By Lacie Morrison
lmorrison@mineralwellsindex.com

PALO PINTO – More than three years after their arrest for felony criminal mischief, Colt Andrew Martin and Colt Allan Atkins appeared in District Court Friday and pleaded guilty on six charges combined.

Their punishment? Restitution, probation and a two-month stay in jail.

District Judge Jerry Ray ordered the duo to repay more than $42,000 in restitution to the 28 victims named in the charges. Each man faced two state jail felony charges of criminal mischief greater than $1,500 and less than $20,000 and a third-degree felony charge of greater than $20,000 and less than $100,000 for damaging windows at several Mineral Wells businesses in a shooting spree with a CO2-powered BB pistol.

“People who commit these kinds of offenses show a complete lack of ability to recognize the consequences of their actions,” remarked District Attorney Michael Burns. “They damaged and hurt a substantial number of small business owners in our community. Their blatant disregard for the property others have worked hard to attain demonstrates a need for behavior modification.

“This is an opportunity for them to take advantage of programs that’ll be offered through the probation office, to gain the skills necessary to be responsible citizens and to learn there are consequences to your actions.”

It was May 6, 2005, when a Mineral Wells patrol officer noticed windows shot out in a number of downtown businesses. As the day – and weekend – continued, additional businesses called in to authorities to report damaged or shattered glass.

Eleven days after the event, Martin was placed under arrest and Atkins turned himself in two days later. They were both 17 at the time of their arrests and charged with felony criminal mischief. A then-16-year-old male was arrested May 18, 2005, before being released to his parents.

The damages amassed during the shooting spree were divided into three charges for each man, with the damages to Jack Powell Auto Group’s property and Scotty O’Shield’s tractor broken into two separate charges. Burns explained they were differentiated because they were separate incidences from the other 26 victims.

The punishment assessed for both Martin and Atkins is almost identical. On the state jail felony charges, they received five years of community supervision on each charge and ordered to perform 240 hours of community service. For the third-degree felony charge, they were both placed on 10 years of community supervision and a required 320 hours of community service.

Martin and Atkins were also sentenced to 60 days in jail, beginning immediately, as a part of their probation.

According to Burns, he recommended probation for two reasons, one of which was for the opportunity to learn responsibility.

The second reason, he said, was “to place a responsibility on them to pay back those people they made victims. I applaud the court’s taking the offense as seriously as it did and in the court, assessing the 60 days in jail. It will hopefully send a message to those who think it’s fun to damage or destroy the property of others.”

That message, Burns said, would be “to think before they take such destructive action.”

Ray asked each defendant why he did it.

“Were you drinking or on dope?” he asked.

Atkins told the judge he “wasn’t thinking,” while Martin said, “I smoked weed back then. … I’m not mean, sir.”

When determining how the restitution would be repaid, Ray commented, “These victims are not going to wait forever to be repaid if I have anything to say about it. … I want you to work and pay so much it hurts.”

Based on their respective incomes, Ray instructed Martin to pay $1,000 per month in restitution while Atkins is to pay $500 each month in addition to court costs. The district judge delineated how much each would pay towards each charge, with the bulk of their monthly contributions going towards the largest charge and the 26 victims named in it.

According to comments made during the plea hearing, Atkins and Martin are jointly and separately responsible for the restitution, totaling $42,391.03. Ray explained that while they would in essence each pay half of the costs, if one party fails to uphold his plea agreement, the other defendant would be responsible for the repayment.

He gave both defendants strict admonishments about their behavior following their sentencings.

“It’s not OK to do things like this and say, ‘I wasn’t thinking.’ … There’s evidence of some bad wiring in your mind or heart to do something this mean or harmful,” Ray told Atkins.

To Martin, he said, “While you’re in jail, I hope you’ll give some thought to what kind of conduct you engaged in and what happens.”

Both attorneys retained for the two men – Phillip Gregory and Sam Taylor – asked the judge for a work release program that would allow their clients to continue working while serving their time on weekends but Ray denied both requests.

“He’s lucky he didn’t get 180 days in jail,” Ray told Atkins’ attorney, Gregory.

Atkins and Martin were indicted on the criminal mischief charges in March, two months shy of the expiration of the statute of limitations for the offense.

The case was originally sent to the Palo Pinto County’s district attorney’s office but returned to the police department with a request for additional financial information in early 2006, according to one official’s estimate.

Mineral Wells Police Chief Mike McAllester told the Index in a previous interview that the case had been returned to a former detective who left it undone until the oversight was discovered in 2007.