Teen Killer Begs Judge to Hug Family Before Lock-Up

[00:00:00] Thomas Stein: Can I wait a second? [00:00:01] Speaker 2: Yeah, man, go ahead. [00:00:02] Thomas Stein: Yes. Thomas, if you could just say your name and spell your last name for the record. Thomas Stein, S-T-E-I-N. You have a statement that you've prepared? Yes, sir. I just want to use this opportunity to address my victims, DeJay, Emma, and to Kayla's family, and to anybody else who was impacted by this crime, and to offer an apology. On March 17th of 2024, my actions would assist in forever changing the lives of many people. That night, I was implicated into the murder of Kayla Rinko Miller. And as I reflect on that night, I try to understand the damages and pains that were inflicted. But the truth is, I don't think I could approximate the damage that was done or understand the totality of what everybody went through. And I want you to know that I didn't know that robbery was going to occur, but it was my reaction in fleeing that ultimately played a major role in assisting the perpetrators. I know that it wasn't my intentions, but the truth is, it doesn't change the result. It doesn't change the fact that there was a life taken, and innocent people were forever traumatized because of that. That day, I made a terrible decision. The decision to get behind the wheel was a total act of selfishness, and something I regret and I'm ashamed of every day. I regret the fact that I would impact innocent people who never deserve to go through what they did. I regret the burden I placed on my family, who have always been there supporting me. I know me saying an apology will never fix or undo what happened. But regardless of that, I want to apologize for my actions at night and to say sorry for what you guys have been through and what you continue to go through because of that. And your honor, before you censor me today, I hope you can take into consideration the fact of my youth. I'm capable of change, and I know I can do it. And I know this crime says a lot about me, but it doesn't define me as a person entirely. And I'm remorseful for my actions, and I'm sorry. And I just ask you this one thing. If before I walk out the courtroom, if I could give my family a hug, if you would allow that. No, I can't grant that request in here. Okay, that's fine. You can say goodbye, but you can't have any physical contact. Okay. All right. That's all. Thomas, while you've been incarcerated this last 144 days, have you completed any classes? Yes, sir. During my time incarcerated, I've been spending countless hours on trying to change myself, rehabilitating. I've done countless, countless courses, countless days and days trying to find a purpose. Nothing perfect, Judge. Thank you. [00:03:31] Speaker ?: Yeah. [00:03:32] Speaker 2: Nothing else. All right. You can step down, sir. [00:03:44] Thomas Stein: Just argument, Judge. Just argument, Judge. [00:03:46] Speaker 2: Okay. Stay. If I could first point out that the PDR that you referenced, as well as the PSI, are up for the court to consider. Within the pre-sentence investigation, the court might ask to note that the defendant does have adjudications of guilt as to felony offenses, and I wanted to talk a little bit about those. They're listed on page four as a burglary of a conveyance. And there's an error here in that. It just says August 13th, the Lee County, count one burglary of a conveyance, and it says what the outcome was. And I think it's important that the court note that the defendant was on pending juvenile charges at the time of this offense, which is what led to that ultimate resolution, and I believe it happened here in front of your honor. Those cases ended up being direct filed as a result of this case coming to adult court. And in fact, there were two cases, not just one. They are both for burglary of a conveyance. And those were 23CJ4781 and 23CJ4782. Those became 24CF427 and 24CF428. I'm asking that the court take judicial notice of those court files because they are from the defendant's prior record. And in fact, he pled no contest to both counts of burglary of a conveyance. And I bring those up because I think what we've heard a lot from Mr. Stein's family is that this theme that he was hanging out with the wrong crowd or he was being influenced by people who didn't have his best interests in mind, and it was causing him to make poor choices. And what we know from the case he was already facing in juvenile is that there were two individuals car hopping. One of them was the active party doing the car hopping, jiggling on door handles, going into the cars. Both individuals are wearing masks while the other person is standing as the lookout. And it was captured on video. Later in that night, law enforcement chased an individual who appeared to be loitering and prowling. That person fled. In the course of fleeing, they lost their shoe and they lost their cell phone. And ultimately it was identified that Thomas Stein was both the person who fled from the police, as well as the person who was doing the active car hopping or trying to break into those cars. And that's ultimately the charges he faced. And those cases are important because at that time, Thomas wasn't, Mr. Stein, excuse me, wasn't the tag-along acting as the lookout. He was the person doing the burglary. And on top of that, when you consider those narratives and the probable cause that the court's taken judicial notice of and the defendant pled to, the defendant's mom was approached after law enforcement had found that phone and that shoe. And she explained, oh, my son was chasing the dog that had gotten out or something to that effect. And I understand that Mrs. Stein has faced something tragic here in what her son is dealing with here in court. But I think it demonstrates that Thomas Stein isn't the person who is being influenced by others, but Thomas Stein is the bad influence. Individuals in this case weren't all just hanging out and Thomas Stein happened to go along with them. We know from the facts that the court heard he was the driver. He had armed the parties. He was making the rap videos about doing crimes. He was doing all of those things. He's the one who identified the targets, the girls in this case who are walking down a dark road alone. He's the one that stalked back and forth. Your Honor, to suggest, and I understand the need for Thomas Stein's family to find answers as to how their loved one could be involved in this and wanting to minimize what his involvement was. But the fact is, he was the bad influence. He is the one who perpetrated this and caused it to be able to take place. He caused it to happen, and it was his actions that caused the death of Kayla Rincone Miller and caused the harm that has been suffered by Luanne Deja and Emma