everyone running out of the bar, ducking, hiding. Completely chaotic, scary scene that was caused. Um given all that, I don't believe that concurrent sentences would be appropriate. Consecutive sentences are appropriate in this matter because all of these six individuals deserve separate sentences. That is what is fair and appropriate. Um and given the aggravators and ser mitigators and balancing those um mitigating sentence as each of those counts also would not be appropriate. Each of these counts deserves to be served consecutively and each requires an aggravated sentence. That is what's fair and appropriate. Um so for count one, the sentence will be 60 years. For count two, four years. For count three, four years. For count four, that's an aggravated battery. That will be 12 years. For count five, four years. For count six, four years. All of those will be served consecutively, meaning one after the other. I'm going to find you indigent to court cost. I'm not going to order a fine in this matter. Sir, you have the right to appeal both the conviction and the sentence. If you want to appeal, you need to let me know because you only have 30 days to do so. You'll wave your appellet rights if you don't let me know within those 30 days. I can appoint the the public defender agency to represent you now for purposes of appeal. Would you like me to appoint proper counsel to represent you?
Yes, ma'am.
Popper counsel's appointed. Is there anything else from either party at this time?
Judge, I just wanted to clarify that all of those sentences will be served in the Department of Corrections.
All of those will be served in the Department of Corrections. And then I'm going to set a date for the level six matter. And again, my looking at the charge that was filed and looking at the probable cause affidavit in that matter, that feels like a one day jury trial to me. About how far out should I set this
judge? Um maybe six weeks, I would say.
That's fine with the state. Would parties like that to be set on June 18th?
What was the make sure
thought you had one separate
and it's it's just it's one count of battery on a public safety official. Yeah, that's fine with the state. June 18th at 8:30 is the jury trial date and then I'll set a final pre-trial date.
He wants to play.
Could we set that for
June 9th at 1:30?
How about this?
Is that okay? June 9th at 1:30 for final pre-trial. Is that okay?
Yes.
Yes. Okay. And then if anything changes then just send me an email and let me know. Okay.
Okay. And then I am going to ask everyone in the gallery that was here for the sentencing on Mr. Folk to follow the deputy's instructions. If they have instructions for you with respect to how you exit or what order they want you to exit the courtroom, please follow the deputies instructions.