Judge adds just 2 years to Sprouse sentence

Judge adds just 2 years to Sprouse sentence
» 7 Comments | Post a Comment

Surprised by Wendy Sprouse’s embezzlement sentence of more than 22 years, a Shenandoah County judge on Wednesday added just two more years to her time for violating probation on prior convictions.

Judge Dennis L. Hupp could have imposed 15 suspended years, and ordinarily would have for a severe probation violation, he told Sprouse and attorneys.

“However, I’m not a robot ... we have to take into consideration other conditions,” he said, adding that he acted under the assumption Sprouse’s Waynesboro sentence of 22-and-a-half years would not be modified by pending appeals.

In November, Waynesboro jurors found Sprouse guilty of three counts of embezzlement for stealing more than $16,000 from a city real estate agent. The jury’s recommendation of 22 years and six months in prison was the stiffest embezzlement sentence in city history, according to the Waynesboro prosecutor’s office. It rattled relatives and the employer who turned her in to police.

The convictions triggered probation violation hearings for Sprouse’s two prior embezzlement convictions in Rockingham County. Those cases left Sprouse on probation with court orders to stay out of trouble, pay restitution of more than $30,000 and inform all future employers of her criminal history.

She failed at all three, argued Chris Miller, deputy commonwealth’s attorney in Rockingham County.

“She has simply made a choice to repeatedly violate the law,” Miller said. “Each time, she was given a chance to reform herself ... She understood what the deal was.”

A probation officer testified that Sprouse failed to make restitution payments, never told Rockingham authorities when she was charged in Waynesboro and failed to tell employers of her criminal past.

Then the judge read her Waynesboro sentencing order.

“She got 22-and-a-half years?”

“Yes, sir,” Miller and defense attorney John S. Hart, Jr answered in unison.

The judge raised his eyebrows, but said nothing.

“The jury … it’s quite clear … were outraged: outraged at her behavior,” Miller said.

Hart asked the judge to consider what guidelines called for — less than three years in prison — and showed documents that full restitution was paid in that case.

“Your honor, there was a time for mercy in this case … then there also is a time for reckoning,” Miller said.

Judge Hupp briefly was silent. Sprouse’s husband Darrell put his face into his hands.

Then Wendy Sprouse, wearing an orange and white jail uniform, and her hair increasingly brown as blond dye grows out, stood and read an apology.

“Every day I wake up knowing my kids are without their mother and my husband is without his wife,” she said, crying.

Hupp told Sprouse the appeals court would be unlikely to modify her sentence, then imposed two additional years in prison.

“He could have been much worse,” Darrell Sprouse said, adding that the prosecutor: “tried to make her out like a bad person. But she’s not.”

Wendy Sprouse is being held at the Rockingham Regional Jail in Harrisonburg.

Her defense attorney in the Waynesboro case, David Hargett, argued for a sentence-reduction hearing, but was denied. His argument in part included interviews with jurors described as regretful and unhappy over the outcome of the sentence.

That case has been appealed.

Advertisement

 
View More: wendy sprouse,embezzlement,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by howzat on September 04, 2009 at 4:12 pm

countrygirl:

Your point is well taken and I think this judge took that into consideration and realized that nothing would be served by adding her entire original sentence on to what she had already received. So you may be entirely right and she may have to serve more than 20 years one place or another.

If that is the case, then yes it is her fault and I fully understand that. But yet I still have trouble accepting that severe a sentence for her, when you compare it to what some other people get for crimes that are far more serious.

And then there was that case recently that may not have even made the Waynesboro paper, about the church member who embezzled about $100,000 from his congregation, and they voted to handle it internally, find another way for him to pay it back, and not even file charges against him at all. I am sure that news didn’t set well with Wendy’s family.

Flag Comment Posted by countrygrl2 on September 04, 2009 at 9:02 am

I think that if she did not have the Waynesboro sentence of 22 years, the Rockingham County Judge would have imposed the 15 years that were suspended from her first 2 convictions. (Isn’t that typically what is done when you violate all 3 conditions of your probation?? You face serving the sentence that is suspended??)If she had received the sentence set by the sentencing guide lines and then had the 15 years added on top of it, I believe she would still be looking at the same amount of time. So I don’t know what everyone is complaining about. The math is the same whichever way you add it. If she knew the rules of her probation and the consequences of breaking them, then she is the only one to blame. Not a Judge or Jury doing their duty.

Flag Comment Posted by howzat on September 03, 2009 at 6:30 pm

If even this judge admits the first sentence was too harsh, then it is time that someone reasoned with Franklin or whoever it was that refused to listen to the motion to reduce the sentence. I am not excusing what she did in the least, but for that Waynesboro jury to have somehow imposed a 7 1/2 year sentence but then tripled it just doesn’t make any sense and never has. Crimes should be punished on some sort of sliding scale where sentences are imposed in proportion to other crimes and other cases of the SAME crime, and there is nothing about this case that supports such an excessive sentence. No, not even the fact that it was her third offense.

Flag Comment Posted by Navyman007 on September 03, 2009 at 4:33 pm

“motadean” You are absolutely correct that child molesters should receive more time (and in some cases, the death penalty)...however, don’t feel sorry for this woman. This is her third conviction. She received not a second, but a third chance and still violated the trust given to her. And the fact that her idiot husband has waged a campaign that she is a victim here makes the sentence even more justifiable! “writer1”...Good one! Heh, heh, heh…

Flag Comment Posted by Motadean on September 03, 2009 at 11:07 am

That does seem excessive. And the other person that commented is correct Child Molesters do not get that much time. And they are the ones that the system should make an example of. Yes she committed the crime however 22 years is a crazy sentence. Everyone wants to judge her and act like they have never committed a crime. (That red light you ran you could have killed someone.) Bottom line the sentence was ridiculous!

Flag Comment Posted by scottw on September 03, 2009 at 6:45 am

Wow. That sure is a long time. I’d even say it’s too long. Considering that in certain cases child molesters have gotten far less time than that. But it wasn’t me on the jury ...

Flag Comment Posted by writer1 on September 03, 2009 at 5:37 am

Maybe she will learn her lesson now.  And the state doesn’t pay for bleach-jobs.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Restaurant Guide
Movie Times
 
Video
Breaking News Video

Advertisement