ShareThis Page
Prolific thief gets 20 years |

Prolific thief gets 20 years

The Associated Press
| Wednesday, August 7, 2013 6:36 p.m

PHOENIX — An elusive thief who stole millions of dollars in cash and jewelry from hundreds of Phoenix-area homes over nearly two decades by using rocks to smash through windows was sentenced on Wednesday to more than 20 years in prison.

Robert James Neese, 60, of Mayer, Ariz., dubbed the “Rock Burglar,” pleaded with the judge to show leniency after his attorney described his troubled childhood, limited education and lack of violent history.

“I want to apologize to the victims. I’m really sorry. I deserve to go to prison. I just don’t deserve to die there,” Neese said in court.

Maricopa County Judge Pamela Svoboda had little to say to Neese, aside from meticulously reciting each count and issuing a complex sentence that included multiple prison terms, some to be served consecutively, some concurrently.

In total, less about two years of credit for time he has been behind bars since his arrest, Neese was sentenced to just over 20 years in prison.

Authorities believe Neese was responsible for hundreds of burglaries in affluent neighborhoods dating back to the mid-1990s, including former Vice President Dan Quayle’s residence. However, they were able to connect him only by using DNA to a string of break-ins starting in 1999.

He was convicted of multiple counts of burglary and other charges in April, then later pleaded guilty to similar charges in a separate 2011 case.

Rand said Neese was also smart, stealing items only from the master bedrooms and bathrooms where burglar alarms were not active.

“Most people don’t have their master bathroom, master bedroom alarmed because if they have to get up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom, it would set that off,” Rand said. “The defendant preyed on those weaknesses.”

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.