Relatives of two murder victims have condemned a plea agreement that allows the man who admitted killing both of them to serve his prison sentences concurrently rather than one after the other.
Marquez Hill-Turnipseed, 24, pleaded guilty to two separate killings carried out three years apart.
Prosecutors say he was responsible for the 2022 drive-by shooting that killed Eloe Lomax and the 2025 shooting that claimed the life of Stageina Whiting, a 23-year-old innocent bystander.
Under the agreement negotiated by the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, Hill-Turnipseed received concurrent sentences totaling 40 years.
Because Minnesota sentencing rules generally mean an offender serves only part of a sentence before becoming eligible for release, Hill-Turnipseed could spend roughly 27 years behind bars.
That means he could potentially be released when he is around 50.
For the victims’ families, the arrangement has raised an agonizing question: how can two separate murders be treated as one period of punishment?
Stageina Whiting’s Family Says Her Death Deserved Its Own Sentence
Stageina’s mother, Tasha Blanks, said she could not understand why the two cases were combined when the killings happened years apart.
“They were two different people. They should have made trial on two different cases, not put together,” Blanks told KARE 11.
She pointed out that Hill-Turnipseed allegedly committed the murders at different times and said the circumstances should have been considered separately.
Eloe’s mother, Talanda Burks, was similarly angry.
“He murdered my son first, and it should have been time for Eloe’s murder, then the young lady’s,” Burks said.
In her view, combining the punishments failed to acknowledge the separate devastation suffered by each family.
“He ruined two families,” she said.
Aunt Questions How Two Lives Can Be Combined
Stageina’s aunt, TT Toni, also criticized the agreement, emphasizing that the victims were individuals with different families, relationships and futures.
“How can you combine two lives together?” she asked.
Her comments reflected the central complaint from both families: the victims’ deaths may have been caused by the same defendant, but they represented two distinct tragedies.
Toni said one family lost a son while her own family was left facing the consequences of a child growing up without her mother.
The relatives argue that the sentencing should recognize those separate losses rather than treating the cases as one combined punishment.
Two Murders Were Separated By Three Years
The first killing involved Eloe Lomax, who was shot in a drive-by attack in 2022.
Three years later, gunfire erupted at Boom Island in Minneapolis, killing Stageina Whiting, who authorities described as an innocent bystander.
The second shooting was particularly chaotic. Investigators recovered approximately 130 shell casings from the scene and determined that five different firearms had been used.
During the sentencing proceedings, the violence was repeatedly compared to a “war zone.”
Senior Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Lofton described Whiting as an innocent person caught in what he characterized as an ongoing cycle of violence.
Hill-Turnipseed eventually admitted his role in both killings after being arrested in Chicago last year, according to KARE 11.
Judge Says He Is Not a Rubber Stamp
The plea agreement also placed Judge Michael Burns at the center of the controversy.
Burns acknowledged the anger expressed by the victims’ relatives but ultimately accepted the negotiated resolution.
He made clear, however, that his role was not simply to approve every agreement presented by prosecutors and defense attorneys.
“I certainly don’t see my job here as a rubber stamp for anything that the lawyers do,” Burns said.
The judge has previously rejected a controversial plea agreement negotiated by Moriarty’s office.
In 2023, he refused an arrangement involving Husayn Braveheart, one of the men responsible for the killing of Steve Markey, that would have allowed Braveheart to avoid prison.
Burns nevertheless said he would follow the agreement in the Hill-Turnipseed case.
Defendant’s Comment Draws Anger From Families
Before receiving his sentence, Hill-Turnipseed apologized to the relatives of the people he killed.
But his attempt to draw a comparison between their suffering and what his own family would experience while he was incarcerated quickly drew a sharp response from the judge.
“My family got to go through the same thing,” Hill-Turnipseed said.
Burns rejected the comparison, telling him that imprisonment was not equivalent to losing a loved one.
The judge stressed that Hill-Turnipseed had not suffered the same kind of loss experienced by the families of Eloe and Stageina.
The exchange further underscored the emotional tension surrounding the sentencing.
Moriarty’s Progressive Record Again Under Scrutiny
The case has also renewed criticism of Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, whose approach to criminal prosecution has made her a controversial figure in Minnesota.
Moriarty, a former longtime public defender, took office in 2023 after campaigning as a criminal justice reformer.
Her policies have attracted support from advocates who believe traditional prosecution practices can worsen inequities, while opponents have accused her office of being too lenient toward defendants.
Law enforcement organizations and some victims’ relatives have repeatedly challenged aspects of her approach to charging and sentencing.
Her tenure has also included disagreements with Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison over the handling of major criminal cases.
The Hill-Turnipseed agreement is therefore likely to fuel an already intense debate over how prosecutors should balance rehabilitation and reform with punishment, deterrence and the interests of victims.
Prosecutors Defend Their Decision
Moriarty’s office defended the plea agreement while acknowledging that no sentence could adequately represent the value of the lives lost.
A spokesperson said the number of years imposed on a defendant could never measure the worth of a victim.
The office said its decisions about plea resolutions are primarily based on trial strategy and public safety.
Prosecutors also emphasized that Hill-Turnipseed will remain separated from the community for decades as a result of the sentence.
That explanation, however, has done little to ease the anger expressed by the victims’ families, who remain focused on the fact that two murders resulted in concurrent rather than consecutive punishment.
The Wider Debate Over Criminal Justice Reform
The dispute highlights one of the most difficult questions facing modern prosecutors: how should the justice system balance punishment with efforts to reform sentencing practices?
Supporters of Moriarty’s approach argue that prosecutors should consider the circumstances of individual defendants, the strength of the evidence and the broader public interest when negotiating plea agreements.
Victims’ advocates, meanwhile, argue that sentencing decisions must also reflect the permanent consequences suffered by victims and their families.
In this case, the controversy is particularly sharp because Hill-Turnipseed admitted responsibility for two killings separated by three years.
For the families, the passage of time between the crimes makes the decision to combine the sentences even harder to accept.
What Happens Next?
Hill-Turnipseed is expected to spend decades in prison under the 40-year concurrent sentence, although Minnesota’s sentencing and release rules mean he is not necessarily expected to remain incarcerated for the entire term.
The families of Lomax and Whiting are now left to deal with the consequences of the agreement while continuing to mourn their loved ones.
The case is also likely to keep attention focused on Moriarty’s prosecutorial philosophy and the broader debate over whether negotiated sentences adequately protect the interests of victims.
Summary
Marquez Hill-Turnipseed admitted killing Eloe Lomax in 2022 and Stageina Whiting in 2025, but the two murder cases were resolved through a plea agreement carrying concurrent 40-year sentences.
The decision has triggered fierce criticism from both families, who argue that two separate murders should have resulted in separate punishment.
Judge Michael Burns acknowledged the relatives’ concerns but accepted the negotiated resolution, while Moriarty’s office defended the agreement on the grounds of case strategy and public safety.
The controversy has now become another flashpoint in Minnesota’s wider debate over criminal justice reform, sentencing and the rights of victims.
