Last week, the Vanguard reported that Leighton Dupree was sentenced by Yolo County Superior Court Judge Janet Gaard to 27 years to life in prison for a bank robbery he committed on January 12, 2010.
Mr. Dupree was convicted back in October of second degree burglary. He had two prior serious felonies as well, which contributed to the length of the term.
He approached a teller and told her, “I’m not trying to ruin your day, but this a bank robbery.”
Mr. Dupree asked for the manager and when the bank manager approached, Mr. Dupree again indicated that this was a bank robbery and he needed money. Mr. Dupree was handed $373 in bank funds and left the bank, and was apprehended a short distance away by Woodland Police Officers.
Mr. Dupree was represented by Deputy Public Defender Teal Dixon. While Ms. Dixon declined to comment to the Vanguard, the Vanguard was directed toward numerous court filings which clarified a number of factors in the case.
Mr. Dupree would testify that “he was in the throes of a lengthy drinking binge” on the day of the robbery. He said that he had little memory of that day, but “knows that he went to the unemployment office and had several beers that morning.”
According to witnesses at North Valley Bank in Woodland, “Shortly before l0:00 AM Mr. Dupree entered the bank, asked for the manager and requested money, calmly telling the bank manager ‘Believe it or not, this is a bank robbery.’ ” He was calm throughout the encounter, was handed $373.00, and left the bank. He made no threats, did not claim to have a weapon, and did not have physical contact with any bank employees.
The filing continues, “Within sight of the bank employees within, he waited for the light to change, and crossed at the crosswalk. He then turned to walk up the block and was apprehended by police before reaching the corner. He was cooperative with officers and gave a statement implicating himself.”
The Vanguard has also learned from a prospective juror about the questioning process for jury selection. Apparently, the DA booted an individual who refused to agree that one did not need a weapon to commit robbery or burglary.
According to the filings by Ms. Dixon, Mr. Dupree is 64 years of age and has been a binge drinker “who goes through periods of sobriety but who, when he drinks, will drink steadily for long periods of time.”
He has also had periods of steady employment, especially later in his life. Prior to his arrest, Mr. Dupree had been working at La Tourangelle, a gourmet nut oil company in Woodland. He was employed there from May 3, 2006 to January 4, 2010.
According to his boss, Mr. Dupree was a good employee, but he periodically had difficulty with alcohol. He also reported that during his period of employment Mr. Dupree was emotionally devastated by news that his daughter had died of a drug overdose.
Ms. Dixon argued, “While Mr. Dupree does have a history of criminal convictions and imprisonment, it seems clear that his alcoholism contributes to his situation. It is important to note that non-violent nature of the current offense, as well as the strange behavior exhibited by Mr. Dupree, in standing in front of the bank waiting for the light to change rather than running, or even walking, away from the bank immediately following the incident.”
In moving to dismiss Mr. Dupree’s prior strike’s, Ms. Dixon pointed out, “It has been 15 years since Mr. Dupree’s last felony and strike prior, from 1996. The previous strike prior was 9 years before that. An argument can be made that the 1996 case is more serious than the instant case, not only because Mr. Dupree was convicted of a robbery in Violation of Penal Code section 211/212.5, but because Mr. Dupree initially fled the scene. However, it does not appear that any weapons or egregious force were used and no one was injured.”
She did acknowledge that in the 1987 incident there was some injury to the victim of the assault, however, she argued that incident occurred 24 years prior and was “not indicative of Mr. Dupree’s current behavior. In addition, it appears that in that case, the prime aggressor was Mr. Dupree’s wife and that his plea agreement was conditioned on some consideration in her case.”
Court psychiatrist Gregory Sokolov evaluated Mr. Dupree following his arrest and concurs that Mr. Dupree was intoxicated with alcohol at the time of the robbery.
Dr. Sokolov provides us with a full account of the crime in Mr. Dupree’s own words.
Mr. Dupree reported the following: “1 remember that morning. I was in my hotel room. I woke up and started drinking again. I ran out of alcohol, so I walked over to the 7-11 on Main Street. I remember walking back and I was carrying a heavy sack of beer, but I couldn’t carry with my left arm, because I had a sling. I got back to my hotel room, and sat around drinking, and I remember taking my pills, Vicodin and blood pressure pills.”
Mr. Dupree continued: “I then remember I was walking down Main Street, and my recollections of things around then are very blurred, I was on the tail end of two weeks of I being drunk. I stopped at the Chevron station (on West and Main) and bought another beer, I put it in my coat pocket, and then went to the cigarette store. I also stopped at the Indian Health Clinic, but they said a doctor wasn’t available, and they made me an appointment for a couple days later. I then went to the unemployment office (on Cottonwood and Beamer), and I was talking to this lady at the desk about filling out papers for unemployment. Next thing I remember, I am at a pay phone at Walgreens, but I don’t remember who I was calling. I remember I had drunk another forty ounce of beer, and then I was heading back to my hotel room.”
