Last November, California voters overwhelmingly adopted Prop 36, known as the “Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.” Under the new law, which created PC 1170.126, those sentenced to 25 years to life for a non-violent third strike can be resentenced.On February 15, 2013, Judge Timothy Fall re-sentenced Eliaser Aguilar, who has been in prison since 1999 on a single count of violation of section 11377(a) of the California Health and Safety code for possession of a controlled substance.
Over the objections of the Yolo County District Attorney’s office, who argued that Mr. Aguilar did not qualify for resentencing because he presented an unreasonable risk of danger to the community, Judge Fall resentenced Mr. Aguilar and gave him the low term doubled (which is essentially a second strike conviction), for six years, and gave him credit for time served, allowing Mr. Aguilar to be released.
Judge Tim Fall originally sentenced Mr. Aguilar to 25 to life on March 8, 2001. In fact, he had, in March of 1999, originally sentenced him to an eight-year term, using his judicial discretion to strike the third strike, given the nature of the drug possession charge.
However, the Yolo County DA’s office appealed Judge Fall’s ruling and the appellate court overturned the ruling, thus two years later Mr. Aguilar was sentenced for life.
Had the original sentence stood, as Mr. Aguilar contended in his original pleading from November 9, 2012, he would have been released in 2005.
Once the district attorney challenged Mr. Aguilar’s resentencing, the matter was sent back to Yolo County and the public defender’s office was appointed to represent Mr. Aguilar.
Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson argued in his motion that “Under the terms of Proposition 36, this Court ‘shall’ recall Petitioner’s current sentence and resentence Petitioner to a ‘second strike’ sentence under Section 667(e)(1) and/or Section 1170. 12(c)(1) ‘unless’ the prosecution demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that resentencing Petitioner would present a current, unreasonable danger to public safety.”
The burden of proof, he argued, is on the prosecution, and under the terms of Prop 36, there is established “a strong presumption that the Petitioner will be resentenced to a ‘second strike’ sentence…”
Mr. Johnson further notes, “The People’s opposition to the petition erroneously claims that the burden of proof is on the defense to show that petitioner does not currently pose an unreasonable risk to public safety, and thus relies on lack of showing by the petitioner to support their position. The People’s conclusions are based on speculation derived from belief about hypothetical drug abusers rather than any actions by Mr. Aguilar.”
“The People’s theory is that Mr. Aguilar was under the influence when he committed his strike offenses in 1987,” Mr. Johnson writes. “Further, he was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for the current committing offense. Thus, he must want to use drugs again and when using drugs will present an unreasonable risk of danger to the public.”
He argues, “The conclusion the People are asking the court to make sounds logical in a simplistic and speculative way, but fails to amount to evidence that Mr. Aguilar represents a current unreasonable risk of danger to the public.”
The DA’s office, represented by Deputy DA Christopher Bulkeley argues, “The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that he would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.”
He writes, “The Petitioner has failed to present any evidence upon which the court can rely demonstrating that he is not a public safety risk.”
He continues, “The string of robberies that led to his nine convictions all included the use of a firearm. These robberies were all committed as a means to fund the petitioner’s raging drug addiction.”
“The Petitioner has presented no evidence of rehabilitation. In the fourteen years he was incarcerated in prison he never participated in any drug treatment program or counseling to address the raging drug addiction the led him to commit the string of robberies in 1987,” Mr. Bulkeley continues.
He then speculates, “The Petitioner will require a funding source to purchase his drugs in the future. He is virtually unemployable as he has no identifiable job skills coupled with a nonexistent employment history for the last few decades. He will most likely revert to criminal activities in order to fund his illicit drug use which has the potential to turn violent if one looks at past performance as an indication of future conduct.”
The case by the DA hinged on a string of convictions from 1987 when the defendant pled guilty to seven armed robberies. At the time, nearly 26 years ago, the defendant was 30 years of age.
Ten years later he would be arrested for a single count of possessing meth.
Mr. Aguilar will be 57 at the end of May. His most recent crime is now nearly 16 years old and the DA relied upon a 26-year-old crime in order to argue his danger to the community.
It is worth noting, that Judge Fall originally believed that the meth possession conviction was not sufficient to sentence Mr. Aguilar for life, only to be overturned by the appellate court.
The voters overwhelmingly passed Prop 36 in November, making thousands of inmates across the state eligible for resentencing. Those who have served beyond their new sentence will be immediately released and will not be under supervision of parole or probation.
The DA’s office does make an important point about Mr. Aguilar’s employability. Officials are concerned that many of the inmates who are released have already spent much of their lives behind bars and they lack skills and services to help them.
At the same time, that rationale cuts both ways – is the prison system, overcrowded and expensive, the appropriate place to meet the needs of these inmates?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
We all know Aguilar will most likely be back in jail within six months. Hopefully it’s for simple drug possession and not killing someone in a robbery. Is it wise to release a serial robber and drug user without any type of supervision? That was a rhetorical question because the answer is so obvious.
We don’t all know that, but it’s clearly unwise to release people without a support structure.
“However, the Yolo County DA’s office appealed Judge Fall’s ruling and the appellate court overturned the ruling, thus two years later Mr. Aguilar was sentenced for life.”
