Killer HUMILIATED in Open Court — Judge's Explosive 7-Word Sentence Breaks Him Completely

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Shelly Cormier and Ms. Cormier is charged with the first-degree felony offensive murder and cause number 25 DCCR 0153. Mr. Radford has filed there's a motion to quash the indictment. The state has filed a reply. Obviously I've looked through both of these. I guess I'm confused Mr. Radford when you say it doesn't allege the requisite mens rea for murder. Judge if I may the common law [00:00:36] Speaker 2: has established that murder is when someone intentionally knowingly causes the death. The statute is what we're gonna go by. Yes ma'am but I don't think it was the intention of the legislature to remove the requisite mens rea. What makes you think that? Because the common law going back a thousand years has [00:00:57] Speaker 1: required murder to be intentionally and knowingly. But they've added section B 4 which it's a little confusing because the caption states it's 1902 C but the way it reads is the way B 4 reads under 1902 which requires only knowingly not intentional knowingly manufactures or delivers a controlled substance included in penalty group 1B blah blah blah that's fentanyl that's what the allegation is and so it actually has the mens rea of knowingly deliver it. I mean it reads straight from the statute so I'm going to deny that motion to quash. Can I just make a [00:01:34] Speaker 2: brief argument? Yes. Under this indictment under the way that it's it's pled if a doctor gives a patient fentanyl and that patient dies then that doctor can be charged with murder even though he did not intentionally or knowingly. Well there's an [00:01:49] Speaker 1: exception the next C except is provided well which where was it I saw this. It is a defense to the prosecution under section B 4 which is our section that the actors conduct and manufacturing or delivering was authorized under chapter 481 health and safety code or state or federal law which I think would be the medical purposes. So there's an exception. [00:02:12] Speaker 2: Is it my understanding then is the court of the opinion that the state must prove that my client knowingly delivered fentanyl to an individual? That's what the law says and that's what the indictment says. [00:02:30] Speaker 1: So it's the opinion of the court that Ms. Cornemere must have the [00:02:42] Speaker 2: So it's the opinion of the court that Ms. Cornemere must have the requisite knowledge that she was giving her fentanyl? I think that's, go ahead. I think what Mr. Raffer is trying to do is box the court in here. [00:02:49] Speaker 3: My interpretation of the statute is just knowingly deliver a controlled substance and that controlled substance if it contains fentanyl is enough for her to be guilty of this obvious. If it contains fentanyl and causes the death of a person then that gets us to me. [00:03:08] Speaker 1: Well I think that's going to be another whole question because it's specific that it's knowingly deliver a controlled substance namely fentanyl. So I think that's going to come down to maybe a jury question. I don't think that's, I'm not going to make that decision. That's not a, I mean that's just an element of the offense. So the motion to quash is denied. [00:03:32] Speaker 2: Yes ma'am, I would submit that the statute is unconstitutional as drafted. [00:03:37] Speaker 1: Okay, I'm not going to find the statute. I understand. I'm going to follow it as written. Yes ma'am. Alright, so that's denied. Hold on just a second. Mr. Radford has also filed a motion to reduce the bond. Do you plan on calling your client? Ma'am, the best you can raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God. Yes ma'am. Thank you. You may proceed. [00:04:04] Speaker 2: For the purposes of the hearing, this hearing only, we call Michelle Cormier on the issue of bond reduction. Can you state your name? [00:04:11] Speaker 1: Just so you know, once she's under, I mean there are, I don't let anybody go far, but if she's under oath and I am allowed to take into consideration some of the underlying facts of the case. Yes ma'am. We won't go far, but just don't want you to think that we're not, can't go there at all. Yes ma'am. Okay. [00:04:28] Speaker 2: Can you state your name for the record? [00:04:30] Speaker 4: Michelle Cormier. [00:04:31] Speaker 2: And you are the defendant in this case, is this correct? Yes ma'am. And your bond is currently set at $500,000, is that correct? [00:04:38] Speaker 4: Yes ma'am. [00:04:39] Speaker 2: Can you afford a $500,000 bond? Yes ma'am. [00:04:42] Speaker 4: Yes ma'am. [00:04:43] Speaker 2: Do you have assets in your name that you could liquidate to make a bond? [00:04:49] Speaker 4: My family does. [00:04:50] Speaker 2: Your family has, your family can help you? Yes ma'am. Have you talked to your family about possibly helping you with a bond? [00:04:58] Speaker 4: Yes sir. [00:04:59] Speaker 2: And how much, what kind of bond do you think your family can come up with? [00:05:06] Speaker 4: $100,000 or less. That's what all of them have told me. [00:05:10] Speaker 2: $100,000, you think they can make a $100,000 bond. Would it assist your case and presentation of your defense if you were bonded out and could assist me in working on your case? [00:05:24] Speaker 4: Yes sir. [00:05:25] Speaker 2: Where were you born? [00:05:27] Speaker 4: I was born in Vermont, Texas. [00:05:29] Speaker 2: Okay. Have you lived here how long? [00:05:32] Speaker 4: I've been back in town in this area since I was 13 years old. [00:05:37] Speaker 2: So you pretty much lived here your whole life? [00:05:39] Speaker 4: Yes sir. [00:05:40] Speaker 2: Do you have a family