CASA packed the court with board members and supporters on Wednesday, to hear the sentencing of Claudean Medlock for embezzlement. But after waiting nearly an hour for the case to be called, there was a lengthy discussion between Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin, Deputy Public Defender Monica Brushia, Probation and Judge Thomas Warriner.
As it turned out, the trek was all for naught, as Judge Warriner announced that the case would be returned to the judge who accepted the plea agreement. Judge Warriner was taking all of Judge Kathleen White’s cases for the day, as she was otherwise preoccupied.
Ms. Medlock was to receive a “no state prison” sentence, but this drew the ire of CASA, who is out $46,000 during tough times. However, the DA’s Office now claims that they did not know a previous conviction was a felony rather than a misdemeanor.
According to a motion filed by Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin, “The District Attorney of Yolo County moves the Court to reject the no contest plea entered by the defendant on October 14, 2010 to Count 2 of the Complaint.”
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.
CASA issued a statement shortly after the non-decision, “The District Attorney’s Office previously filed a motion to set aside the original plea. Today, Judge Warriner acted to continue sentencing until January 20, 2011, at 9:00 am in Dept. 2, returning the case to Judge Fall, who accepted the original plea. The CASA Board of Directors, staff, and CASAs will attend that hearing and testify as needed.”
(We believe that Judge White was supposed to be the sentencing judge in this case, but are checking to be sure).
They continue, “Jonathan Raven and Michelle Serafin of the District Attorney’s Office are working closely with the CASA organization to achieve the best possible outcome in this case. We thank them for their responsiveness to our concerns and their support of the important work that CASA does in this community.”
However, while the Vanguard initially believed the sentence too lenient, particularly in light of cases in Yolo County where far less was stolen and resulted in lengthy state prison sentences. Regardless of whether Ms. Medlock was on felony probation, the crime itself, standing alone, should have dictated state prison time.
That said, the question now is whether the DA should have the ability to rescind the plea agreement. Part of that may hinge on whether the error was really with the Department of Justice reporting sheet or their own. Our inquiries have shown that the DA should have known that Ms. Medlock was on felony probation.
A fellow reporter in the courtroom told me that she had no problem finding out that it was a felony probation. It just took a simple search.
Moreover, on a message board for the Daily Democrat right after the plea agreement was announced in mid-October, one of the posters remarked, “While already on felony probation for a similar crime … commits another felony …. and the DA agrees to a grant of probation for the new felony?”
Based on this, it seems unlikely that the Judge would agree to withdraw the plea.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, You have supported a defendant withdrawing his guilty plea under a plea agreement that would give him no jail time in exchange for admission of gang membership, when it was found that new evidence was made apparent during testimony in another, related, trial. Why not support a withdrawal of an agreement in this case, where it was made apparent that evidence didn’t support the lenient sentence?
What a debacle! Of course the DA new about the Sac felony conviction. The Yolo police and arrest report have the Sac info. The DA decided to come to the party only after the CASA board contacted public officials and others. There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding this fiasco. David, a couple to ponder would be, what does the current presentence/probation report recommend and why didn’t the court settle this yesterday? All parties were present I assume.
I’m glad to see that the DA is now willing to take the embezzlement by this woman seriously. I wish they would have done that on their own initially and not after the ire of CASA and others in the community were raised. However, at least they are changing course. Unfortunately, it seems very disingenuous given all that has transpired in this case and other cases brought to light (like the man going to prison for being an accomplice to stealing Chinese food from the Nugget and another for stealing cheese). Don’t get me wrong they should be punished, but they should have gotten what Ms. Medlock was initially offered – repayment and probation, not prison.
To Very GG — great questions. Lyah the defendant was offered – repayment, 1yr in Yolo County Jail and 5 yr probation. If I were CASA I would agree to that. After all don’t they want their money back? Don’t they want this over? This is a group of people who are STILL in charge of public monies. I understand that they are really trying to save face for their past employment/hiring practices and for not prosecuting the director before Medlock for theft. Maybe they can make a deal with the DA to lift the statue of limitations on the prior employee theft and start a new party. I agree with VGG this is a fiasco. Rumor has it that the DA & CASA are starting their own new nonprofit together -Forget the Kids!
MCIY, thanks for the clarification. I agree the handling of this case is a total fiasco. The point I was making is that her treatment by the DA’s office was not fair, it was far too lenient given the crime she committed. Especially when comparing the crime she did to others that were given a far harsher sentence for crimes that would have been misdemeanors in any other jurisdiction. Basically what I’m saying is that their actions don’t add up so something seems fishy here.
I must be missing something here. Regardless of previous convictions, this woman allegedly embezzled $46,000. and was allowed to cop a plea? I thought pleas were offered in cases where achieving a conviction was very questionable. Was there some reason why the DA thought they could not get a conviction, and therefore needed to accept a plea deal?
