The DA’s office is seeking to prison time now for a former Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Executive Director who had pled no contest to one felony charge of grand theft from an employer.
Last week, the Vanguard reported that the DA’s Office would be attempting to overturn a plea agreement reached with former CASA Executive Director Claudean Medlock. Ms. Medlock had allegedly embezzled more than $46,000 from the non-profit agency and used the money to gamble at casinos.
Ms. Serafin in her motion argues that the plea offer “was based on the belief that the defendant had only one prior arrest that resulted in a misdemeanor embezzlement conviction in Sacramento County.”
She continues, however, “The People have since learned that the defendant was actually convicted of a felony embezzlement charge in Sacramento.”
“The People no longer believe that the defendant is amenable to probation. Her felony probation grant in Sacramento County did nothing to deter her from continuing the same criminal activity for which she was on felony probation. The defendant was embezzling money from Yolo County CASA before being placed on felony probation in Sacramento and she continued to embezzle money for 8 months, stopping only when she was caught,” the motion argues.
These facts are not in question. The question is whether the DA’s Office has the authority, based on its own error, to rescind an agreement that had already been agreed to. A Yolo County Judge will hear this matter on December 8, during the time that would have been Ms. Medlock’s sentencing hearing.
In arguing their legal points, the DA’s Office cites as their legal authority, California Penal Code Section 1192.5.
Ms. Serafin argues that Judicial approval is essential to a plea bargain and that without it, the negotiated terms are “ineffective unless and until it is approved by the court.”
She cites from PC 1192.5, “If the plea is not accepted by the prosecuting attorney and approved by the court, the plea shall be deemed withdrawn and the defendant may then enter the plea or pleas as would otherwise have been available.”
The problem here is that it was accepted, so she argues, “The court may reject a plea at any time, even after initially accepting the plea.”
Ms. Serafin continues, “That statute ‘provides that the court’s approval of a plea bargain is not binding on the court and that approval may be withdrawn at the time sentencing if the court, after further consideration and in the exercise of its inherent discretion in sentencing, concludes that the bargain is not in the best interests of society.’ “
We had previously argued that the sentence was too lenient, particularly in light of the District Attorney’s Office record of prosecutions in a number of other less serious cases which have resulted in lengthy prison sentences. Yet here, a second offense for embezzling tens of thousands from a non-profit that advocated for children in the foster system resulted in likely no jail time.
According to the CASA webpage after a meeting with CASA, “Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven did some additional investigation and learned that Ms. Medlock’s RAP [Record of Arrest and Prosecution] Sheet issued by the CA Department of Justice was incorrect. He discovered that Ms. Medlock is serving a felony probation charge in Sacramento (as opposed to misdemeanor probation, as indicated on the DOJ RAP Sheet). These charges were filed against Ms. Medlock after she was hired by Yolo CASA and therefore were not picked up by a security screening conducted by the organization prior to her hiring.”
We agree with much of what the DA has to say in this case. Clearly the defendant is not amenable to probation as she violated it before and after the probation term was instated. The question is really whether the DA’s own error is sufficient to invalidate a plea agreement that was entered into by both sides and accepted by a judge.
CASA has publicly stated their dissatisfaction with the DA’s plea agreement, particularly because they were not consulted on it as the victim’s rights statute, that the DA claims to hold dear, would mandate.
CASA Board President Mila Spengler has repeatedly expressed her anger at the plea agreement, in particular the lack of consultation with CASA on the plea agreement. “We were very disappointed and upset by that,” Ms. Spengler told the Davis Enterprise.
CASA might not have known until her arrest that their former executive director was on probation, but they clearly knew that there was a felony probation when the Vanguard spoke to Ms. Spengler for the first time on October 22, 2010.
It seems likely that CASA learned of the felony conviction before the plea agreement on October 14, not in the eight days between the plea agreement on October 14 and the Vanguard’s conversation on October 22.