in this area? [00:05:41] Speaker 4: Yes sir. Jasper area. My aunt here in Vermont. Where would you live if you made bond? To go and try and move on by the. [00:05:46] Speaker 2: Who would you live with? [00:05:47] Speaker 4: My aunt, my 83 year old aunt that comes and sees me or my son and his grandma in by the. She's here in Vermont off a major trial. [00:06:02] Speaker 2: If the court set conditions of your bond including a GPS monitor and random drug testing would you agree with that? Yes sir. [00:06:14] Speaker 4: I sure will. [00:06:15] Speaker 2: What is your criminal history? Have you been to TDC before? Yes sir. [00:06:19] Speaker 4: I went for a regular habitation back in 2013. [00:06:22] Speaker 2: How much time did you serve? [00:06:24] Speaker 4: I served, I made my first parole and I served two and a half on that 10 because they sent me to safety. And I successfully came off of parole July the 11th of 2023. [00:06:38] Speaker ?: That's the witness. [00:06:40] Speaker 1: I want to know, I'm trying to read, I think it's probably in this reply. What was Ms. Cormier in custody for when this happened? Okay. So the allegations here are that you were in custody for theft. [00:06:56] Speaker 5: Now the stakes jump, even higher prosecutors outline the allegations behind the bond hearing painting a picture of how the drugs allegedly entered the jail. Remember, these are allegations, not findings of guilt, but they explain why the court views the case as extremely serious. [00:07:11] Speaker 4: Can I rephrase that? No, just to answer her question. Yes, no. [00:07:18] Speaker 1: In custody, smuggled in some drugs of some type in your vagina that you gave to someone else that the allegation has led to her death that has sentinel in it. [00:07:29] Speaker 3: Am I correct? That's it in a nutshell. [00:07:31] Speaker 1: All right. [00:07:32] Speaker 3: Go ahead, Mr. Coleman. And you don't disagree with the judge's assessment that you in fact smuggled fentanyl into the jury? [00:07:43] Speaker 2: Yes. I'm going to object to that. I think you said the allegations are what he's trying to do now is bind her into a confession. I'll move on, Judge. [00:07:51] Speaker 3: Thank you. While you were in jail, did you provide a controlled substance or substances to other fellow units? [00:07:58] Speaker 2: Again, Judge, I'm going to object that that is not relevant at this time. I'll move on, Judge. Thank you. Where did you get those drugs? I'm going to object at this time, Your Honor, to that. [00:08:10] Speaker 1: I think any of those are going to go to her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Mr. Coleman. [00:08:15] Speaker 3: Last question. When you were arrested on the theft offense back in November of 2024, did you have a pending felony drug case in Orange County? Had you been arrested for methamphetamine possession in Orange County? [00:08:32] Speaker 4: Yes, ma'am. I mean, yes, sir. [00:08:34] Speaker 3: That's on that. [00:08:35] Speaker 4: What's the status of that case? Do we know? [00:08:37] Speaker 2: I don't think it's been filed. If it's Orange, you could take yours. They're waiting on drugs. You could take yours. You could take yours. Okay. [00:08:45] Speaker 1: Anything else? No. No, ma'am. [00:08:48] Speaker 2: All right. [00:08:49] Speaker 1: Based on the… [00:08:51] Speaker 5: The judge isn't just looking at one factor here, bond decisions. Consider the severity of the offense public safety criminal history and the risk of fleeing after weighing those factors. The court decides the $500,000 bond stays exactly where it is. [00:09:06] Speaker 1: The criteria under 17.15, the information that I have, the nature of the offense. I'm going to deny the petition or the request for a reduction in bond. I think $500,000 is adequate based on the nature of all of those matters. All right. Anything else then on this case? [00:09:26] Speaker 2: No, ma'am. [00:09:27] Speaker 1: Okay. We'll reset it for an announcement. [00:09:29] Speaker 2: Thank you. [00:09:30] Speaker 1: May I have excuse you? [00:09:31] Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. I'm waiting on a report from my expert and I anticipate that that will be early June. [00:09:38] Speaker 1: Okay. We'll just do a normal reset and see where we are at that point. Thank you. You can go back with the bailiff. All right. Sir, are you Howard Celestine? Yes, ma'am. And Ms. Perrazzo, will your client wave the formal reading of the indictment in each case? Mr. Celestine, in cause number 24, DCCR 0919, you're charged with a third degree felony offense of manufacturing or delivering a controlled substance from January 10th of 2024. That indictment alleges that you were previously convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first degree felony, April 13th of 2009. And how do you plead to that charge? Yes. Are you pleading guilty freely and voluntarily? Yes. And because you did what they charged you with? Yes. And is that prior offense true, that prior conviction? Yes. The one that I read out, the aggravated sexual assault of a child, is that true that that is a prior conviction of yours? Yes. Okay. And cause number 24, DCCR 1549, it says count one only, but then it says a 20-year term, so it has to be count one and two. [00:10:44] Speaker 3: That's right. That was my intent. [00:10:46] Speaker 1: If it's 20. That's correct. Count one and two. [00:10:49] Speaker 4: Okay. [00:10:50] Speaker 1: Oh. There's only one prior. Right. So that's what makes that third degree turn into a second. The second degree. Oh. Okay. So, pleading on count one would only be to the underlying offense. Okay. So in 24, DCCR 1549, you're charged with a second degree felony offensive aggravated assault with