Mr. Dupree continued: “At some point, pretty much all.the alcohol and the pills must have kicked in. As far as the incident [alleged bank robbery], I’ve read the reports later about it, but don’t remember it happening. I do remember walking down Main Street, and then next thing I know I was sitting on a sidewalk, and there was a woman standing next to me with a camera and she was taking pictures of me, maybe she was a reporter for the newspaper, and there was a police officer.”
Dr. Sokolov continues that Mr. Dupree reported, during his police interview, his reasoning to rob the bank as: “So when I when saw that bank, after I bummed a cigarette from somebody, as bad it sounds, it sounded like a good idea to do.”
Dr. Sokolov writes, “This explanation by Mr. Dupree for his alleged offense can be considered to be an example of ‘ impaired judgment.’ “
After our initial report, some of the posters suggested that this is “another instance where the criminal justice system is working like a well-oiled machine in Yolo County.”
The question really ought to be how much of a threat Mr. Dupree actually is to society, what the best way is to deal with that threat, and whether the 27-year sentence, given his age, the time elapsed since prior crimes and the lack of severity of this present crime, necessitates the expense involved, particularly given, presumably, the advanced age of the convicted felon.
He did not use any weapons, he was drunk and therefore had his judgment considerably impaired, and he stole a very small sum of money for which the state will now have to pay $50,000 per year for however long Mr. Dupree lives.
It just seems there must be a better way to do this, that would be cheaper for the taxpayer and more effective for Mr. Dupree.
Is 27 years an appropriate punishment for an individual who ended up with $373, using no weapons, with priors that are 15 and 24 years old, and the only violent offense being 24 years ago in which he was not the instigator?
Ultimately, that is a question for the voters and the lawmakers, but even under existing statutes there is considerable discretion.
As Ms. Dixon wrote, “The Court possesses the ability to dismiss or strike a ‘strike’ in ‘the interests of justice,’ ” and she calls this discretion”quite expansive.”
She argued, “The facts of this particular case would ‘motivate a reasonable judge’ to dismiss the priors in the ‘interests of justice’ while still preserving ‘the fair prosecution of crimes properly alleged.’ “
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Apparently, the DA booted an individual who refused to agree that one did not need a weapon to commit too much info.”
All part of the jury selection, I’m sure the defence had reasons for the propective jurors that they dismissed too.
I agree with you that 27 years is too stiff of a penalty, something like 5 years would’ve been more appropiate in this case.
The question is whether that’s an appropriate basis for dismissal.
Nevertheless I agree with you point that something like five years seems more appropriate in this case.
I thought I read from a previous article that the prosecution argued the defendant acted as if he had a weapon in his pocket?
The problem here is the defendant could go out and do far worse on another drinking binge. Perhaps the next time he will have a weapon or be assaultive. But bc there are virtually no/very little in the way of rehab programs for addiction problems bc of severe budget cuts, the place these people w addiction problems are going to end up is jail – a far costlier solution I would think than rehab. But then rehab programs are notoriously unsuccessful. It’s a conundrum w no good solutions, unfortunately…
“I thought I read from a previous article that the prosecution argued the defendant acted as if he had a weapon in his pocket? “
You did, but I pulled that from a report in the paper based on the police report right after the incident, whereas now I am only pulling from court documents, hence the discrepancy.
“The problem here is the defendant could go out and do far worse on another drinking binge. Perhaps the next time he will have a weapon or be assaultive. “
We punish people based on what they have done, not on what they might do. The guy is 64 years old, five years in prison would put him at nearly 70, I’m not certain how much of a physical threat he poses at that point.
[i]We punish people based on what they have done, not on what they might do. [/i]
You might think that 15+ years after the 3 Strikes law was passed, criminals would be aware that [i]if you have two felony strikes [/i]you are taking[i] a great risk [/i]if you engage in [i]any[/i] criminal activity. The sentencing for a third strike will simply not be proportional to the crime committed. Given the opportunity to change that law, the voters have decided not to do so. If you have two strikes, don’t commit another crime. You’ve had your chance to straighten up. I don’t agree with non-proportional sentencing, and would vote for reasonable changes to the law. But I am almost certain I would be in a minority, along with David, in that vote.
The problem Don is that the things people think ought to be calculated in the minds of “criminals” is not what is calculated. This guy wasn’t thinking at all when he did this, he was drunk, probably doing it just getting caught up in the moment, which I’m not going to defend other than to suggest that the punishment is not fitting the crime and not only that we cannot afford to pay for this extreme a punishment. And yeah, I understand it’s very easy to scare people into voting to continue to support these draconian laws, at some point people need to take leadership on it, because it’s going to cripple our ability to function as a state.
First of all the DA was correct in booting a potential juror who was wrong in believing a robbery couldn’t be committed without a weapon.
Second, the $373 figure has come up a few times as if it diminished the crime. He didn’t request $373 because it is some magical number that makes it less serious. That’s is just the amount he gave them. Would it have changed your opinion if the bank had handed him a million?
The number is not what is important. It is the act itself. If a person breaks into a home to commit a burglary and finds the house completely empty except a lone 44 cent stamp sitting on the counter, and takes the stamp, does it minimize the crime. No.
He has a history of robbery. Thanks for pointing that out.
