Today Robert Ferguson will be sentenced to prison for among other things, stealing less than four dollars worth of cheese and also stealing a wallet from a lady at a convenience store. While no one will argue that it is acceptable to do either of these things, given the state’s lack of resources and release of a variety of convicts, one has to wonder the wisdom of spending county time and resources on this sort of case.
It was just last week that Yolo County Superior Court Judge Rosenberg was praising the Yolo County judicial system for a high rate of disposition.
“Yolo Superior Court judges have presided over 121 criminal jury trials (28 misdemeanor trials and 93 felony trials) in 2009. This is an astonishingly high number for a court of our size.”
He reports the number as though it were a good thing and never stops to question the obvious. Is the high number a mark of efficiency or perhaps a sign that we are charging cases that should never have been charged?
One thing that we do know is that while Mr. Ferguson will do prison time, he will not spend his life in prison as the Yolo County District Attorney had originally requested.
In mid-February, the Vanguard broke the story that Robert Ferguson was facing life in prison for a third strike in part for stealing cheese from Nugget Market. Quickly the Sacramento Bee also picked up the story.
Suddenly just two days after the Sacramento Bee article came out, the District Attorney’s office reversed themselves. They argued that recent psychological evaluations convinced prosecutors that Mr. Ferguson’s convictions for petty theft did not warrant a life sentence under California’s “three-strikes” law.
The timing was mere coincidence of course, it had nothing to with say the embarrassment of having regional and perhaps state and national scrutiny on the District Attorney’s office.
Without the media scrutiny, the District Attorney’s office was perfectly willing to make the state spend between $50,000 and $100,000 per year to lock up this man for the rest of his natural life.
Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clinton Parish described him as a man that has refused to accept responsibility, that cannot be a productive citizen, and that remains a serious threat to society, and therefore should have been put in jail for the rest of his life.
The irony of such laws, is that costs for incarceration increase at the very time in a convict’s life that they are increasingly less likely to commit crimes.
While the District Attorney’s Office rectified the situation in this case, they still cannot admit they might have made a mistake. No way.
Instead, Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig told the Davis Enterprise last week that the law requires his office to charge all of a criminal defendant’s known strikes.
Mr. Reisig then said that both the prosecutors and defense attorneys can seek the dismissal of prior strikes if they believe a case doesn’t fall within the spirit of the three-strikes law.
“We make motions to dismiss strikes all the time. We’re exercising our discretion in that area very reasonably.”
Clearly then the timing of this case was then mere coincidence.
Mr. Reisig is relying on PC §667 to justify his decision to first prosecute previous strikes and then apparently to dismiss strikes. PC §667(f)(1) states, “[t]he prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior felony conviction except as provided in paragraph (2).”
PC §667(f)(2) states, “[t]he prosecuting attorney may move to dismiss or strike a prior felony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior conviction.”
On the other hand, PC § 1192.7(a)(2) states, “[p]lea bargaining in any case in which the indictment or information charges any serious felony…is prohibited, unless there is insufficient evidence to prove the people’s case, or testimony of a material witness cannot be obtained, or a reduction or dismissal would not result in a substantial change in sentence.”
§667 says if a strike exists you have to charge it and then you can negotiate it away. §1192.7, on the other hand, does not require that a strike be charged, but says that if you do, you can only negotiate it away if there are proof problems (it says nothing about what would be in the interests of justice).
However, according to other sources, District Attorney’s in other counties routinely exercise discretion so as to not charge strikes in the first place.
Public Defender Tracie Olson told the Enterprise last week, that a number of these three strikes cases emerge where a life sentence could arise from a relatively minor offense.
“Yolo County Public Defender Tracie Olson says the Ferguson case is one of several like it that have come through her office. Other clients have faced life sentences for crimes such as vandalism and writing fraudulent checks.
‘I find it hard to believe the voting public realized that these are the types of cases the three-strikes law would be applied to,’ Olson said of the law, which voters approved in 1994.”
The bottom line here is that we may be arguing the absurd here. Does locking a person like Mr. Ferguson, a guy with a long history of incarceration and also of mental illness really make us safer especially when we consider the resources it takes to do so? Or can we possibly figure out may be there is a better to handle these things? Those are questions for another time.
