by Antoinnette Borbon
On Friday March 29, 2013, eleven alleged gang members, with all of nine different defense attorneys, filed into the courtroom. Nine different defense attorneys, with a couple conflict attorneys in that pile, were sent to the judge’s chambers for what seemed like forever, only to come out with yet another continuance date.
Some of the defendants were out of custody. Their charges stem from possession of drugs to possessing firearms and other gang-related activity. The People’s case is represented by Robin Johnson, Deputy District Attorney.
One by one, the attorneys requested a continuance to April 19, 2013. Judge Mock agreed and set the date. Jeff Raven who represents one of the defendants in this case as a conflict attorney, states that things will move forward and both parties should be able to agree on how the court will separate the defendants into groups for trial.
As I was leaving the courthouse, one of the defendants in this case spoke with me briefly. I will not use his name for the purpose of his privacy. He told me he has had no affiliation with alleged gang members or their activities, in the last ten years.
He stated he has turned his life around since those years but still remains a target for law enforcement. I was under the impression that “guilty by association” was what he was trying to convey. He is anxiously waiting for this to be over with so he can live in peace again.
The trial is one of difficulty, to put it mildly, for a few different reasons. One of the most obvious reasons is the number of defendants in this case. Another is the affiliation between alleged gang members and the alleged gang activity. Conflict attorneys agree there may be some resolutions made in this case also, eliminating time.
The defendants will all be brought back to court on Friday the 19th of April, at 3 pm in Department 3.
Felony Theft Case Reduced to Misdemeanor
By Vanguard Court Watch Interns
On Friday, April 5, Department 1 heard a preliminary examination for the Rebecca Wilson case. Ms. Wilson is represented by Deputy Public Defender Daniel Hutchinson and was charged with felony theft, which had occurred on March 19.
Deputy District Attorney Sulaiman Tokhi called the first and only witness, Officer Lewis Cameron of the West Sacramento Police Department. Officer Cameron was dispatched to 731 Poplar St. in West Sac, in response to a disturbance. The property houses a gas station, a recycling center, and Poplar Food and Liquor. Upon arrival, Officer Cameron saw a man later identified to be Mr. Algave, holding onto Ms. Wilson’s arm. In her other hand, she was holding onto a red mountain bike.
Officer Cameron had responded to the same location earlier in the day, where he told the intoxicated and unruly Ms. Wilson to leave the premises. Ms. Wilson returned and hit Mr. Algave’s father, and then Mr. Algave made her leave. Ms. Wilson came back again and attempted to steal Mr. Algave, Sr.’s red mountain bike. When Mr. Algave, Jr., grabbed Ms. Wilson’s arm to stop her from leaving, she struck him in the face.
Ms. Wilson said that she had been trying to recover her own bike, which she claimed Mr. Algave, Sr., had stolen, and so she tried to take his red one. Officer Cameron admitted that he had been fed up with Ms. Wilson at the time of her arrest, since he had been responding to similar disturbances involving her over the past 2 days.
Mr. Hutchinson emphasized Ms. Wilson’s desire to get her bike back, arguing that a robbery requires intent to steal, rather than intent to temporarily deprive a person of their property. Ms. Wilson did not intend to keep Mr. Algave, Sr.’s bike permanently, just until he gave her bike back.
On the other hand, Mr. Tohki argued that Officer Cameron never explored exactly what Ms. Wilson intended to accomplish by taking Mr. Algave, Sr.’s bike. He emphasized the fact that the bike did not belong to Ms. Wilson, she attempted to steal it, and she used force. According to Mr. Tokhi, the evidence suggests that Ms. Wilson intended to use Mr. Algave, Sr.’s bike as her own, or at least deprive him of its value for an extended period of time.
Judge Richardson was concerned about gaps in testimony, the truthfulness of Ms. Wilson’s claim that Mr. Algave, Sr. had stolen her bike, and Officer Cameron’s incomplete investigation. Due to the nature of the dispute, the court reduced the case to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17(b)(5). The trial setting conference will take place on Monday, April 8 at 1:30 in Department 8.
“I was under the impression that “guilty by association” was what he was trying to convey. He is anxiously waiting for this to be over with so he can live in peace again.”
I am also guilty by association. My friend was wrongfully accused of a sex crime and is now a registered sex offender. I’ve been treated badly by law enforcement in Yolo and Solano county. hope this man’s trial goes well, and he can get on with his life. I shudder to think of all the expense of these trials.
Chris Parkhurst
Theft by fear or force…
The defendant may legally attempt to reclaim her OWN, property…