By Sanam Monjazeb
The case of People v. Michael Perez continued on Friday morning as Judge Stephen Mock ruled on the defendant’s sentencing (back story on Perez). Perez, who was convicted of second-degree murder in 2001, filed a plea agreement after his case was overturned in 2010 and was sent back to Yolo County.
The defendant pled no contest to the charge of second-degree murder and received a 15-to-life sentence, plus an additional three years. The law would mandate Perez to pay a $700 restitution fine, but the People requested an even greater amount of about $33,000.
Judge Stephen Mock commenced a brief evidentiary hearing on Friday to determine whether or not Perez should pay this substantial fine, but determined that he lacked the authority to order restitution beyond the $700 mandate.
Michael Perez is being convicted for three different cases, the first of which being the charge for second-degree murder in 2001, which contained enhancements of criminal gang activity and several uses of a firearm. The defendant was sentenced to a consecutive term of 15 years, with an additional three years, for this conviction. With regard to this charge, Perez is entitled to 5,138 days of custody and conduct credit.
In the second case, Perez was charged for one count of assault causing bodily injury, a second count of second-degree robbery (with the enhancement of the personal use of a weapon), and a third count of robbery. For these charges, the defendant received a low-term sentence of two years, directly concurrent to the three-year term in the previous case. Taking this case into account, Perez has accumulated 6,939 days of custody credit.
Lastly, the third case involved a misdemeanor of possession of a controlled substance, in which the defendant received a low-term sentence of 16 months, concurrent to the other sentences. Perez is entitled to 6,674 days of custody credit from this case.
With the ample amount of custody and conduct credit that Perez has acquired, the defendant may be eligible for parole in the upcoming future.
Closing Arguments in Ellis Case
By Kaiti Curry
On Thursday, the jury went into deliberation after listening to convincing arguments by Deputy District Attorney Robert Gorman and Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke. Gorman’s arguments were very mechanical and went straight to the point, and he carefully covered all of his bases. He explained all of the charges the defendant, Kevin Ellis, faces. The first three involve sex crimes with Child Doe One, counts four through six involve sex crimes with Child Doe Two, count 7 involves the failure of the defendant to register as a sex offender, and counts eight and nine involve the distribution of an illegal substance to a minor.
He explained further that charges two and four relate to the same event and charges three and five correspond to the same event. For each charge, Gorman reiterated aspects of each testimony that supported the allegations against Mr. Ellis. After doing so for each of the charges, Gorman submitted to the jury that charges one through nine had been proven.
As a side, Gorman also explained that Ellis failed to comply with his registration required as a sex offender. He should have registered when he moved back to California in 2008 and each time he moved residences in California, which he did at least three times according his daughters.
Furthermore, if convicted of any sex crimes, the jury must decide whether to implement two enhancements. The first is whether or not illegal drugs were distributed to the minors to accomplish the crime. The jury must also decide if there were multiple victims.
In defense of the discrepancies made by the victims, Gorman referred the jurors to Dr. William O’Donohue’s testimony. “The core details are the same,” the doctor had said. Furthermore, Gorman argued that if Ellis sexually attacked these boys while they were together, “it makes perfect sense” that he targets the boys when they were alone also. Discrepancies may also have been caused by the trauma suffered.
Gorman asked the jury to remember Mr. Ellis’s past while making a decision. He claimed the defendant was predisposed to these types of crimes, as he has been convicted before. “Bottom line is this,” Gorman said; “Those boys talked about the sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of the defendant.”
Mr. Gocke, on the other hand, challenged the circumstances in which the crimes allegedly occurred, claiming that “there are contextual problems with the allegations.” For one, Mr. Ellis only lived with his daughter Sarah for a few weeks, during which time Sarah checked on him frequently, there was no lock on the tent he was living in and the boys were at school most of the time. Therefore, he argued, Ellis would have had few opportunities. Additionally, no other children have made allegations about the defendant since 1995.