Therefore, it seems that the DA’s Office, as well, could have and should have known that Ms. Spengler was on felony probation prior to their meeting with CASA on November 17, and had they simply followed the law that they have advocated – the victim’s rights bill of rights – they, in fact, would have learned this information prior to the October 14 plea agreement.
The fault in this case rests on the lack of due diligence on the part of the DA’s Office who could have found out about the conviction had they simply had a discussion with CASA about their pending plea agreement.
As we stated in the previous article, this is not the first time the issue of lack of due diligence has come up. The DA’s Office attempted to file additional murder charges stemming from a drunk driving accident, mistakenly believing a second victim had died. Unfortunately, they marched into court with additional charges to file before confirming that individual’s death. It turns out, the individual was not deceased and the report was in error.
It is unfortunate that the citizens of Yolo County and surrounding areas will not be able to see Ms. Medlock properly prosecuted, but we believe this is due to the DA’s own lack of due diligence and that therefore it would set a bad precedent to revisit a plea agreement based on information that a reasonable search should have turned up.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, We request that the DA’s Office change their mind when we see them over-charge or push for prison when we think it is unwarranted or inappropriate, for the benefit of the defendant. We must also allow for working with the DA to change their minds when the victims believe that the sentence is too light. I don’t think that this sets a bad precedent at all. I personally had the experience of making a request directly to a Judge to overrule a plea agreement to ensure that a victim (and the community) felt greater protection from harm. You can criticize the DA’s Office for not getting it right from the beginning, but don’t criticize them for admitting the error and attempting to correct it. I believe that this woman has been embezzling money from her employers for a long time and didn’t stop when she got caught, and, unless the penalty is greater, will not stop now that she’s been caught a 2nd time.
If you believe that the DA actually got it wrong and did not have the correct information. As anybody that has been paying attention knows, the DA is less than honest or trustworthy. Who says the DA got the wrong information? The DA? As the DA provided any evidence or documentation that they in fact had the wrong info? I say no. I also say that with Reisig’s past false and misleading lifestyle, I don’t believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
So this plea was fine and dandy until it was exposed and Reisig got caught Again! Then all of sudden, it is not Reisig’s fault, it is DOJ, or it is the cops, or it is the judge, or it is the Defense, or it the Media that got it wrong…….. anyone see the trend?
So once again Mr. Reisig gets caught and sudden does his famous misleading press releases and blames the paperwork, but he provides no proof, no evidence, nothing but his word.
It would be nice if the Judge made him produce these so called “wrong” documents, but the odds of that happening not something I would plan on.
Nice summation Ryan Kelly.
Furthermore, this is pure speculation on your part: “It seems likely that CASA learned of the felony conviction before the plea agreement on October 14, not in the eight days between the plea agreement on October 14 and the Vanguard’s conversation on October 22.” In other words, you do not know the exact sequence of events and specifically what day what occurred. The participants in this scenario likely do not remember what specific day they did what.
What else we don’t know is if solely relying on a DOJ Rap Sheet is negligence on the part of the DA. An interesting question. And another interesting question is why the DOJ had it wrong? Is this common? And what the defense knew or didn’t know when the plea bargain was struck, and what they said or did not say to the court. However, there has been a mistake of fact which it appears the court can legally rectify – and should. I’d hate to see this defendant get off with too light a sentence bc of a mistake…
Clarification: This is clarification on your (dmg’s) part…
Geeeeeze, my fingers are working faster than my brain this morning…
Clarification: This is pure speculation on your (dmg’s) part…
I am glad to see that the DA is trying to fix this problem. I am not sure what caused him to change his mind–this article or the board of directors or something completely different. I am glad that the punishment they are seeking will now fit the crime.
Hopefully this will inspire the DA to investigate his cases better.
“She continues, however, ‘The People have since learned that the defendant was actually convicted of a felony embezzlement charge in Sacramento.’”
Is it mentioned anywhere how they discovered that the charge was a felony and not a misdemeanor?
Ms. Serafin stated “Her felony probation grant in Sacramento County did nothing to deter her from continuing the same criminal activity for which she was on felony probation.”
