Eric Eloy Perez was given 10 years and one day in prison for breaking into a local priest’s home with the intent to commit theft.

Perez was also given the maximum of two years in state for breaking into a church and a local doctor’s office on the same night.

Perez plead guilty Monday to all three charges, but asked a jury to assess punishment.

The district attorney, John Hubert, had to present evidence to support the plea and a request to impose prison on the defendant. The defendant could still be found not guilty if the evidence was insufficient however, the defendant was appealing to the jury for probation based on the need for rehabilitation in a drug program.

The main witnesses for the state was one of the victims, a local priest and the defendant’s co-defendant, Katrina Payne.

The priest testified as to the events that took place. He also testified that he bore no ill will toward the defendant and had forgiven him.

The priest also testified that he felt man’s law was not inconsistent with God’s law on the subject and felt that it was appropriate for the jury to set punishment in this case.

He also testified that although he felt fear that night and still worried some times, his parishoners had quickly repaired the damage from the break-in.

Payne, the 18-year-old accomplice, testified as to her “boyfriend-girlfriend” relationship with the 27-year-old defendant and as to living with him for a year prior to the burglary.

She also testified that both used drugs on a daily basis and that the defendant procured the drugs for both of them. Payne testified that the defendant was “warm and compassionate” and that he would “never hurt anyone”.

She also took responsibility for organizing the burglaries. Payne was given a plea deal for 10 years probation and agreed to testify to the truth at Perez’s trial.

Local defense counsel, Nathan Fugate, called numerous witnesses. They included prominent local religious and other leaders, family members, a probation officer and a member of a local free rehabilitation clinic to show that, if the jury would grant probation, drug rehabilitation would be available.

Family members also testified as to their willingness to help the defendant successfully complete probation. However, in remarks afterward one member of the jury felt that the defendant was too out of control and that, despite the good intentions and hard work of his family, that prison was more appropriate.

Hubert credits the success in the case to the quick response of the Kingsville Police Department at the scene and in the investigation and the common sense of the jury.

“For the third time in as many cases, victims testified that the Kingsville Police responded in minutes and officers were on the scene,” Hubert noted.

“This allowed the defendants to be caught onscene and the investigation, although late at night, to begin immediately. Their work gave the defendant very little wiggle room but to ask the jury for leniency,” Hubert said.

“The jury is tired of the days when we need bars on the doors of our churches. They decided that he could still get drug rehabilitation during and after prison and gave him 10 years and 1 day to do,” the DA said.

The jury deliberated for about 28 minutes before returning the sentence of 10 years and one day on the burglary of a habitation, two years on each of the state jail felonies, and no fine on any of the cases, as per the recommendation of the district attorney.

The defendant could be eligible for parole after a fourth of the sentence is served.