ABQ courts’ assessment tool would free this guy?
If the allegations contained in a court document are true, then 32-year-old Phillip Perez is a frighteningly abusive man who deserves to be locked up for a long time.
He’s accused of terrorizing a disabled woman while holding her captive in her home for about a month.
The victim — a 53-year-old woman who uses a wheelchair and had previously lost an arm — at one point demanded Perez leave her home or she would call 911. Perez refused to leave and warned her he would return after the officers left to hang her by the neck to see “how long it takes for her to die,” according to the criminal complaint.
But that alleged threat wasn’t enough to tip the scales of the Public Safety Assessment tool judges use to help decide whether a defendant should be released pending trial.
Neither was the allegation that Perez threw knives at the disabled woman nearly a dozen times — like target practice at a carnival — and when a knife missed, by inches, he would tell her the next one would be at her head or heart.
Nor was the allegation he would randomly punch her in the face and hit her in the head with a hammer after telling her to “be quiet.”
Amazingly, the Public Safety Assessment tool actually recommended Perez be released with minimal conditions based in part on his limited criminal record.
Fortunately for Perez’s alleged victim, and for the public, District Judge Cindy Leos rejected the PSA recommendation. During a hearing last week, Leos said she couldn’t think of any conditions that would keep the disabled woman safe. She ordered that Perez remain behind bars while he awaits trial. That was absolutely the right call in this case, given the alleged threat and cruelty Perez was accused of inflicting on one of this city’s most vulnerable citizens.
Still, this case raises questions about the assessment tool that courts in Albuquerque are relying on to help them determine who should be kept behind bars. At a minimum, the tool should be tweaked so that a defendant accused of threatening to kill a victim if she goes to authorities is deemed an extreme safety risk — especially when the criminal complaint includes details like the battered and bruised face of the victim and knife marks on the wall.
The tool was developed by a foundation that analyzed 1.5 million criminal cases nationwide to determine what factors influence whether a defendant is a risk — to flee, re-offend or commit a violent act — if they’re freed while awaiting trial. The tool takes into consideration such things as past convictions and whether a defendant has a history of violence.
Perez, meanwhile, is charged with a host of felonies, including kidnapping, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, aggravated stalking and aggravated burglary.
The victim’s landlady alerted authorities after dropping in and hearing the victim’s story. Police say that when officers arrived at the home, they found numerous cut marks in the wall — presumably where the knives had missed — multiple bruises on her face, and “utter terror, sadness and exhaustion” in her eyes.
Perez, who denies hurting the disabled woman in any way, will have his day in court, and he’s entitled to have an attorney argue for his release pending trial. But judges also have a responsibility to the public and to alleged victims.
Judge Leos deserves credit for taking that responsibility seriously and for weighing the Public Safety Analysis tool’s recommendation against the allegations in this case. Common sense prevailed here. Going forward, let’s hope all judges regard the Public Safety Assessment for what it is — a recommendation that can and should be rejected when it flies in the face of logic.