She still did the same thing, whether they knew it was a misdemeanor or felony. Either way she was not deterred…
Serafin goes on, “The defendant was embezzling money from Yolo County CASA before being placed on felony probation in Sacramento and she continued to embezzle money for 8 months, stopping only when she was caught,”
Again, and this was my point when we first learned about this…she went on to embezzle money from CASA just months after pleading guilty to the “misdemeanor” (really a felony) charge. How does knowing that she plead to a felony and not a misdemeanor affect this component of the case…the timeline re: Medlock pleading/probation/beginning to embezzle from CASA and her blatant disregard for the law and societal norms had been made brazenly clear either way.
Did the DA’s Office know this (timeline of events) and still think the plea was appropriate?
Wouldn’t the DDA have had access to documents that had the details and circumstances of Ms. Medlocks’ previous embezzlement crime? Wouldn’t the amount embezzled have been mentioned…somewhere? Would that not have raised some red flags with the Yolo County DA’s Office…if the amount was too high and the crime too egregious for it to have been plead to a misdemeanor or for the Sac Co DA’s Office to have taken it easy on her?
Even if the amount was such that a misdemeanor punishment was permissible under the law, wouldn’t the Yolo DA’s Office still have been able to see that “well, they took it easy on her and reduced the charge to a misdemeanor when they clearly could’ve pushed for the felony charge.”
FAI,
“I am glad to see that the DA is trying to fix this problem. I am not sure what caused him to change his mind–this article or the board of directors or something completely different.”
What happened, according to them, is that the RAP Sheet had erroneous info. They looked into the case further and realized her prior was a felony…after they had been told by the CASA organization that they (CASA) believed her charge was a felony.
I guess this turned everything around.
Ryan:
Like others, I don’t see this as the DA admitting error, they blamed other agencies for their mistake. But that is not the same as admitting error. They failed to check. Also as someone else pointed out regardless of whether the crime was a felony or misdemeanor, the crime was still the same thing as before. I think after talking to CASA – which they should have done much earlier – they realized they had made a mistake and now are trying to save face. This was all avoidable. I don’t think that Medlock will have a chance at a third go around, this got enough media coverage that any reasonable background check will pick it up. Medlock fell between the cracks on an original background search, amazing that she did not learn her lesson and instead started almost immediately.
dmg: “Medlock fell between the cracks on an original background search, amazing that she did not learn her lesson and instead started almost immediately.”
I think I read that she had a gambling addiction…
I know she used the money to gamble or some of it, I’m not sure we know that she had an addiction.
dmg: “I know she used the money to gamble or some of it, I’m not sure we know that she had an addiction.”
From the Davis Enterprise “She also opened an unauthorized credit card in the company’s name that she used to obtain cash advances at Thunder Valley Casino and for other purchases. A document outlining Medlock’s statement to police says she confessed to having a gambling problem that led to the loss of her Fair Oaks home, her car and eventually her job.”
The DA’s office messed up so you think justice should not be served. Well maybe it won’t be but if its not too late for the injustice of the plea bargain to be reversed the correct course is obviously to throw out the plea deal and seek justice on Medlock for her crimes against the foster children of Yolo County. Your desire to demonize the DA at every turn and berate him for every error should not supersede the need for justice by society.
The question is what constitutes justice, you seem to think it’s an outcome, but our legal system has created a process to protect the rights of as many people as they can. Part of the process is the plea agreement which hinges on trust that both sides will adhere to that agreement. If the defendant had regrets or came across new information there would be virtually no chance of them getting the agreement thrown out, why should the DA’s office get to throw out the plea agreement when they should have known in advance the facts of Medlock’s previous conviction. And understand I am far more personally affected by CASA being bilked money than you are, but I think process is extremely important.
i am not an attorney but I think your premise is incorrect. Plea deals often break down before final imposition.
dmg: “The question is what constitutes justice, you seem to think it’s an outcome, but our legal system has created a process to protect the rights of as many people as they can. Part of the process is the plea agreement which hinges on trust that both sides will adhere to that agreement. If the defendant had regrets or came across new information there would be virtually no chance of them getting the agreement thrown out, why should the DA’s office get to throw out the plea agreement when they should have known in advance the facts of Medlock’s previous conviction. And understand I am far more personally affected by CASA being bilked money than you are, but I think process is extremely important.”
