Father Objects as Hennepin County Seeks Shorter Sentence in Son’s Murder

Mary Moriarty’s office wants a life sentence reduced to 26 years. The slain boy’s father and county attorney candidate Anders Folk say the effort undermines accountability.

Hennepin County prosecutors are asking a judge to reduce the life sentence of a man convicted in the killing of 13-year-old Ray’Jon Gomez, over the objections of the boy’s father, who says the proceedings have forced his family to relive the murder while prosecutors argue for the defendant’s release.

Kemen Taylor II was convicted in 2014 of nine felonies, including aiding and abetting first-degree murder and the attempted murders of two other children. County Attorney Mary Moriarty’s office now wants his sentence reduced to 26 years, potentially allowing his release under supervision in 2030, according to the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Gomez’s father, Kevin Funchie, called the process “sickening.”

“I was really against it because [Taylor] went to trial and lost,” Funchie told the newspaper. “Now they’re saying it was inhumane how much time he got and this and that and they’re going to try to rehabilitate him and reduce his sentence.”

In a statement to the Minneapolis Times, Hennepin County Attorney candidate Anders Folk criticized the request, arguing that Moriarty’s office is using its sentence-review authority to substitute its charging philosophy for the outcome of a jury trial.

“This is what happens when ideology runs roughshod over justice. A gangland killing of an innocent 13-year-old boy. A unanimous jury verdict. All to be set aside beside because Mary Moriarty does not agree with the outcome.”

The office’s petition seeks a sentence reduction, not an acquittal. Whether Minnesota’s sentence-adjustment law permits relief from a mandatory life sentence is also being contested in a separate Hennepin County case.

A father returns to court

Gomez was riding a bicycle with two friends in north Minneapolis on a summer night in 2011 when they were pursued and shot at. He was struck in the back and killed. His 12-year-old friend was wounded in the shoulder; a bullet narrowly missed the third boy, who was 15.

According to the Star Tribune’s account of the case, Taylor, then 25, drove two armed teenagers into rival gang territory after his younger brother had been shot. He knew they were looking to shoot someone and encouraged them. After the teenagers opened fire, Taylor drove them away.

Taylor did not fire the shots. But his involvement was sufficient for a jury to convict him of aiding and abetting first-degree murder.

The shooters, Derrick Catchings and Donquarius Copeland, were 15 and 16. Both pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and received 34-year sentences. Taylor’s substantially longer punishment is central to the county’s argument for reducing his sentence.

For Funchie, who was raising Gomez as a single parent, the proceedings have reopened a loss he had already endured through the original prosecution.

“It was just me and him,” he told the Star Tribune. “It’s really depressing just going through the thing all over again.”

Funchie said prosecutors notified the family of the proposed reduction and he attended hearings. His objection concerns what happened once he arrived: the office that secured Taylor’s conviction was now advocating for a shorter sentence.

“It was all one-sided, there were no laws for the victims,” he said. “It was all for the ones who were committing the crimes.”

Minnesota’s sentence-adjustment law does give victims rights to notice, to object and to address the court. Judges must consider their statements. Those protections, however, do not give families authority to stop a petition.

Moriarty told the Star Tribune that her office seeks victims’ input before deciding whether to proceed.

“We take victim input and the impact any adjustment would have on victims and their families extremely seriously and have established a process to ensure our communication with them begins before it is statutorily required,” she said.

Funchie’s account describes the gap between being consulted and believing the prosecution still represents his family’s interest in preserving the sentence.

The county’s case for a reduction

Andrew Markquart, who leads the office’s Conviction Integrity Unit, argues that Taylor’s punishment was disproportionate to his role and substantially harsher because he went to trial rather than accepting a plea agreement.

As reported by the Star Tribune, Markquart also questions whether the evidence established Taylor’s premeditation and argues that current office practices would not produce a first-degree murder charge in the same circumstances. He points to a later county policy imposing stricter criteria for using jailhouse informants, whose testimony helped implicate Taylor.

These are the prosecutor’s arguments for revisiting the punishment; they are not new judicial findings overturning the jury’s conclusions.

The law allows judges to consider sentencing disparities, rehabilitation, public safety and changes in sentencing practice. It requires substantial and compelling reasons for an adjustment and expressly states that an adjustment cannot serve as a basis for vacating the conviction or substituting a different offense.

Taylor’s prison record includes violations for fighting, disorderly conduct and drug and alcohol possession, the Star Tribune reported. Markquart argued that a life sentence gave Taylor little incentive for good behavior and that, now 40, he is past the age when people are most likely to commit violent crimes.

The office’s position also follows an earlier dispute over Taylor’s conviction. In December 2024, another Hennepin County prosecutor opposed his request for postconviction relief, challenging claims involving his rejected plea offer and allegedly false trial testimony. Taylor paused that request the following month, and the office subsequently pursued the sentence-adjustment process.

Moriarty has emphasized that such petitions remain uncommon: her office reported reviewing 487 applications and filing four petitions, with two adjustments granted.

Folk challenges the use of conviction review

Folk’s criticism extends beyond the proposed sentence. He argues that the office’s handling of Taylor’s case could damage confidence in the work of reviewing convictions.

“This decision isn’t just a slap in the face to the victim and his family. Decision making like this undermines confidence in important initiatives like the conviction integrity unit. A philosophical disagreement isn’t grounds for ignoring the outcome of a jury trial.”

He also called for a response from his election opponent.

“This is wrong. Voters deserve to know where candidates stand, and I am calling on my opponent to condemn this decision from the current county attorney.”

The decision to seek relief belongs to Moriarty’s office. The decision to grant it belongs to the court.

A separate case may affect the outcome. According to the Star Tribune, Judge Juan Hoyos rejected a similar request involving Justin Stiles, ruling that the sentence-adjustment law did not authorize overturning a first-degree murder conviction carrying a mandatory life sentence. The county has appealed that ruling to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Judge Shereen Askalani has taken Taylor’s petition under advisement, with a decision expected by early December, the newspaper reported.

For Funchie, the request has already unsettled what he believed the original prosecution had resolved.

“I didn’t know once you went to trial and lost, you could still be released early,” he said. “I just wish they would stick with what they said they were going to do.”