In Pursuit of Justice: Court Transcript reveals jury's mistake in sentencing of drunk driver

A prosecutor is taking the unusual approach of appealing a judge's sentence in a drunk driving accident where a 10-year-old boy lost his leg.

The drunk driver was only sentenced to probation.

Sammy Carl Williams, 48, was convicted in August on two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, one count of intoxicated assault and two counts of failure to stop and render aid.

In June of 2013, Williams hit a vehicle that had pulled over and legally parked on the side of the road.

Williams was driving from a Lubbock bar to his Tahoka home when he veered off the road and crashed into the Mata's Tahoe. The impact left 10-year-old Nicolas Mata Junior in the middle of the road with his leg barely attached. Williams never stopped.

"He couldn't understand how someone could do something like that," said Gloria Hernandez, Junior's mother.

Junior was taken by helicopter to a Lubbock hospital where doctors tried to save his leg, but were unsuccessful.

Now, just more than a year after the accident, Junior is adjusting to life without his left leg.

His mother is also learning to cope with the changes.

"He tells children when they stare that they don't have to stare at him. That they can ask questions, but not to stare please because it hurts his feelings," Hernandez said.

"He'd give anything in the world to change places with the young man if he could," said Mark Snodgrass, Williams' defense attorney.

Snodgrass said after the crash, authorities executed a warrant for Williams' blood.

"His blood alcohol level was .22," Snodgrass said.

That is nearly three times the legal limit.

In August, the jurors agreed Williams should go to prison for 10 years, but they filled out the verdict form incorrectly. The court transcript reveals what the judge did and did not do once she learned the jurors had made a major mistake.

When the judge read that the jury recommended Williams be placed on community supervision, Michael Munk, the prosecutor in this case, said he could tell the jury was upset.

"Just through their facial expressions and their mannerisms I could tell something was wrong," Munk said.

Munk approached the judge and said he did not believe that was the unanimous verdict of the jury.

"It was answered that it was," Judge Carter Schildknecht.

"Your Honor, I think the jury's verdict's been received," said Snodgrass.

Judge Schildknecht said the verdict had already been read.

The bailiff approached the bench and said, "The foreman of the jury is telling me that they didn't do that right. They wanted him to get 10 years and then probation."

"There's not such a thing as that," Judge Schildknecht said.

"I don't know what to do at this point, to be truthful," Schildknecht said.

Munk argued the sentence the judge was about to impose was not that of the jury's and that this was a manifest injustice.

"I have received a verdict...I have read it. Not only read it, but I have sentenced the defendant according to the verdict...now all I have to do is place the conditions on the community supervision," Judge Schildknecht said.

"And, your honor, since you've dismissed the jurors…" Snodgrass said.

But the court transcript reveals the jury had not been dismissed and was still available for another 18 minutes.

"I would also ask for a motion for a new trial citing again, manifest injustice," Munk said.

"This isn't the point to make," Snodgrass said.

"It's very plain. There is no question about the way these are filled out," the judge said.

"Quite honestly, there should not be any communication coming from them right now. This has been very loose about what has been allowed to be communicated. There should not have been a communication with the sheriff at this point," Judge Schildknecht said.

"Judge, can I get a ruling on my motion for a new trial and mistrial?," Munk asked.

"Yes, denied," Judge Schildknecht said.

In the end, despite their true wishes for a 10-year prison sentence, the jury watched a five time convicted felon receive probation.

Munk said he has never seen anything like this happen before in his district and neither has Snodgrass.

"With slight modifications just to fit the facts of the case we were dealing with, they are the same verdict forms that have been used all over the state for as long as I've been practicing law and before then," Snodgrass said.

When asked if he Snodgrass was surprised his client walked away with probation, he said, "I was mildly surprised."

Junior will live with the consequences of Williams' actions for the rest of his life and that is how long Junior's mother is willing to fight for justice.

"I want to fight it tooth and nail until this man is behind prison bars. I don't want it to be over until we get justice," Hernandez said.

The uncertainty that took place in the courtroom began long before the verdict was delivered.

KCBD obtained copies of notes passed back and forth from the jury deliberation room to the judge.

The judge is legally restricted on what she can say to the jurors and therefore could not answer their questions. However, the notes do reveal the judge did have an idea that the jury misunderstood the verdict form and was going to get it wrong prior to her reading the verdict.