Austin.YNN.com

Austin / Round Rock / San Marcos

Change region

  73º

01/31/2007 11:19 AM

What’s next for Colton Pitonyak

By: Jennifer Bordelon

It took exactly a week for the 12-member Travis County jury in Colton Pitonyak's murder trial to find him guilty and sentence him to 55 years in prison.

The 24-year-old former University of Texas student was convicted of murdering Jennifer Cave in August 2005. The 21-year-old victim was found shot, stabbed and dismembered in the bathtub of Pitonyak’s West Campus apartment.

While Pitonyak sits in prison, the legalities aren’t over. Defense attorneys plan to file a motion for a new trial within the next 30 days. If that doesn't go through, the next move is to appeal within 30 to 90 days.

The defense points to two major reasons for an appeal. The first is Judge Wilford Flowers' denial of the defense's request to include the lesser offenses of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

  To view our videos, you need to
enable JavaScript. Learn how.
install Adobe Flash 9 or above. Install now.

Then come back here and refresh the page.

"It was a problem in our view because the jury was faced with a decision of convicting him of murder or letting him walk out of the courtroom. And certainly I don't think anyone on that jury wanted him to walk out of the courtroom," attorney Sam Bassett said.

Prominent Austin criminal defense lawyer Ray Bass agrees.

"In this case, obviously Judge Flowers was not convinced that the evidence even raised the issue and so I'm sure that would be one of the appellate issues," he said.

The other reason to appeal is based on a unique Texas statute which states any evidence found by violating the law - even if it's not by law enforcement - can't be used in the prosecution of a criminal action.

Jennifer Cave’s body was discovered by her mother’s boyfriend, Jim Sedwick. Sedwick and Sharon Cave drove up from Corpus Christi to look for Jennifer after she went missing.

"In this case it's our contention that Mr. Sedwick's entry into the apartment was a crime, technically, although understandable, and therefore the evidence seized as a result of the entry shouldn't have been used at the trial," Bassett said.

"Whether the evidence showed the boyfriend entered here in a way that was criminal trespass and if so whether he entered with the intent of aiding law enforcement are difficult questions that should go before an appellate court," UT law professor George Dix said.

If the court decides there is ground for appeal, Bassett said that process could take up to three years. Their goal is to get a new trial.