Rickman agrees to 15 years in prison
by Denise Ellen Rizzo / Tracy Press
Aug 05, 2011 | 7275 views | 14 14 comments | 32 32 recommendations | email to a friend | print
MANTECA — Roger Earl Rickman will serve 15 years in a state prison after he pleaded guilty in Manteca Superior Court today to oral copulation on a child.

As part of a plea bargain offered by the district attorney’s office, Rickman agreed to a sentence of 15 years to life, of which he will serve no less than 15 years.

Just before the start of his preliminary hearing, defense attorney James Fonda told Judge Ron Northup his client wished to withdraw his previous plea of not guilty. He said Rickman agreed to admit his guilt in one of the seven criminal counts he faced, a sex crime with a child 10 years old or younger, and the other charges would be dropped.

Northup explained to Rickman that his admission of guilt would result in him serving 15 years in prison, facing the possibility of 20 years on parole if he were approved by a parole board after his sentence. He must also pay restitution to the 7-year-old victim and register as a sex offender upon his release. A strike will be added to his record, and if he should get a second strike based on a sexual act with a child, he would serve 25 years to life. Rickman said he understood the proceedings.

According to the court records, Rickman, who is not related to the Tracy city councilman, committed the crime between Jan. 1 and June 22 this year.

Tracy police became aware of the molestation June 20, when a woman called to report that her 7-year-old daughter had told her their church pastor had the girl use a vibrator when he drove her home from school. Rickman is the founder and senior pastor at the First Anointing Faith International Christian Church in Tracy.

Rickman told court officials that he agreed to waive time for his sentencing, and Northup set his sentence hearing for 9:30 a.m. Oct. 3 in Manteca Superior Court.

Following the proceedings, Deputy District Attorney Elton Grau said the bargain Rickman accepted was more severe than prosecutors’ first offer, of 24 years in state prison. He said Rickman will be required to meet with a parole board each year to see if he could be released after his initial 15 years.

“I’m satisfied with the outcome,” Grau said. “There wasn’t an issue in the case; the man admitted to the crime.”

During the proceedings, Grau told Northup the victim and her family might wish to address the court at Rickman’s sentencing. He hasn’t discussed the specifics with the family, he said, but “it’s all part of the healing process to say something to the person who did these terrible crimes.”

Tracy police Detective Gary Castillo said Rickman confessed to the oral copulation following his arrest June 23. He said Rickman talked with officers about many different things, but he definitely confessed to oral copulation at the beginning of the police investigation.

“I’m pleased at the outcome,” Castillo said. “He admitted his guilt, and he doesn’t have to put the family through any more.”

Fonda declined to comment on the outcome of the case after he talked with a group of Rickman’s supporters, who were in the courtroom during the hearing.

Comments
(14)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
TracyCitizen
|
August 09, 2011
I was under the impression that once Rickman (aka child molester) refused the 24 yr plea offer that no other offer would be given. He deserves much more than only 15 years and hopefully the parole board will not allow his release until he is an old, impotent man.

I hope this young girl and her family will be able to speak their mind to this sorry excuse of man let alone a pastor of our community.

To all of Rickman's supporters, I can only say now that you know he confessed to having oral sex with a child, what do you think of him now?????
klv
|
August 09, 2011
G; "Th point here is that no one knew what was fact an what wasn't until it all came ta a head in court. Yet strangely enough everyone was apparently willin ta forgo doin this in court an convict him without th factual evidence ta do so." (When and Who?) "All based on what ya heard some reporter told ya they heard from someone who said they heard th guy confess ta." (The Tracy Press?)

"Th point here is that no one knew what was fact an what wasn't until it all came ta a head in court. Yet strangely enough everyone was (Who?) apparently willin ta forgo doin this in court an convict him without th factual evidence ta do so. All based on what ya heard some reporter told ya they heard from someone who said they heard th guy confess ta." "What ever." "I didn't ever say he was guilty or not guilty. I did say he didn't confess until he was in a court of law where such a confession could be accepted. I used th analogy that just because someone else, such as a DA, said he was guilty or that he confessed didn't mean it was true or that he was guilty. If ya can't see that then thair's really nothang more fer me ta say as it's pointless ta continue th conversation." Spun Gibberish Dude!

klv
|
August 08, 2011
G cont. "I also would like ya ta explain, ""when one considers that this man has a condition which renders him - without cure, unrehabitable, and virtually problematic for society for the rest of his life."" "What gives ya that special insight ta positively know such thangs?" Perhaps I should have said un-rehabilitated - and mentioned that men into their '80's have been tracked back as phedophiles given that they remarry, move out of state, and don't report to authorities mostly slipping thru the cracks... if you will -while molesting additional and new family members

"I will stop by reiteratin th fact that ya didn't receive th corroboration of th witness with first hand information given in a court of law but instead received it as third hand hear-say information given by an attorney in a court of law an received that corroboration second hand through a news..." Isn't that still second hand?