[quote]This guy wasn’t thinking at all when he did this, he was drunk, probably doing it just getting caught up in the moment, which I’m not going to defend other than to suggest that the punishment is not fitting the crime and not only that we cannot afford to pay for this extreme a punishment.[/quote]
Where does this line of thinking end. What if someone gets drunk, caught up in the moment with some buddies, gets behind the wheel and kills someone. They didn’t mean to. He wasn’t thinking. What punishment is to severe for that. Can we afford that?
dmg: “We punish people based on what they have done, not on what they might do. The guy is 64 years old, five years in prison would put him at nearly 70, I’m not certain how much of a physical threat he poses at that point. “
True enough we don’t punish people for what they might do – but this guy did commit three crimes (all felonies). How many strikes do you want to give him? At least he won’t be committing any more crimes against defenseless citizens inside jail, no?
DS: “I don’t agree with non-proportional sentencing, and would vote for reasonable changes to the law.”
So would I…
MO: “Where does this line of thinking end. What if someone gets drunk, caught up in the moment with some buddies, gets behind the wheel and kills someone. They didn’t mean to. He wasn’t thinking. What punishment is to severe for that. Can we afford that?”
To take it a step farther, what if someone who is drunk and “caught up in the moment not knowing what he is doing” goes into a bank to rob it, and the teller keels over from a heart attack and dies? Being drunk does not absolve you of your sins…
“Would it have changed your opinion if the bank had handed him a million? “
I think there is an objective difference in the type of crime if he steals $373 versus $1 million.
“True enough we don’t punish people for what they might do – but this guy did commit three crimes (all felonies). How many strikes do you want to give him? At least he won’t be committing any more crimes against defenseless citizens inside jail, no? “
So we ought to ignore the nature of the crimes and the distance only look at the number of crimes committed? How can we afford that approach?
“To take it a step farther, what if someone who is drunk and “caught up in the moment not knowing what he is doing” goes into a bank to rob it, and the teller keels over from a heart attack and dies? Being drunk does not absolve you of your sins… “
It does not absolve you of your sins, but it is apparently a mitigating factor.
[quote]I think there is an objective difference in the type of crime if he steals $373 versus $1 million.[/quote]
There is no difference in robbing someone of five dollars or robbing someone of a million dollars as the law goes. It may feel worse but robbery is robbery.
[quote]The number is always important, that’s why petty theft is a lesser crime than theft which is a lesser crime than grand theft.[/quote]
Again, robbery doesn’t have grand robbery or petty robbery.
[quote]But space between crimes matters, particularly if the guy is free and productive in between, which he apparently was.
So you really think it makes sense to put this guy in prison for 27 years, if so why? How do you justify it given budget crises and his age? [/quote]
I think it does make sense to keep him locked away. He won’t live 27 years. I don’t want me or my family subjected to criminals walking the street. I am also a huge proponent of tent prisons to house people. I like the fact that California has one of the highest prison populations. I think prison and prison sentences should be long enough and hard enough that it’s a better deterrent.
In the end, we simply philosophically disagree. I think he’s a minimal threat if incarcerated for five years and released just before he turns 70 and I think the public costs are not worth the threat he represents to incarcerate him beyond that point.
dmg: “It does not absolve you of your sins, but it is apparently a mitigating factor.”
Only for “specific intent” crimes…
27 years is extreme. Our prisons as they exist now constitute an extreme punishment, going beyond the hoped for deprivation of liberty to frightful violence, hard to avoid on a budget.
And I fear $50,000 a year is an under-estimate of financial costs. Is that an average for the general prison population, or for aging inmates in need of increasing medical care? Prisoners’ medical care is made costlier when they have to go to a hospital with 24 hours guarding. I don’t know if they always need 2 guards but one barely functioning prisoner cited in the Sac Bee had 2 guards 24 hours.
[quote]”In the end, we simply philosophically disagree.”[/quote] I’d say it’s not that simple at all. Not “in the end,” but from the beginning, you’ve developed your philosophy, and your “Judicial Watch” stories have become more or less simply vehicles to advance your view of a justice system that’s corrupt to its core.
Nothing seems to stand in your way these days, not facts, not logic. When your blog participants question the cherry-picking, the lack of logic and the “facts” that are exaggerated, wrong or missing but important, you’ve been tending to ignore the concerns or brush them off as misguided, not on point or without merit because of the secret knowledge only you possess.
As they (sort of) say, everyone has a right to their own philosophy but not to their own facts. Don’t you think all of us deserve to start with a well-reported, accurate set of facts before we use them to argue our view of how they might apply to the bigger picture?
To Just Saying: Nicely said!
[quote]As they (sort of) say, everyone has a right to their own philosophy but not to their own facts. Don’t you think all of us deserve to start with a well-reported, accurate set of facts before we use them to argue our view of how they might apply to the bigger picture? [/quote]
It would be nice if our elected officials would give us a nice set of accurate facts, but that is not the case in Yolo. If the facts are wrong, why don’t you write the people with the facts and demand for them to correct the record, that would great. However, most of them like to hide behind their cherry picked press releases and then refuse to answer, clarify or prove what the truth is. Seems to me you are blaming the tail for wagging instead of the dog.