Thank you for reading Baltimore Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Andrew Michaels
- September 9, 2022
Court
|
Daily Stories
|
Shooting
|
Suspects
|
Uncategorized
|
A non-fatal shooting defendant’s defense counsel agreed to an alteration of his client’s plea offer on Sept. 9 when Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge John Howard questioned the original plea terms given the defendant’s prior convictions.
According to the prosecution, officers with the Baltimore Police Department heard two gunshots on the 700 block of N. Rose Street around 3:30 p.m. on Jan. 12, 2020. They saw the suspected shooter, later identified as Gary Babik Jr., running into an alley. Police arrested Babik moments later and recovered a handgun from the alleyway.
During Friday’s proceedings, the defendant and his defense attorney, Jason Rodriguez, listened as the prosecutor informed the court of the state’s offer of three years, suspending all but the 166 days time served, and three years of supervised probation for having a handgun on his person. The 31-year-old defendant would also be required to register as a gun offender.
Judge Howard quickly shared his disapproval of the offer, citing Babik’s prior convictions for assault in 2011 and illegal possession of a firearm in 2020.
“He’s just getting credit,” Judge Howard responded. “That’s not really serving time.”
Rodriguez said he and the prosecutor agreed upon this offer after considering the defendant’s ongoing work in the community and drug treatment. The defense attorney repeatedly told the judge that he was willing to bet on his client’s success—a rare occurrence in his line of work, he added.
During a brief discussion, the prosecutor and Rodriguez then agreed on a five-year revised plea, suspending all but the 166 days time served, and three years of supervised probation for illegally possessing a firearm and registering as a gun offender, which Judge Howard approved.
The judge told Babik that should he receive his GED by the end of his second year of supervised probation, the court will move him to unsupervised probation for his third and final year.