Former Montezuma County Undersheriff Robin Cronk was ordered to pay $7,415 in restitution as a result of an embezzlement conviction, a district court judge ruled Friday.
However, Judge Todd Plewe ruled that unauthorized purchases, including firearms, made by Cronk with sheriff’s office funds have been confiscated and will be sold at auction.
Proceeds will be paid back to the sheriff’s office and be deducted from the restitution amount owed, along with $703 already paid by Cronk.
“The plea agreement agrees the defendant will pay restitution for charges filed,” Plewe said. “Sheriff Dennis Spruell testified that Cronk was not authorized to make the purchases, and this has not been contradicted by anyone.”
During a one-and-a-half hour hearing, Cronk’s public defender, Katharine Whitney, attempted to show that the purchases made by Cronk were part of routine equipment needs for officers.
Whitney subpoenaed sheriff deputies Brad Ray and John Hancock to testify on the internal procedures for purchasing equipment during Cronks term between 2011 and 2013. Cronk attended the hearing via speaker phone and didn’t make a statement.
The deputies explained that under Cronk they each had a $300 allowance for equipment upgrades, including for uniforms, weapon apparatus, holsters, and other law-enforcement gear. They testified that Cronk had discretion on what could be purchased.
Whitney asked whether a high-powered rifle purchased by Cronk in 2012, reported to be worth $3,000, could be used for research and development purposes by the department.
Special prosecutor for the case, Ceri Yoder, an assistant DA from the 7th District, objected to the line of questioning.
“The bottom line is that Cronk pled guilty. The witnesses do not know if Cronk was authorized to buy the rifle,” Yoder said.
Whitney responded that the issue was that the purchased equipment could be used on the job. But Plewe rejected the argument, saying that Sheriff Dennis Spruell already testified there was no use for it.
Whitney argued the purchasing policy was “laissez faire” during Cronk’s term, and that his “purchases could have been within the policy and procedure” at the time.
Plewe again rejected the claim, responding that testimony showed Cronk “obviously had too much discretion, but that is not a defense for restitution” since the sheriff did not authorize the disputed purchases.
“The defense is proffering the equipment can be used, but that is not the purpose of this court,” he said. “This case is unusual. This restitution makes the taxpayer whole and addresses the victim.”
jmimiaga@cortezjournal.com
