Child molester pleads guilty and goes home- no jail!

Former Llano ISD bus driver and paraprofessional Jay Lynn Robertson, 56, pleaded guilty during a pre-trial hearing in a Burnet County Court Thursday to two counts of indecency with a child.

Robertson faced a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. As part of the plea agreement he was given a 10-year deferred adjudicated sentence, and will be required to register as a sexual offender for the rest of his life.

Robertson resigned his position with Llano ISD in January of 2009 for "personal reasons." He was indicted three months later.

Documents indicate one of the two charges to which Robertson pleaded guilty occurred in January of 1996. The victim in that incident was a female, but the other victim was male. Both were under age 10.

www.llanonews.com...

I had reservations about posting this for a week or so, but decided I want people to know. It seems to me this gives molesters and sex offenders the wrong idea- you will not go to jail in this county.

This guy was a preacher, bus driver, and he was the ISS teacher ( in-school suspension) which means he was left alone in a building with students. I know some of his victims. And there are MANY more than the 2 mentioned. He also worked with mentally disabled/retarded adults. Again being left alone with them. That was before he was convicted, before the trail.

I just can not believe his plea deal was NO JAIL TIME!!!! and NO charges can be brought up for any other sex crime he committed. He pleaded guilty for all crimes up until that point. So what if he has to register as a sex offender, and be on probation.... that is not justice!

reply to post by toolstarr
It isn't proper to convict people per the charges against them without proof of infraction.

Research the charges they plead guilty to,they probably were not the same as the initial ones.

News media is not an accurate source of anything.

This guy is a child molester, plain and simple. I know several of his victims. He has been doing this for over 15 yrs.
He plead guilty to indecency with a child. The point being, he got no jail sentence for his crimes. I see that as an open invitation for other sex offenders, and a HUGE injustice to his victims and the people of the community.

I highly doubt no charges for other sex crimes can never be brought up against him. Maybe he cannot be tried for the sex crimes against the 2 children in the first trial. He can be arrested and tried for any prior or subsequent sex crimes. I'm sure there will be subsequent sex crimes. Pedophiles can NEVER stop being pedophiles once they go past the point of no return.

it also means one other thing... the DA did not have enough evidence to guarantee a conviction...

the only other interesting thing is the fact that the families do have access to relief. In civil court they can sue and get money a whole lot easier due to his agreement...

I would love to have some more of the information something is missing...

reply to post by Sportbominable
There is nothing like having the go-ahead to condemn others by the measure of yet another besides yourself.

He who can not reason is a fool.
He who will not reason is a bigot.
He who dare not reason is a slave.

A lot of people here need to learn to develop their own thoughts and opinions.

Another Religious folk acting up again. They are animals, all of them.

To the slaughterhouse all of them...

That disgusts me. As a parent, it sickens me to hear of these types of cases.. If that happened to one of my children, I'd probably want them dead. I know that sounds extreme, but that's how I feel as a mother.
I know there isn't a lot they can do without substantial evidence, but jail time should be mandatory for any crime against a child, plain and simple. The possible and probable life time humiliation of registering as a sex offender doesn't seem enough. If I was a parent of one of those children, the thought of their abuser in jail would be justice enough for me, because you know what happens to those kinds in there...

reply to post by casijones


Question is, do you try the guy and fail to get a conviction because of lack of evidence or do you plea bargin and put him in "social jail" (sex offender registrar) for the rest of his life. I would prefer the guy be logged and tracked rather than a free man due to bad or lack of evidence.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
it also means one other thing... the DA did not have enough evidence to guarantee a conviction...

the only other interesting thing is the fact that the families do have access to relief. In civil court they can sue and get money a whole lot easier due to his agreement...

I would love to have some more of the information something is missing...

I thought the same thing so I did some digging. Even though the trial was in Burnet County, the original jurisdiction is Hill County (motion for change of venue from Hill to Burnet County). I tried to do criminal records search through the State of Texas Public Access, but it looks like they are still standardizing the formats, slowly moving them over to electronic files.

According to the articles linked, and other local news the Texas legislature made changes to the law with regards to children. It removed the statute of limitations (which if I saw right was 35 years) so these cases can move at the pace of the child, and not the adults.

However, the law went into effect on 09/01/2010, and cannot be retro to crimes committed prior to that date.

