Larry Millete, the Chula Vista man convicted of murdering his wife, May “Maya” Millete, who vanished more than five years ago, was sentenced Monday to 27 years to life in state prison.
A jury found Millete, 45, guilty of first-degree murder four months ago in the death of his wife of 20 years, who has not been seen or heard from since Jan. 7, 2021.
Prosecutors said he killed his wife in their home because she sought a divorce, then loaded her body into an SUV and disposed of her on Jan. 8. That day there is a period of about 12 hours in which his whereabouts remain unknown.
Her body has never been found, but police and prosecutors say there is no evidence to suggest she was alive after Jan. 7-8.
At his sentencing hearing, Millete said, “My only regret is I wasn’t able to protect my wife enough … I’m not a monster. I’m not a bad person.”
He said he hoped he could one day reconcile with May’s family, called his wife his “best friend,” and said he missed her every day, prompting some of May’s family members to angrily demand to know where her body was and why he killed her.
Millete was sentenced Monday to the term sought by prosecutors, 25 years to life for the first-degree murder count, plus a consecutive two-year sentence for an assault weapon possession count. Millete pleaded guilty to that charge after his murder trial.
Superior Court Judge Enrique Camarena said Millete displayed “callousness” after his wife’s disappearance and “a complete lack of any genuine interest in locating her.”
Camarena said, “Frankly, the court finds the conduct abhorrent. It reflects a profound indifference regarding his missing wife, to the life that was taken and to the anguish inflicted upon the victim’s children and family, who were left to search and hope while the defendant proceeded as though nothing of consequence had occurred.”
During the sentencing hearing, Camarena also rejected a request from his defense attorneys to grant him a new trial based on multiple factors, including alleged misconduct from jurors in their statements made to news outlets after the trial.
In a packed Chula Vista courtroom, Maya’s loved ones spoke of the pain caused by her death, but also the additional burden of not knowing where she is.
Among those who spoke were the Millete daughters, now teenagers, who for the first time spoke publicly of the impact of their mother’s disappearance and their father’s incarceration.
The girls reiterated that they love their father, but said it would bring them closure to know where their mother was.
Maricris Drouaillet, May’s oldest sister who led numerous searches for her missing sister in the years after the disappearance, pleaded with Larry, “Tell us where my sister is and help us bring her home.”
Larry’s parents, Benito and Judith Millete, also spoke at the hearing, expressing their love for their son and their belief in his innocence.
Judith Millete said, “I am not ashamed of you. I am proud of you because I know you did not hurt anybody.”
Benito Millete said, “I would not be here at this very moment if I did not believe my son.”
During the trial, Deputy District Attorney Christy Bowles argued to jurors that though she could not specifically say how May Millete died, Larry Millete was the only person with the means and motive to kill her.
The prosecution’s case focused largely on what Bowles described as Larry’s possessive and controlling behavior, which included regularly tracking May’s whereabouts, controlling her finances and ultimately soliciting the assistance of “spell casters” he believed could magically influence May to give up her plans for divorce.
The requests to spell casters evolved over the months leading to May’s disappearance from seeking to make her fall in love with him again to making her obey him to causing her to become sick or incapacitated so she would be dependent on him. Bowles argued those messages illustrated his capability to cause his wife physical harm and noted his spell requests abruptly ended following May’s disappearance.
The prosecutor rejected the notion that May voluntarily vanished, noting May’s plans for the coming year and her devotion to her three children.
Defense attorney Liann Sabatini said in her closing argument that Larry’s behavior was colored by May’s ongoing affair with a co-worker and that conduct characterized as stalking was actually Larry conducting a “tragic investigation” in which he was trying to confirm whether May was cheating.
Sabatini argued Larry was being psychologically abused and “gaslit” by May, who she said was denying the affair to family and friends while at the same time portraying Larry as “crazy” and “the villain” for suspecting it.
While she said jurors might not agree with how Larry handled the situation, Sabatini said, “There is no playbook for heartbreak.”
Regarding the murder, Sabatini told jurors they were being asked to speculate rather than rely on facts in a case that lacked a body, crime scene, murder weapon or eyewitnesses.
But Bowles argued the lack of a body was even more compelling evidence that May’s disappearance was criminal and “so well-planned that it is nothing other than premeditation.”
Though Bowles said she could not articulate how exactly May was killed, the presence of poison hemlock in the home was referenced in the trial as a potential method.
The contents of a vial found inside the Millete home following his arrest tested positive for coniine – a poisonous compound found in hemlock. Larry had searched numerous times for poison hemlock online, as well as other methods for killing or incapacitating someone.
Sabatini dismissed the poison theory as “silly,” arguing there was no reason for Larry to keep the plant inside his home nearly a year after May’s disappearance if he was guilty and that it was more likely one of his children picked the plant, as poison hemlock is commonly found throughout San Diego County.
She also argued that Larry searched for the plant as a means to commit suicide due to his despair over his deteriorating marriage.
Surveillance footage captured May entering the family’s home at around 4:45 p.m. Jan. 7, but no video footage captured her leaving.
According to trial testimony, her last known contact with anyone was in a text message with one of her sisters at around 8:15 p.m. Jan. 7. Her cellphone terminated all cellular connections at about 1:25 a.m. Jan. 8.
Larry, whose phone also terminated cell connections on the morning of Jan. 8, allegedly left the family’s home in an SUV at about 6:45 a.m. and did not return until about 6 p.m.