On another note, Gocke argued that just because the boys knew about marijuana does not mean they ever had any. The entire family, he argued, is very familiar with marijuana and the boys likely knew about its effects from them. Additionally, he pointed out that the parents never smelled marijuana on the boys or thought they were behaving as if they were under the influence.
Finally, Gocke attacked the credibility of the boys, noting that Child Doe One made unsubstantiated allegations of physical abuse by his father. Gocke asked the jury to critically analyze what has been said and to “presume Mr. Ellis is innocent unless the allegation are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In response, Gorman counter-argued all of Gocke’s points, and concluded by saying, “The evidence is overwhelming that Kevin Ellis has done it again.”
Unusual DUI Case
By Dan Williams
Thursday concluded a case that was seemingly your run-of-the-mill DUI case, except for a few key details.
Cindy Martin was down on her luck. Her husband had died a year earlier, she lost much of her income, and she wasn’t having an easy time of it all. She didn’t handle this all as well as she should have.
It needs to be said that Cindy, in her roughly 50 years alive, has never had so much as a speeding ticket. Up until this point she was an outstanding citizen with an exceptional record. Well, one day she decided to help herself handle things, she needed… pseudo-pharmaceutical remedies. She acquired drugs, either meth or cocaine, and started using them.
It was about 4 hours after taking drugs she needed or decided to, for whatever reason, take a drive. At this point, as Deputy Public Defender Ryan Mcguire-Fong stated, cocaine has nearly left the system, as its effects last only about 2 hours. So, not feeling the effects of the drug anymore, she got into the car with her grandchild. Probably not the best choice of action, but hardly one worth multiple years prison time.
Her grandchild was put in the back, as she should be. She was strapped into a child seat, as she should be. Everything was responsibly secure before Cindy departed. There was a fairly terrible accident. How much of this was due to the drugs, and how much was due to unfortunate circumstances, was never made clear. Nobody contested the timetable when she supposedly took the drugs, and nobody opposed the timetable for the rate at which drugs leave your system. Given this, we know that she wasn’t knee deep in a yellow mushroom forest or riding an elephant-shaped balloon while she was driving.
Her granddaughter came out mostly fine; minor cuts and bruises. Cindy did not fare so well, and needed to be rushed to the hospital. The ensuing medical examination that followed did reveal the drugs, and she was charged with felony child abuse, felony DUI, and misdemeanor use of controlled substance.
In court, Ms. Martin was nearly always crying, and clearly had no idea how to operate in a courtroom. The few times she and the judge talked directly, she could barely get out what Mr. Mcguire had surely rehearsed with her.
At the end of the hearing, Mr. Mcguire filed a motion to drop the charges to misdemeanors, and then just told the truth. He explained her circumstances, pointed to her pristine record, and generally painted the picture of reality. This wasn’t a repeat offender.
This person had no real intention of endangering anybody. She loves her grandchild, as evidenced by the care with which she took in securing the child, and she bore no ill will toward her. She was down on her luck and not handling it well.
I thought this was all perfectly fair reasoning, and completely agreed with him, but in Yolo County, I didn’t think his argument had a chance in the world. Judges here aren’t generally known for having pity or being understanding of offenders, no matter their record. Judge Rosenberg surprised me today. He dropped the charges down to misdemeanors in the interest of justice. She didn’t get away scot-free, and I don’t think anybody believes she should have.
Cindy Martin was slapped pretty hard on the hand for this. Three years’ probation, $3179 in fines, she has to enroll in a 3-month DUI course, and she will spend 2 days in jail, presumably to give her a reminder of things to come if she decides to start filling up her criminal file.
I think this case was handled better than many cases I’ve seen out of this courthouse. I think that both Mr. Mcguire and Judge Rosenberg deserve a pat on the back for the way this was handled, and I hope other judges in the courthouse look toward this exercising of judicial discretion in the future.