If I understand what they did correctly it looks like this:

* The guy fondled the kids sometime back in 1996.
* In 2009 he resigned from the District where he worked for "personal reasons"
* 3 months later, he was indicted on the 2 charges of indecency with a child from 1996.

* The law changing the statute of limitations went into effect on 09/01/2010, meaning this guy cannot be charged for any other crimes relating to criminal touching of kids (Apparently 2 kids came forward, but it looks like there were more that have not) that occurred prior to 10/01/2010.

Texas uses goofy terms...

Instead of allowing this to go to trial, where he faced a possible maximum of 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, he decided to take a plea deal instead.

The Plea deal places him on a 10-year deferred adjudicated sentence, and will be required to register as a sexual offender for the rest of his life.

What this means is if he commits any criminal act / infraction / speeding ticket / etc during the next 10 years, the Judge can "revoke" the deferred adjudicated sentence. This means the guy would go to jail for up to 20 years and face the $10,000 in fines.

The term most places use is Suspended Imposition / Suspended Execution of sentence. You are essentially placed on a very strict probation / parole type setup. For instance if you are pulled over, arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated, and its your first offense and you have no other criminal history, you could be sentenced to a fine and 1 year S.I.S. / S.E.S. If you make it to day 360 and you get got with drug, you violated the terms, which means the judge can sentences you to the original sentence.

If I had to guess the reason the PA went with the plea deal is due to how old the case was, and forcing people to relive the memories. Keep in mind that the children, however old they are now, would have to take the stand and explain what occurred to them.

This is hard enough for children.. I could not imagine having to do it as an adult 15 years after the fact. Mr. Robertson made the decision to take the plea instead of putting the families through the agony of reliving the events again.

Also, one last thing to keep in mind. When dealing with cases this old, whatever the penalty on the books at the time this incident occurred is what he will get for a sentence. IE if in 1996 the max punishment for inappropriate contact with children was a $5,000 fine and up to 3 years in prison, then that is what the punishment would be today for his actions.

It sounds goofy but it protects people from whats called a retro punishment after indictment / conviction (US Constitution specifically says no laws can be made that would be retroactive). Because the crime occurred in 1996, the punishment on the books in 1996 are what they use.

This is why his sentence was so goofy.

reply to post by Xcathdra


What a great follow up and reply . I would give you applause if i could I wasn't aware that if he even got a speeding ticket that his freedom could be revoked.
And I know the kids that went thought the abuse did not want to relive it at trail, they were embarrassed. So maybe, this was better for them, At least everyone knows what a creep he is. I read in another article that the family was OK with the plea deal.
It happened in Llano county in which is the hill country , that is what we call the area in central Texas. The trial was moved to Burnet county, and I heard it was because they couldn't find any jurors who didn't know about it ... but it could have been to give him a better chance.

reply to post by toolstarr


**Thanks for the clarification on Llano as a County. I was under the impression it was a city within Hill County**


The speeding ticket is on the extreme end of what could revoke the plea deal. Usually its listed as any negative contact with Law Enforcement, specifically left vague so there is no clear line in the sand for Mr. Robertson to argue "I never went over it", while being able to flaunt the same. Any contact he has with LE where a report is generated will be sent to the P.A. for review on whether it violated the terms of the plea deal (which from what I have read and understand it looks like no matter how small the transgression, Mr. Robertson will become someones bitch in the big house).

The other thing they only vaguely mentioned was, even though they are now beyond the ability to charge this guy with any other crimes that occurred back in 1996, it still allows possible victims to come forward with their information and to go on the record as to what happened. The ADA mentioned being able to use this information on the off chance Mr. Robertson had negative contact with Law Enforcement that might violate his plea deal.

To be able to use information without the ability of Mr. Robertson to argue the validity (hes not charged with these crimes) of the information, has to be built into the plea bargain. Where if other victims came forward they would be allowed to speak without having their stories challenged.

While I agree with the comments of several others in this thread, the one thing we need to keep in mind is what the victims consider justice, and not what we, people who are not affected first hand, consider justice. To some of these people, they want the pain to end and for it to go away so they can move forward with their lives. If it means a plea deal to give closure to themselves, and to others who could not find the courage to come forward, then its worth it, no matter how the rest of society may view it.

To these people, its closure, which means a fresh start on life... Justice does not have to mean a perfect end to an imperfect situation and set of circumstances.