a deadly weapon from June 24th of 2024. The indictment alleges that same prior conviction from April 13th of 2009. And how do you plead to that charge? Yes. Again, are you pleading guilty freely and voluntarily? Yes. And again, is that prior conviction true? Yes. And did you enter your plea of guilty in this case freely and voluntarily? Yes. And because you actually did what they charged you with? Yes. [00:11:38] Speaker 5: So in… What happens next is a major turning point. Instead of preparing for trial, the defendant enters guilty. Please across multiple felony cases once the judge confirms those pleas are knowing and voluntary, the focus shifts from proving guilt to imposing sentence. [00:11:54] Speaker 1: Cause number 24, DCCR 1550, you're charged with a first degree felony offense of murder from June 24th of 2024 and the states elected to proceed on that count only. And how do you plead to that charge? Yes. Again, are you pleading guilty freely and voluntarily? Yes. And because you did what they charged you with? Yes. And cause number 24, DCCR 1551, you're charged in that case with a state jail felony offense of abandoning or endangering a child from June 24th of 2024 and how do you plead to that charge? Yes. Again, are you pleading guilty freely and voluntarily? Yes. And because you did what they charged you with? Yes. In each of these cases, I have here on the computer some documents that have your signature on them that the state has marked as exhibit number one. Before you sign these, did you go over them with Ms. Perrazzo? Yes. Do you fully understand them? Yes. And do you understand if I follow the agreements that you've reached with the district attorney, you'll be waiving or giving up any right to appeal? [00:12:57] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:12:58] Speaker 1: Do you also understand if you're not a U.S. citizen that a plea of guilty or no contest may result in your deportation, exclusion from admission to the country, or denial of naturalization under federal law? Yes. State tender is number one in each case. One question. It's admitted in each case. Is there any evidence that Mr. Celestine is not competent? No, you're not. All right, sir. In each of your cases, I'm going to find that you entered your pleas of guilty and true in the cases that you did freely and voluntarily. Find that you're mentally competent and you understand the nature and the consequences of your pleas in each case. And clause number 24, DCCR0919. Find sufficient evidence to find you guilty and at this time find you guilty of manufacturing or delivering a controlled substance. Find that prior conviction true. Sentence you in accordance with your agreement to a term of 20 years in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Corrections. You will receive credit on that sentence for any time that you've been in custody that the law gives you the right to receive. And clause number 24, DCCR1549. Also find that you entered your plea of guilty freely and voluntarily. Find sufficient evidence to find you guilty and at this time find you guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Find that prior conviction true. Sentence you in accordance with your agreement to a term of 50 years in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Corrections. You will receive credit on that sentence for any time that you've been in custody that the law gives you the right to receive. And clause number 24, DCCR1550. Find sufficient evidence to find you guilty and at this time, or find that you entered your plea freely and voluntarily. Find sufficient evidence to find you guilty and at this time find you guilty of the offensive murder. Send it to you in accordance with your agreement to a term of 50 years in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Corrections. You will receive credit on that sentence for any time that you've been in custody that the law gives you the right to receive. And then finally, in clause number 24, DCCR1551. Find sufficient evidence to find you guilty and at this time find you guilty of the state jail felony offense of abandoning or endangering a child. Send it to you in accordance. [00:15:05] Speaker 5: And that's the final outcome. Although the sentences are lengthy, they'll run concurrently, meaning they're served at the same time. Rather than one after another, a courtroom that began with legal arguments ends with guilty, pleased decades in prison and a case brought to its legal conclusion. [00:15:20] Speaker 1: With your agreement to a term of two years in the state jail prison, you will receive credit on that sentence for any time that you've been in custody that the law gives you the right to receive. These cases will all run concurrently, which means together at the same time. I am making an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon and clause number 24, DCCR1549. I'm handing you in all of your cases the trial court certifications that shows that these were agreements that I followed and so you've waived your right to appeal. I have also handed you a written admonishment regarding your ineligibility to possess a firearm or ammunition. Because of the judgments entered against you, you're ineligible under Texas law to possess a firearm or ammunition. Possession of a firearm or ammunition could lead to charges against you. Firearm is a legal term. You should read the written admonishment I provide you to see what devices qualify as a firearm. If you have questions about the laws that make you ineligible to possess a firearm or ammunition or about how long that lasts, you can talk to Ms. Perrazzo. Alright, good luck to you, sir. You can go back with the bailiff. Okay. [00:16:26] Speaker ?: Okay.