Plea agreements can be voided bc of mistake of fact as I already explained in a previous post…
DMG,
“If the defendant had regrets or came across new information there would be virtually no chance of them getting the agreement thrown out”
There’s a difference between regretting taking a plea and coming across additional information that certainly would’ve been considered had the defense been privy to it, thus impacting the d’s decision to take the plea. In the case of the former, I don’t believe such legal precedent exists.
Why do you think the defense would have no chance, if the roles were reversed? Disparity exists?
DMG, “why should the DA’s office get to throw out the plea agreement when they should have known in advance the facts of Medlock’s previous conviction.”
Well, we don’t know whether or not relying exclusively on the DOJ RAP Sheet, which it appears they did, is such an egregious error on the DA’s end…in the eyes of the court. It looks to me like the slightest bit of investigating could have gone a long way in preventing all this and if relying so heavily on the RAP sheet alone is standard practice for this office or that DDA, perhaps they should reevaluate how they “seek” and “do” justice in Yolo County…
I’m very curious to hear what the judge has to say about Ms. Serafin’s statement that “The defendant was embezzling money from Yolo County CASA before being placed on felony probation in Sacramento and she continued to embezzle money for 8 months, stopping only when she was caught,”
It would seem that the RAP Sheet’s misdemeanor/felony error would have no bearing on when Medlock was convicted of embezzling in Sac Co and for what amount, when she began embezzling money from CASA (a few months later) and for how long. It’s interesting that they are using this information now in their case to void the plea, as it sounds as though this information would have been available to the DA all along and they make no mention of the timeline regarding her criminal history being inaccurate, based on what I’ve read.
I hope the judge asks them why they didn’t go after her harder when they had the chance, given all the accurate information available on Medlock’s past criminal behavior. He/she may not find the DA’s “but for…”argument compelling.
ERM,
“Plea agreements can be voided bc of mistake of fact as I already explained in a previous post…”
Was anyone arguing that is not the case?
SM: “Was anyone arguing that is not the case?”
I believe dmg is arguing that is not the case – see comment below:
dmg: “…that therefore it would set a bad precedent to revisit a plea agreement based on information that a reasonable search should have turned up.”
“Plea agreements can be voided bc of mistake of fact as I already explained in a previous post…”
The barrier is pretty high. I was talking to lawyers about this issue when the Memorial Park incident came up and it became clear that the victim helped to precipitate the event and from what I understood they would pretty much have to claim ineffectual council to get the plea agreement tossed. A mistake of fact would probably only be covered in the current case, not previous cases. Everyone I have talked to does not believe that the plea will get tossed here.
dmg: “The barrier is pretty high. I was talking to lawyers about this issue when the Memorial Park incident came up and it became clear that the victim helped to precipitate the event and from what I understood they would pretty much have to claim ineffectual council to get the plea agreement tossed. A mistake of fact would probably only be covered in the current case, not previous cases. Everyone I have talked to does not believe that the plea will get tossed here.”
My guess is if the plea agreement stands (which I hope it does not), it is bc depending solely on the DOJ Rap Sheet without double checking a separate source is not considered due diligence. It would be a shame if this defendant got off on such a technicality. It most definitely offends my sense of justice (white collar criminal gets off on hyper-technicality)…
“Everyone I have talked to does not believe that the plea will get tossed here.”
Sad if true. There is a difference between wanting the deal tossed and being able to get the deal tossed. You seem to want the deal to stand. This different than not being able to undo the mistake.
This habitual offender remains undeterred by community level interventions. Commonsense indicates there is no alternative to a substantial prison sentence.