Lyah, I would agree to some extent. As an employer I would want my money back and as soon as possible – being able to start the restitution process. Unfortunatley I think that process is a lower priority for the DA and the CASA folks and neither want to be caught up in the blame them -blame us anymore and hope the judge will make it all right. But again how can you know what is wright if you do not know the truth.
RB – another good question.
MCIY & lyah, I’m not sure where you get your information that CASA does not want restitution and the whole case is a fiasco. I’m a CASA volunteer and know for a fact that this is not the case. It’s been difficult to read the negative comments that are made against the CASA organization. The Board, Staff and Volunteers take our work very serious and we do it for one reason, the children. Most of the volunteers work full time in addition to their volunteer work, and do so graciously.
I realize that everyone has the right to their own opinion, but please do some research and please know what you’re talking about before you post your comments. The Also, regarding the Deputy DA, Serafin, give her a break she’s trying to make right what was wrong and is working closely with CASA now. Thank you for your time.
I will echo SAM’s view of CASA volunteers, as my relative was one. The training was intense and the relationship between him and his CASA not only took time and driving but he spent not insignificant amts of his own money to take the CASA out, buy things, etc. A very worthy cause at the grassroots level.
SAM* & SODA
I do not believe that people are saying that CASA volunteers are bad or don’t do great things for the kids. I read that people who are following this know that both the DA and the CASA board should be more honest in what has transpired. This is the first time I have heard about another director that stole. IF that is the case what was the outcome? IF nothing was done then they should be investigated.
“I understand that they are really trying to save face for their past employment/hiring practices and for not prosecuting the director before Medlock for theft. Maybe they can make a deal with the DA to lift the statue of limitations on the prior employee theft and start a new party.”
Regarding the quote above, I don’t know what MCIY is referring to. I have not heard of a prior director before Medlock embezzeling from the Yolo County CASA organization.
I would just like to clarify my comments regarding the volunteers. I did not write what I did to get a pat on the back or for others to think we (volunteers) are special or unique people, because were not. We don’t do this for the recongnition, we do it as a service because we love children and want to to help in some small way. What we do for the children is is never discussed with anyone other than our CASA supervisor, social worker and court.
Again, I just want others to know that the CASA Board and Staff are in no way trying to cover up anything that has happened. They have been open and honest with the volunteers to the degree they can be without jeopardizing the case.
Ryan: Because in one case, the defendant was not privy to key information at the time of the plea agreement (btw, it wasn’t withdrawn) and in this case, the DA should have known about the probation status of the defendant and failed to do due diligence that would have required very little work. CASA knew that this woman was on felony probation. Besides even without the prior, the sentence was too light.
Apparently it is Judge Fall who will hear this case, I’m pretty sure he is not going to allow the DA to withdraw the plea agreement for the reasons that I alluded to above – the DA should have known in advance.
SAM and the others. I am in no way trying to imply that CASA did something wrong. I’m sorry if you misread my meaning. I believe CASA and the people it helps to be the victims in this. What I meant by my comments is that the plea Ms. Medlock was offered by the DA is fishy in that it is far more lenient a deal than what has been offered to others who have committed far less serious crimes.
MCIY,
“I understand that they are really trying to save face for their past employment/hiring practices and for not prosecuting the director before Medlock for theft”
Can you please expound?
“As an employer I would want my money back and as soon as possible – being able to start the restitution process.”
What’s lost has been lost and they’ve been making do with what’s left, no? Come next year they will or will not receive full or close to full funding for their operation (ie the amount pre-Medlock’s embezzlement)? They’ll be back to a normal budget with sufficient funds, won’t they?
If that’s the case, I think they are in the right by pushing for prison time for Ms. Medlock. The money is great, but what’s truly invaluable are the services CASA provides the children…by simply being there for them as a friend and advocate. That comes at no “cost,” as they volunteer their time and money. The important thing is that the volunteers continue to volutneer and the absence of that money doesn’t preclude this from happening.
Anyway it’s not like CASA was going to receive a significant amount of that restitution, or any at all for that matter, prior to the closing of the organization’s fiscal year.
RB: “I must be missing something here. Regardless of previous convictions, this woman allegedly embezzled $46,000. and was allowed to cop a plea? I thought pleas were offered in cases where achieving a conviction was very questionable. Was there some reason why the DA thought they could not get a conviction, and therefore needed to accept a plea deal?”
To save the cost of a trial – a very common reason for plea deals.
What an outrage — a plea bargain that results in no punishment. The woman was already on felony probation when she re-offended. The plea bargain allows her to resume her probationary status. Justice needs to be served — a minimum of 5 years prison time seems appropriate for a repeat offender who habitually victimizes charitable organizations.