"Always thought a person was assumed ta be innocent until proven guilty." So if that were the case then, why didn't he resume with a jury trial? "Well I guess it's pointless ta continue an frankly th conversation has now become borin an really got more important matters ta deal with."

Really..
klv
|
August 08, 2011
Spun OG: Nobody violated Mr. Rickman's right(s) "he confessed." How you draw this to "losing our rights" and "social cleansing" over a self-confessed molestation case is beyond me. But your self aggrandizing illusions have brought you to rambling enamoration i.e., "Next thang ya know, when th scientists that thank such thangs are possible, I suppose we will be killin those in our society that have been deemed ta be a risk ta society as a whole." "Haven't we had other historical examples of this type of social cleansing?" I mean what exactly are you talking about? "I will stop by reiteratin th fact that ya didn't receive th corroboration of th witness with first hand information given in a court of law but instead received it as third hand hear-say information given by an attorney" (most clients speak thru attorneys)"in a court of law an received that corroboration second hand through a news media outlet." So..? Where you there also? Or may ask this in the form of a rhetorical question? "Not th freedom ta indiscriminately kill or hurt someone else fer our own satisfactions but just th freedom ta be an individual with individual thoughts(?)" ..Like molesting children? Remorse maybe?
klv
|
August 08, 2011
I don't recall the local media or myself being judgmental in it's initial report of the "hearing" where and how these alleged crimes took place. What I gathered was that a charge was made; A prosecutorial bargain was offered, and a not guilty plea was entered.

Also there are 'Sex Offender Risk Level Determinations'.

This link may help.

http://criminal justice.ny.us/nsor/stats_by_county.htm

And it's well documented that Phedophiles are at high risk for recidivism because it's not something that simply goes away...

I'll leave you with another old adage:

"Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law."

You have a nice day OG.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
August 08, 2011
cont.

Ok, then how did ya get yer information ta ground yer arguement on? Another news report? Personal knowledge? What? If ya had personal knowledge did ya report it ta those that needed it?

I also would like ya ta explain, "when one considers that this man has a condition which renders him - without cure, unrehabitable, and virtually problematic for society for the rest of his life." What gives ya that special insight ta positively know such thangs? No one in th history of humanity that has done such a thang has ever been cured, rehabilitated an not a problem fer society fer th rest of thair lives? No one? Really? Not one?

Next thang ya know, when th scientists that thank such thangs are possible, I suppose we will be killin those in our society that have been deemed ta be a risk ta society as a whole. Say, ain't thair a movie about that? An haven't we been hearin of such technological advancements that can predict who is gonna be a problem an who ain't?

Haven't we had other historical examples of this type of social cleansing?

So what happens ta humanity when we all thank alike, look alike, do thangs alike an such? An whair does personal freedom enter inta th picutre. Not th freedom ta indiscriminately kill or hurt someone else fer our own satisfactions but just th freedom ta be an individual with individual thoughts?

Well I guess it's pointless ta continue an frankly th conversation has now become borin an really got more important matters ta deal with.

I will stop by reiteratin th fact that ya didn't receive th corroboration of th witness with first hand information given in a court of law but instead received it as third hand hear-say information given by an attorney in a court of law an received that corroboration second hand through a news media outlet. An ya did all of that before th defendant entered his guilty plea in a court of law that was the actual confirmation th crime had in fact been committed.

At that chronological point in time ya had already implied he was guilty without havin th solid proven facts ta uphold that stance. In other words, it seems ya convicted him in th court of public opinion an those of us who said, "wait until it's decided in court" were painted as defendin his actions, assumin, at that point in time, he was innocent.

Always thought a person was assumed ta be innocent until proven guilty. But it seems I am wrong because ya seem ta be sayin that he must be guilty simply cause people we hold in high esteem have said so.

My point then an now is made by askin th simple question, how many times have we larned that people we held in high esteem been wrong fer what ever reason?

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
August 08, 2011
klf

What ever. I didn't ever say he was guilty or not guilty. I did say he didn't confess until he was in a court of law where such a confession could be accepted. I used th analogy that just because someone else, such as a DA, said he was guilty or that he confessed didn't mean it was true or that he was guilty. If ya can't see that then thair's really nothang more fer me ta say as it's pointless ta continue th conversation. Take it as a win if ya want cus th outcome is what's important an nothang else really matters.

Ye pled guilty in a court of law an that is what establlished his guilt. Not what some attorney said or didn't say fer what ever reason.

Th comments I was attemptin ta make is that just because you, I, an attorney, a blogger, a paper or what ever says he's guilty don't mean that he is. In this case he was an we can all move on ta somethang else. If he didn't admit it then we would have a lengthy court trial ta determine if he was or was not.

Ya wrote, "I personally never considered the TP as a vehicle for what I didn't know behind close doors or took "anythang about this other than what th press measured out ta us."

cont.
klv
|
August 07, 2011
Once again your legal precedence is correct but your logic is stretched. I personally never considered the TP as a vehicle for what I didn't know behind close doors or took "anythang about this other than what th press measured out ta us."

