Wednesday, December 18, 2024
46.0°F

Prison ordered in meth case

by Keith Kinnaird News Editor
| March 16, 2012 7:00 AM

SANDPOINT — A Bonner County man who pleaded guilty to trafficking methamphetamine was ordered to serve up to four years in prison last Friday.

Brandon Neil Crump will have to serve at least two years of the sentence before he can be considered for release onto probation, according to terms of the sentence imposed by 1st District Judge Steve Verby.

Crump was also fined $10,000.

Crump, 33, and his wife, Shauna, were charged with trafficking meth and child endangerment after a Bonner County sheriff’s investigation culminated in the search of their Bandy Road home last summer. The child endangerment charges were brought because the crude lab used to brew the stimulant was allegedly within their kids’ reach.

The home of their neighbor, Leuis Mark Blood, was also searched during the drug raid. He faced charges identical to those of the Crumps. The lab in his home was also allegedly accessible by the Crump’s kids.

In series of pretrial settlement agreements to resolve the cases, Shauna Crump, 32, pleaded guilt to a reduced charge of meth possession.

Her husband and Blood, 44, pleaded to slightly amended charges of trafficking meth via attempted manufacture.

Shauna Crump was given a suspended prison term. Blood was given a two- to four-year prison term, the mandatory minimum sentence for the amended charge he pleaded to.

The child endangerment charges against all three defendants were dismissed as part of the plea agreements.

Brandon Crump subsequently sought to withdraw his guilty plea because he was unaware he would be subject to the mandatory minimum sentence. The language in the agreement, argued his attorney Doug Phelps, created an illusion that he could be given a lesser sentence.

But Verby declined to allow Brandon Crump to rescind his plea because there was no showing that he didn’t understand the mandatory minimum would apply, according to court records. Moreover, the state would have been unfairly prejudiced by the plea withdrawal because it had already dismissed the child endangerment charge in a manner in which prevented it from being re-filed.