However, given the fact that these type of cases are in the system and getting prosecuted to begin with, should they give us pause before we declare, as Judge Rosenberg did, that the system is operating at high efficiency. As I understand it, we may be achieving efficiency at the high cost of prosecuting cases that we never should have prosecuted to begin with and clogging the system with frivolous cases that could better be handled in other ways.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
We need a little balance here instead of just sensationalizing one case. Nothing is 100% good in the eyes of 100% of the people. As unjust as this might seem, what are the general problems and solutions provided by three-strikes. Let me start with the primary solution: lower crime as repeat criminals are put away.
Interesting enough, if a person never commits any crimes this “three strikes” thing never comes into play.
“…prosecuting cases that we never should have prosecuted to begin with …”
We should never prosecute someone who is a repeated thief?
Implementing the three strikes rule appears to have come at the cost of rehabilitation programs that existed in the past, but have been eliminated in recent years.
Is this policy (three strikes and reducing/eliminating rehabilitation programs) the most effective use of tax dollars to reduce crime?
Judge David Rosenberg, as a former county supe now operates the court like a personal fiefdom along with the Hon. Steve Basha and formr presiding judge, Donna M. Petre; the whole Woodland Gang.
Rosenberg has used the grand jury to conceal other judge’s misconduct allegations and the Yolo state court like the infamous DA, Jeff Reisig, have to be seen as being tough as nails on crime to cover-up their own criminal acts; it’s all smoke & mirrors.
The Yolo state court doesn’t have to look any further than the courts illicit appointment of now Sacramento probation chief, Don L. Meyer, from Calaveras county under a multi-county fabricated felony foster abuse investigation.
The most un-Hon. David Rosenberg’s protections lie with a state court that the Sac Bee just editorialized as ‘judge’s shouldn’t be above the law’-but they are.
Rosenberg, Reisig, Basha, Drivon-Truitt, Haugner, Yamada, Thompson, Chamberlain, et. al., are the worse type of criminals as they present as being law abiding citizens and have access to special powers that conceal their other actions.
Rosenberg, keep your judicial paws off the grand jury and allow it to investigate the Yolo state court.
The VG’s Yolo Judicial Watch could take a much closer look at the court’s appointment of chief, Meyer, to see how the court operated outside the public eye.
Is this policy (three strikes and reducing/eliminating rehabilitation programs) the most effective use of tax dollars to reduce crime?
Great question. I’m going to assume that incarceration, although expensive – is less expensive than a lifetime of rehabilitation and more effective at reducing crime. However, I would like to see some well done study on this question. Certainly rehabilitation can be considered more moral than incarceration… for the criminal… but maybe not the victims of the criminal.
I view more strict sentencing laws as a cost of freedom. There are plenty of examples were less strict prosecution and sentencing have resulted in reductions in freedom. Just ask people in many parts of Italy where you don’t walk alone with much money in your pocket. And you need steel doors and bars on your windows, keep valuables locked up in a safe and make sure you drive cheap cars if you park on the street. Italy rarely convicts burglars.
Jake Wallace’s comments are over the top. He is a disgruntled juvenile corrections camp vendor from Caleveras County that has brought his personal battle with Don Meyer to Yolo County.
Don Meyer is now working for Sacramento County. His performance with Yolo County, especially the changes made to improve juvenile justice and reduce the number of Yolo County kids in detention (juvenile hall and camps), was appreciated. Donna Petre is retired. Jake’s allegations against Judge Rosenberg are baseless.
FWIW, my column in this Wednesday’s Enterprise will regard Three Strikes, the cheese thief and how this is affecting the UC system.
I see Mr. Ferguson got 7yrs 8months in prison for his $3.99 bag of Tillamook cheese. An inmate who has significant mental health problems will be put in the CDCR Enhanced Outpatient Program which costs taxpayers $110,000/inmate/year. Assuming he gets one day good behavior credit for every day he is in prison he will be in a minimum of 22 months. This brief 22 months in prison will cost us $202,000. Any dreams anybody has of reducing the corrections budget and giving the savings to the K-12 or the universities has only to look at this example to see that this will never materialize.
Big mistake in my calculations……..Ferguson will be in a minimum of 46 months not 22 (half time). The total cost of the Tillamook theft time to the taxpayers will be $421,666.