By David M. Greenwald
Last week, the mother of Michael Perez, Regina Roxanne Perez, was acquitted of perjury stemming from answers she gave in response to a jury questionnaire for the Marco Topete trial back in 2011. A week later, Michael Perez, whose 2001 murder conviction was overturned in 2010 and sent back to Yolo County, was in Yolo County court and copped to a reduced plea.
Mr. Perez pled no contest to second degree murder and a reduced enhancement for personal use of a firmarm. He would receive from Judge Mock an 18-year to life sentence. With his time in custody since 2001, he will be eligible for parole in the relatively near future.
Sentencing was put out until September 27, at which point in time probation would calculate how much credit has had accumulated for time in custody, and that will determine the date in he would be eligible for parole.
Mr. Perez’ case was part of what was originally a 15-defendant case. Retired Deputy DA Nick Pohl, who was one of the prosecutors on the original case, came back from retirement to institute the plea agreement. He told the court that the DA’s office offered this plea agreement because Mr. Perez had cooperated in the 2009 prosecution of Faustino Romero, who would receive two life sentences plus 46 years for his role in the killings.
According to appellate court documents from Mr. Romero’s case, on March 10, 2001, a Norteño gang member was shot in the head, presumably by a Sureño gang member. In retaliation, several Norteños would target Sureños.
On March 11, 2001, Mr. Perez and Mr. Romero, both members of the Norteño street gang, drove to Sixth Street in Woodland, a Sureño enclave. They were armed with .38 revolvers, and they parked and approached a group of men that included Eddie Gomez, Ricardo Aguilar, Javier Aguilar and Leandro Escarsega, and opened fire.
Mr. Gomez was shot in the face by Mr. Perez. Mr. Romero walked up to Gomez, who was on the ground, and shot him point-blank in the head. Mr. Gomez survived, as did Ricardo Aguilera, who was shot in the shoulder.
Javier Aguilar, however, was shot in the arm and chest and died as a result.
According to retired Chief DA Investigator Bruce Naliboff, Mr. Perez was granted a new trial “after it was learned his private defense attorney did not properly advise him on some issues prior to his pleading to the gang murder which occurred in 2001.”
Mr. Perez was charged with the shooting death of Mr. Aguilar. The other charges against him were dropped in the plea agreement.
A Grand Jury would issue the indictment for the murder of Javier Aguilar.
Last week, Roxanne Perez faced charges that she had lied under oath during voir dire, when she said that she did not speak to her son Michael Perez, who was in custody in Yolo County at that time, about the Topete case.
According to Mr. Naliboff, “Ms. Perez stated she had not mentioned to her son Michael that she was a potential juror. I then conducted an investigation which involved obtaining a recorded phone call from her son, who was in prison, to Ms. Perez.”
“During a portion of the phone call they were discussing her possible selection as a juror and her son told her she will not be selected because he is so well known and she says something to the effect of her friends are telling her she would be a nightmare for the prosecution and a dream for the defense,” he said in a post on the Vanguard. “I then presented this evidence at a hearing and the judge dismissed Ms. Perez as a potential juror as he found her to have not been forthcoming about her earlier conversation with her imprisoned son.”
Alin Cintean, attorney for Ms. Perez, told the Vanguard last week, “The only reason they targeted her was her son’s case. There was no evidence to make anyone believe Regina Perez committed perjury.”
The jury evidently agreed and acquitted Ms. Perez after an hour of deliberation.
Alin Cintean and Regina Roxanne Perez will be speaking at the Vanguard Court Watch Council Meeting on August 25 from 5 to 7 pm at the Davis Library. For more details, click here.
Penkov Argues With Defense Over His Statutory Rights Violated
by Antoinnette Borbon
Yuriy Penkov was back in court Wednesday to talk about a letter he had written his defense attorney, Dan Hutchinson. He told the judge he felt his statutory rights were not being recognized, but rather being ignored by defense counsel.
Mr. Penkov pleaded with Judge Richardson to allow his discussions with Hutchinson to be on the record, along with a letter written to his defense counsel. Judge Richardson denied the request, stating, “I can admit the letter into your case file but I cannot put the confidential discussions between you and your attorney on the record.”
Mr. Penkov, still unsatisfied with the response by Judge Richardson, relentlessly repeated that he believed Mr. Hutchinson had ignored his rights.
Mr. Penkov asked the court to admit his letter to Mr. Hutchinson. He said that, in the letter, he had stated to Mr. Hutchinson that his rights had been violated. Mr. Penkov told the judge that his counsel was not listening to him.
Mr. Hutchinson stood silent, listening while Penkov spoke. At one point, Mr. Hutchinson began to explain he felt Mr. Penkov wanted to dismiss him but it was cut short by Judge Richardson.