Wright. The jury did not find that he pulled that trigger. But as the court knows, everything that he did that night is treated the same with regard to his involvement. We talked about it during the arguments that you're in for a penny and in for a pound. Mr. Stein was found guilty of the capital offense of felony murder. So I wanted to point that out about the PSI and make sure the court was aware of it. The factors that the court has to consider, and I should clarify, the state is going to ask that the court sentence the defendant to serve life in prison on count one, first-degree felony murder. And under statute 921.1401, the factors the court has to consider in determining whether that is an appropriate sentence include both the factors relevant to the offense, as well as the defendant's youth and the attendant's circumstances. And I want to talk about those. They're labeled A through J. I'm not going to talk about each of those, but I think some of what we've heard today is important in your determination, and the state's going to ask that you weigh those and balance them. One of those is the nature and circumstances of the offense committed by the defendant. I'm not going to rehash what we heard at trial and what I just discussed, but this was not an accident. This wasn't the intention of going out to commit a robbery was clear from the evidence that was introduced at trial, and ultimately it's what the jurors found occurred, because they did find the defendant guilty of felony murder. So the intent was to commit a robbery that ultimately resulted in the death of Kayla Wrinkle. The effect the crime had on the victim's family and on the community, it goes without saying, because the courts heard from the individuals the incredible impact that this has had, and I think the theme that the court heard, essentially on repeat, was the lasting impact. And I believe you heard that the impact didn't end that night for Kayla's family, and it certainly certainly didn't end for Emma Wright and Luann Deje and their families. This has been a continuing experience for them. And as Ms. Deje said, it's something that she will experience for the rest of her life, the loss of her friend, Kayla, as well as the trauma associated with being the victim of a robbery or attempted robbery that night. You heard a lot about who Kayla Rincone Miller was, and that loss from this community is tremendous. And the court can and should consider that, and we're asking you to do so. The court should consider the defendant's age, maturity, intellectual capacity, and the mental and emotional health at the time of the offense. I agree, the state would agree that the defendant in this case did suffer a loss and that his father passed away when he was at a very young age. However, what you also heard here in court from his family is that he had an entrepreneurial spirit and that he was goal oriented and that he worked every day to do things to better himself, to help his family. He demonstrated a level of maturity that's commensurate with his age and perhaps even beyond. He had educational aspirations. He was in 10th grade and participating in the high school program at Mariner High School. He was doing the things that an individual who holds a high sense of maturity was doing. And so this was not a crime that was influenced necessarily by immaturity. And if there was a component of that, it played a very small role in what Thomas Stein did on March 17th of 2024. You can consider the defendant's background, including his or her family home and community environment. And what you saw in those photographs of the defendant is he essentially had an idyllic childhood. He grew up going on trips surrounded by family. He has an extended family who's actively in his life, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, great grandparents. By his own mother's account, she had everyone over on a regular basis. This isn't an individual who was left to his own devices and went down the wrong path. He had all of the support that so many defendants come before a court and say, I don't have I never had a good upbringing. Please don't please have mercy on me because I didn't have a good upbringing. Thomas Stein had very evidently every benefit at his disposal. And the court can consider that as one of these factors under 921.1401. I'm going to skip here. One of the subsection G is the effect, if any, of the familial pressure or peer pressure on the defendant's actions. Again, Jessica Stein is talking about how her son was influenced. We learned through trial that the defendant was hanging out at his own home, playing with guns, making videos, smoking weed. His own statement during trial is that he was selling drugs and apparently guns on the internet illegally. So, this is not someone who was the subject of peer pressure. And I'd ask the court to consider that very, very strongly. And finally, letter J is the possibility of rehabilitating the defendant. And I would suggest to the court that the entirety of our, the reason that we have the sentencing scheme for juveniles who are direct filed involving a review of their sentence is to account for a defendant's ability to have rehabilitation while they're incarcerated. The point of that 15 year review if the court sentences the defendant to greater than 15 years is to check in and see have they developed, have they improved their lives, do they have greater direction, have they done the things that the defense is going to ask you to consider and give him an opportunity to do by giving him a lesser sentence. The state's asking the court to give the defendant the full sentence that accounts for the loss of Kayla Rincon Miller and the trauma suffered by Emma Wright and Luanne Deje as well as their families, give the defendant the full sentence that is accounts for those losses. And at the 15 year review, the defendant will certainly get the opportunity to demonstrate that as a juvenile at 16 when he was involved in the commission of these offenses, that he has become a changed person because of it. The length of this sentence matters for today and the state's asking that you do impose a life sentence after considering all of those factors. Again, the state would suggest that at the, if the court imposes anything over 15 years, you have to have a written order and findings saying that he's entitled to that review. As to count one, the first degree felony murder, there is a three year minimum mandatory that's required, um, because of the finding of actual possession of a firearm. Uh, so that is, uh, the minimum mandatory associated with count one and there's a three year minimum mandatory associated with each count because the jury found that the defendant did actually possess a firearm during the commission of the offense.