I simply posted a statement that it would be foolish to corroborate the accounts of the victim, by the then accused, then by your own admission try to gin up public discourse that comparisons to (other national cases) the local DA and the media was somehow to blame? - like the Duke LaCross team - as I've reiterated the two have nothing in common - and your pontification is a downfall in your analysis when one considers that this man has a condition which renders him - without cure, unrehabitable, and virtually problematic for society for the rest of his life.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
August 07, 2011
klv

Ever get tangled up inta somethang ya didn't do but others, fer their own reasons, thought ya did?

We, as commentators, didn't know anythang about this other than what th press measured out ta us.

Th original article specifically said th man confessed ta th prosecutor an was offered a plea bargain, which later he refused. When ya sit in th prosecutor's office an make a confession it's not th same as doin so in a court of law.

When th prosecutor made th statement in court th man had confessed ta him it was simply an allegation that still needed ta be proved before it could be accepted as factual evidence.

After all, just as in th Duke LaCross case that prosecutor misrepresented factual evidence an, as a result, those who were accused were damaged inappropriately.

Rickman, no affiliation th Councilman Rickman, made th confession freely in a court of law an that then confirms it as fact.

Statements made ta th press or even in court by a prosecutin attorney are simply allegations until they have been made established fact.

Glad this guy confessed an saved us all a lot of money. Now we can use those resources on other cases that need ta be dealt with.

But my stance on not convictin someone based on what I am told in th press an court of public opinion has not changed nor do I suspect it too.

Now if ya wanna take this as a win, go right ahead. Hopefully you will never have ta fact a court of public opinion an be tried in th press if ya are innocent.

Now if ya knew beyond a shadow of doubt he was guilty, then why didn't ya go ta th prosecution attorney an tell him th facts as ya knew em so that when th case came ta trial ya could rightfully an legally get justice?

Th point here is that no one knew what was fact an what wasn't until it all came ta a head in court. Yet strangely enough everyone was apparently willin ta forgo doin this in court an convict him without th factual evidence ta do so. All based on what ya heard some reporter told ya they heard from someone who said they heard th guy confess ta.

Have fun.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
August 07, 2011
Sure KLV glad to oblige.

I have no problem with him pleadin guilty in a court of law. That's where such thangs should be done an not in th court of public opinion.

Justice is legally upheld and that is enough fer me.

Th point is that ya an others were tryin ta convict him based on allegations made in th press an thair is a big difference, press or court of law.

As a society we should not convict people based on public opinion but rather on facts. He established th fact when he entered his plea before th judge in a legal court of law an justice was then served.

Th "harping" ta th Duke LaCross case was not a distraction, it was an illustration as ta how people can be tried by public opinion an be hurt as a result when later it is found it was factually different than th media frenzy originally indicated.

I completely agree with Castillo's comment, “I’m pleased at the outcome, he admitted his guilt, and he doesn’t have to put the family through any more.”

Why? Cus his conviction, all be it a confession, was legally done in a court of law an not frum often faulty reportin by a reporter more interested in a media cirrus ta report on rather than upholdin th law.

klv
|
August 06, 2011
I wonder if "Ordinary-Dumb-Fudge-on" would like to come forth and admit that there was no media public frenzy to whip up false evidence against a so-called man of the community by 'the good people' and provide us with the usual suspects instead of -who was actually responsible for this crime? The harpening back to the Duke LaCross case was (a distraction): A bi-racial gang rape case; brought to the national media's (no way has Rickman - reached that same plateau) attention by 'good people'(Al Sharpton and the overzealous DA' Nifong) attempting to proliferate the myth that white blue bloods would get away with the crime of raping a black escort/stripper. In comparison of the acts of a "paid professional" to that of a seven-year-old girl - accosted by someone from her church - which she could supposedly trust?

I don't recall any of the LaCross team members admitting to forcing themselves yet, Mr Rickman, no relation to City Council member, made a statement, gave a confession, or admitted to testimonial evidence corroborating the girls story. "the bargain Rickman accepted was more severe than prosecutors’ first offer, of 24 years in state prison." There's no comparison to these cases.
Tracygirls
|
August 06, 2011
Why did the mother have this pedophile driving her daughter around in the first place? What a disgusting POS. BEWARE parents PROTECT your children! Church-teachers-coaches-neighbors protect them until they can protect themselves! Good job Tracy PD.
xsp
|
August 05, 2011
I wonder if Pastor Greg Bowser and his wife Evelyn will apologize to the girl and her family for publicly calling them liars. Just curious.
doors17
|
August 05, 2011
I'm glad that the kids won't have to deal with the trauma of testifying in court.

To the victims and their families please remember that you have many good people here praying and hoping for the best for all of you in your futures, and you are provided whatever needed professional help each of you may need.


We encourage readers to share online comments in this forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a space for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Comments that stray from the topic of the story or are found to contain abusive language are subject to removal at the Press’ discretion, and the writer responsible will be subject to being blocked from making further comments and have their past comments deleted. Readers may report inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at tpnews@tracypress.com.