Mr. Penkov never did mention he wanted a Marsden hearing to replace his court-appointed attorney, just that his rights be honored.
It was unclear the contents of the letter, but it was put into Mr. Penkov’s file. Then it was reiterated to Mr. Penkov that no confidential exchange with defense counsel will be put on the record. The judge scheduled the next hearing for October 2.
Man Facing Felony Over A $3.99 Rice Bowl
by Antoinnette Borbon
A disabled man stands accused of stealing a rice bowl from the Nugget Market in Davis, and faces felony charges over a theft of $3.99. With his long history of petty theft and a robbery 30 plus years ago, Deputy DA Sulaiman Tokhi argued that this merited a felony charge.
The defendant claims that he bought one for himself but stole another bowl for a homeless man outside of the market. The prosecution’s witness testified that this was untrue.
By the admission of his own words, the defendant had told the store’s loss prevention worker how he had a record and did not want to get into any further trouble. That admission was used against him.
Mr. Tokhi asked the court to consider his conduct over the course of his years. He stated in argument, “He has not changed his conduct, he knew what he did was wrong but he did not care.” Mr. Tokhi asked the court to keep the felony charge in place.
Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson had a different account of the defendant’s past. He argued it should not be used against him to get a felony charge, according to the law.
Judge Richardson agreed, and reduced the charge to a misdemeanor.
He will be arraigned on the misdemeanor charge.
so another 3.99 petty theft that the da is turning into felony charges? are we ever going to get past prison overcrowding as long as those are our charging policies?
Is the mention of an admitted thief’s disability an effort to gain sympathy for a career criminal or does the disability have something to do with the suspects ability to formulate criminal intent? What is the disability? Colorblindness is a disability but wouldn’t have much to do with the ability to form the intent to commit theft.
If the disability didn’t have anything to do with the theft why not label the suspect by hair color instead. The first line could read,”A blond haired man stands accused of stealing a rice bowl…..”
The disability seemed relevant to me in terms of the motivation for the crime. Being in a wheel chair certainly limits one’s ability to earn an income. I’m not suggest that as an excuse for crime.
The critical question is of course whether the conduct of stealing a $3.99 rice bowl merits a felony charge or a misdemeanor. In this case, I believe that the judge exercised proper discretion. Given the state of our prison system, I’m surprised and disappointed that this was handled by the prosecutor as it was.
If the DA is serious about neighborhood courts and a restorative justice process, this case screams for it.
This appears to have been charged as a felony because of multiple prior theft convictions. Neighborhood court is not the place for individuals who habitually and intentionally break the law with little regard for the consequences or their impact on others.
The argument about earning a living would be applicable if it even closely resembled what happened. In this situation that argument is obviously misplaced . He didn’t steal for sustenance. He bought his own and stole for someone else.
“The disability seemed relevant to me in terms of the motivation for the crime. Being in a wheel chair certainly limits one’s ability to earn an income.”
Sometimes the motivation for shoplifting has nothing to do with employment or the ability to pay for the item stolen, so maybe this isn’t a valid assumption. Are you correct that Mr. Perez is unemployed? Did anyone in the courtroom suggest that he was motivated to steal because he was a poor, unemployed person? We had two people with wheelchairs working in our office and several others with disabilities, none of which much affected their ability to do their jobs.
Mr. Obvious: I don’t agree. I think a restorative process can work in a variety of different settings and for a range of different offenses.
JS: I’ll leave those questions for Antoinnette.
On the Penkov case: I was under the impression that the client has the right to waive confidentiality of documents and conversations. When did this become the right of the judge??? Is the client even aware he can call a Marsden hearing to air his complaints? The attorney stating in court that he believes the client is trying to dismiss him, isn’t the same as advising him of his right to call a Marsden, though I’m not really certain how the Marsden works.
Did the judge advise Mr. Penkov of his Marsden rights? If he’s so concerned with protecting Mr. Penkov’s rights by refusing to grant Mr. Penkov’s request, one might imagine he would be concerned enough to point out the Marsden process to Mr. Penkov.
I’m still confused as to why the DA decided to expend the time to try Ms. Perez. She was bounced from the jury, it sounds like Mr. Perez cooperated with him, why prosecute jury conduct that caused no actual harm? Doing that is going to make people less likely to want to serve on the juries.
Why does DA discretion bother the blogger so?
JS wrote: [quote]Sometimes the motivation for shoplifting has nothing to do with employment or the ability to pay for the item stolen, so maybe this isn’t a valid assumption. [/quote]
True…
Years ago an East Bay Deputy Public Defender was arrested for shoplifting.
[quote]Why does DA discretion bother the blogger so?[/quote]
I don’t know why it bothers the blogger. But I do know why it sometimes bothers me. I feel that many of the charges that I have seen the DA bring in the last few years have been extremely costly for little perceived value.