A life sentence for a non-violent crime after the judge himself gave him eight years. How do those lawyers at the D.A.’s office sleep at night? What if one of their family members or friends were sentenced to life for a single count of drug possession? All they care about is their careeres. They should go back to law school and re-take the Ethics class.
My suggestion would be that we use the money that we would have spent on Mr. Aquilar’s incarceration, and use it to provide housing, medical care and a “prison to society” transition program that would allow him to develop some means of successfully living in our community and that participation in such a program be mandatory.
The re-entry facilities proposed by the Dept of Corrections would have had inmates like this one spend the entire last year of their prison term transitioning in a re-entry facility where they would have received intensive drug treatment, job training, and other life skills training to enable them to be a little better equipped to do something other than return to criminal activity. Yolo county residents overwhelmingly fought the re-entry facility proposed to be built near Dunnigan. When given funds to help Yolo county deal with the results of reducing the prison population, our administrator’s answer has been to spend the funds on incarceration rather than prevention.
Is he going to be dumped out or is he going to get re-entry support?
As the article explains, there are no available services and as Wesley notes, most of the realignment money was utilized by the county to build additional jail space.
[quote]”,,,there are no available services…the realignment money was utilized by the county to build additional jail space.”[/quote]That there are [u]no[/u] services seems like an overstatement. Yolo County must have some appropriate services already in place. And, I think you had earlier stories on how Yolo County is spending realignment money. Please remind us of the specifics.
Of course, this discussion is conflating two somewhat related initiatives: three strikes reform and the governor’s transfer of some prisoners from state to county control.
We’re expected to incarcerate some of those being returned early from prison and release some of them. Here we go with unintended consequences again. Both categories get dumped back in town without the benefit whatever reentry prep the state facilities would have given them.
But, small steps are better than no progress at all. “Three strikes,” charges for personal pot use and death penalties for anything eventually will be gone. What will we do with all those state and county cells then?
[quote]We’re expected to incarcerate some of those being returned early from prison and release some of them. Here we go with unintended consequences again. Both categories get dumped back in town without the benefit whatever reentry prep the state facilities would have given them.[/quote]
The state does not send anybody back to the counties to be incarcerated in the county. The only ones who do county time after returning from prison are those that are convicted of new crimes. People convicted of non-sexual, non-serious, non-violent crimes do their time in the county, an all others do their time in the state prisons.
“As the article explains, there are no available services and as Wesley notes, most of the realignment money was utilized by the county to build additional jail space.”
Recently I happened to be sitting at the Yolo County Board of Supervisors meeting waiting for another agenda item and had to sit through a presentation by Tracy Olsen of the Public Defenders office on parolee supervision. She presented a comprehensive multi-million dollar program that included an extensive rubric for addressing the individual needs of each parolee. While watching I was impressed by Olsen’s presentation and the County’s commitment to providing these people with the services they need to prevent them from returning to jail while keeping the rest of us safe. I was also impressed by Don Saylor’s depth of understanding of the issue. It should be no surprise, due to his background, that he would get this stuff, but still, his grasp of the program and mastery of the budgeting was impressive.
You may be correct that the lion’s share of the money is going to build facilities and that Aguilar will not be offered those services if he is released without being placed on parole but what I saw makes your remark seem flippant and ill-informed.
[quote]She presented a comprehensive multi-million dollar program that included an extensive rubric for addressing the individual needs of each parolee[/quote]
I am sure Tracy was given a good reception because probably everything she said made sense. The $10,000 question, or in this case the multi-million dollar question is where is the money going to come from. What other programs are going to be cut to pay for more parolee support services?
From the State.
Thank you wesley506 for correcting my misunderstanding. So, all those who are are serving in prison for non-sexual, non-serious, non-violent crimes will finish out whatever time they’re required to do in state prisons? One would presume, then, that they’ll continue to benefit from whatever reentry programs the state conducts, albeit not in Dunnigan.
However, it seems that criticism of the county for Mr. Aguilar’s unfortunate (?) situation is misplaced. He and other three-strikers may get resentenced in a way that leaves little or no time for re-entry programs while still incarcerated–and, likely, they’re happy to be released ASAP.
With respect to how counties spend realignment funding to deal with future convicted offenders, is it really very surprising that they might concentrate on having enough jail cells to replace the prison cells to which they’re losing access?
“He then speculates, “The Petitioner will require a funding source to purchase his drugs in the future. He is virtually unemployable as he has no identifiable job skills coupled with a nonexistent employment history for the last few decades. He will most likely revert to criminal activities in order to fund his illicit drug use which has the potential to turn violent if one looks at past performance as an indication of future conduct.”
Wow, with this type of speculation why would anyone be released from prison? According to the prosector, they are all doomed to commit the same crime anyway so let’s just keep them there.
It’s unfortunate that the DA’s office here uses whatever means possible to keep as many people behind bars for as long as possible whether it makes sense or not. If the taxpayers from Yolo county had to pay for the people they imprisoned do you think thinks would change?
re: Wesley “The re-entry facilities proposed by the Dept of Corrections would have had inmates like this one spend the entire last year of their prison term transitioning in a re-entry facility where they would have received intensive drug treatment, job training, and other life skills training to enable them to be a little better equipped to do something other than return to criminal activity.”
Sounds like a great idea. Can’t a lot of such re-entry transitioning also take place in the current state prisons? Seems to me it should be mandatory for most prisoners.