Frank Clark Sentenced to 1 year probation for stealing laptop

Submitted by reshp1 on November 13th, 2012 at 3:51 PM…

He also must pay $1,741 in fines and costs, abstain from drugs and alcohol and provide proof of full-time school, employment or a combination of the two. He has 60 days to pay the fine. Clark was sentenced under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, a program for first-time offenders under the age of 21. His record will be cleared if he complies with the terms of his probation. If he fails to meet those terms, he will be re-sentenced.
Hopefully he keeps his nose clean and holds up his end of the bargain and puts this mistake behind him for good.



November 13th, 2012 at 4:01 PM ^

That's a pretty serious sentence (warranted, if you ask me, which you did not).  He may be in a different spot than I was but coming up with $1700 in 60 days would have been a serious undertaking for me back when I was in school.  Maybe he and those who know him will better appreciate/understand the fact that its probably easier to buy a new laptop than steal someone elses . . .


November 13th, 2012 at 4:45 PM ^

I think this is actually a light sentence in the grand scheme of things. He was charged under the Home Invasion statute. People go to prison for that. If someone broke into my home (whether it's a house or my dorm room) I'd definitely want that guy going to prison. Maybe the facts aren't the same as your stereotypical house burgalar, but Frank should feel lucky he gets probation and gets to keep this off his record. Hopefull he makes the most out of it.


November 13th, 2012 at 4:52 PM ^

You make a good point.  I didn't realize he was charged for home invasion (which is obviously a felony).  I thought it was more of a simple larceny charge.  I feel the same as you and the law:  home is our last place of defense (see, e.g., the "castle rule") and the place we are all supposed to feel safe.  If that's violated, what else do we have??


November 13th, 2012 at 7:30 PM ^

more of a standard sentence.   younger people being prone to doing stupid things (i was no exception) the law seeks to allow them their 'one free stupid'.  it's not quite free, but it's a lot better than a felony following a kid around his entire life. 

also michigan calls a standard residential burglary a 'home invasion' to make it sound worse than it is.  a true home invasion is a group of gangsters, acting like a paramilitary force, blasting into your house and killing/raping/theiving.  some of the most gruesome cases i prosecuted were these type of true 'home invasions'.

sentencing for a first time offender under the guidelines would indicate a sentence of anywhere from 0-11 months in jail, not prison. 


November 14th, 2012 at 8:30 AM ^

When I was living w football players they got a monthly stipend of, I think, $360 each month. Assuming that has inflated since its been a few years, then that is a good start. Remember every single meal is covered in training table in season so they don't need that money for any school related expense including groceries. As for the rest of the $ I don't know.


November 13th, 2012 at 4:16 PM ^

I know we don't have all of the details, but now that he has been found guilty in a court of law, I can't really condone keeping him on the team, no matter what "internal consequences" he has paid.  In team sports, you have to be able to trust your teammate to have your back without wondering if he has any of your personal possessions, too.

I would expect that there are some very "frank" discussions happening behind the secnes right now.


November 13th, 2012 at 4:24 PM ^

It was my understanding that Hoke took care of Clark's football-punishment in the form of the suspension for the Alabama game (as well as other, non-public measures). You'd think that if Hoke's judgment was contingent on the findings of the court, he wouldn't have punished Clark prior to his conviction.

BOX House

November 13th, 2012 at 4:38 PM ^

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that he was not found guilty necessarily. Under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA) the charges are dismissed so long as Clark succesfully completes probation. 


November 13th, 2012 at 4:44 PM ^

In my opinion, this is squarely in the dumb sh*t kids do category. It's unfortunate that the value of the object in question made this a felony, otherwise it's still just one poor decision (that we know of I guess). He's got a chance to redeem himself, and that's a win win for everyone. If he screws up again, I have no problem bringing the hammer of the law (and interwebs) down on him.

State Street

November 13th, 2012 at 5:42 PM ^

"dumb sh*t kids" cut a class period here or there.  Hell "dumb sh*t kids" steal candy from the local candy store.

Irresponsible and morally vacant grown men illegally enter someone's residence and steal $1800 worth of goods.


November 13th, 2012 at 5:10 PM ^

If you "know we don't have all the details" then why express an opinion contrary to those that have all the details? Climb down off the horse and notice there is a kids future at stake not just the rep of the university. Perhaps a kids future is deserving of all the details.


November 13th, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^

So what really happened? It can't be as bad as it appears. Maybe Pat needs to take his camera back to campus and do some real reporting ... at Stockwell.


November 13th, 2012 at 4:47 PM ^

I am willing to give a person another chance, although the individual must be punished. Personally, I do not find a one game suspension adequate (Assuming he really did, knowingly, steal that laptop). I would make Clark do some serious community service, including working with victims of theft. Now in the case of Stonum, see ya....fool me twice and shame on are gone sir. 


November 13th, 2012 at 4:53 PM ^

60 days to pay that!? Ouch.  I'm sure it'll get paid but what if he/one doesn't have the funds to pay that in that time-span?  Can he ask the Clerk of Court offices for a payment plan?!  If not paid, does he suffer consqeuences/does he inherit the crime (versus getting it dropped once all of the above have been completed)? 


November 13th, 2012 at 5:15 PM ^

If he doesn't pay in time, he's deemed to have violated his probation. That means a judge could toss him in jail or the crime might appear on his record (which it's not doing right now.) I bet Clark gets it all paid off somehow (cause you never want to take your chances with a probation violation) but usually a judge will give you a couple chances on probation before he really throws the book at you. 


November 13th, 2012 at 5:21 PM ^

a court has the option to defer payment and/or set up a payment plan. It all depends on the individual's circumstances. A court may compel a defendant to get a job in cases where a defendant is capable of working and nothing, other than laziness, is preventing him/her from paying the bills. I have seen courts compel defendants to get pretty remedial jobs (pizza delivery, stocking, supermarket). The court ultimately wants the fine to be paid so it is not in the court's interest to lock the person up.  The stick/jail time is utilized in cases where the defendant is just being completely flagrant about his responsibilities. I am not sure how it would work with Clark, given that he is a student athlete and, consequently, there may be limits in place as to how many hours per week he can work, if at all.


November 13th, 2012 at 7:00 PM ^

In my experience with my friends, as long as the judge sees that you are making progress in paying the fines and that you are a generally decent human being, they'll be pretty lenient with the payment plan.  The Clerk of Courts will usually let them pay a minimum a month for an extended period of time (~6 months).  Remember, the court is just happy to get their money and it costs them more to keep bringing the sucker in and potentially jailing him than simply waiting for the payments a little longer.  Most people who are fined by the courts just brush it off and become "frequent flyers"... basically they won't pay the fine and don't care if you lock them up, so what is the court going to do to enforce it? 


November 13th, 2012 at 7:12 PM ^

Frank at least has control whether his record is clear in a year. I simply hope he learned a lifelong lesson and complies. Stonum proved the difficulty in walking the straight line for a year - which folks will likely remind Frank of.


November 13th, 2012 at 8:26 PM ^

I don't think Clark should have played a single down this season. Keeping him on the team is OK, but putting him out on the field is exactly the wrong decision in my view.