Pro Per Defendant Irritating, but Judges Rules in His Favor over DDA Objections

By Yuanqi Ivy Zhou

SACRAMENTO – A defendant—representing himself in propria persona (pro per)—maybe irritated Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Scott Tedman more than a little here late last week, but in the end stood up against Deputy District Attorney Filipini.

In fact, the judge ruled in Jesse Rayburn’s favor after Filipini accused him of failure to appear in court for his hearing, and tried to have him reincarcerated by reading a large part of his criminal record.

Filipini said that, in 2001, Rayburn received a strike for using a gun and mask to rob his former employers, violating California Penal Code section 211. After Rayburn went to prison for this robbery, his charge was doubled as a result of stealing a vehicle under California Vehicle Code section 10851.

After being released, Rayburn was and still is on Post Release Community Supervision for these offenses. While on Post Release Community Supervision and probation post release, Rayburn was caught with ammunition.

In addition to these charges, Filippini stated that “the defendant failed to appear on this case while being cognizant enough to go pro per and was told his next court day on the record and in court.”

Filippini accused Rayburn for not only failure to appear in court, but also failing to communicate via phone call in advance for a hearing cancellation even though he was supposedly “savvy” enough to do so. For these reasons, she concludes that both former DDA Mitch Miller and she “do not think he should be out of custody.”

Rayburn attempted to interrupt Filipini’s response by constantly interjecting “Your honor…” and inserting an explanation against each of Filipini’s claims.

Judge Tedman attempted to take control of the hearing by commanding, “Don’t speak, Mr. Rayburn. I’m not going to let you interrupt. She has to respond, and you cannot interrupt. We are on record and only one person can speak at a time,” and “Mr. Rayburn, just a moment. I have already heard your explanations as to why you failed to appear in court.”

After Rayburn’s many attempts to be heard, Judge Tedman finally gave him the opportunity to speak up against Filipini’s accusations. Rayburn stated that he did attempt to inform the court that he would not appear in court.

Rayburn confirmed that he could not appear to court for reasons related to COVID-19 and he did try to get into contact with the court prior to his hearing. He made calls and sent text messages to “the lady” from the courthouse. “The lady” from the courthouse instructed Rayburn to contact Sacramento Superior Court’s Department 63 and provided their phone number. After this exchange, “the lady” from the courthouse never responded.

Rayburn claimed that he has proof of his communication with the courthouse by offering the text messages of his correspondences with “the lady” from the courthouse.

Judge Tedman refused Rayburn’s attempts to speak further regarding his justifications against his failure to appear aggressively, stating, “Just a moment, Mr. Rayburn, give me a moment,” and “Mr. Rayburn, I’m asking you one last time, do not talk.”

After confirming the dates and appearance record for Rayburn’s case, Judge Tedman delivered the order of the court. He claimed that “I understand the People’s position, but the history of the case would indicate that Mr. Rayburn takes this seriously and is appearing.”

He recalled that Rayburn was released on April 20. After his release, a letter was sent and received for a court appearance originally on June 25, 2020 but later reset for July 16, 2020. Rayburn appeared following this request even though the instructions were unclear. During this exchange, Judge Tedman agreed that Rayburn could go pro per for his case.

Later, Rayburn was ordered to appear in court on July 29, 2020, for which he was not present. Judge Tedman accepted Rayburn’s previously stated reasons as to why he was unable to appear.

Judge Tedman ultimately did listen to and affirm Rayburn’s statement in the final order of the court, noting, “I find based on the totality of the info provided that Mr. Rayburn’s explanation is credible. I’m recalling the bench warrant and restoring Rayburn to an OR release status…Mr. Rayburn, you will be released today on your own recognizance which is what you have been on since April 20.”

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9


Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$USD
Sign up for

Author

  • Vanguard Court Watch Interns

    The Vanguard Court Watch operates in Yolo, Sacramento and Sacramento Counties with a mission to monitor and report on court cases. Anyone interested in interning at the Courthouse or volunteering to monitor cases should contact the Vanguard at info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org - please email info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org if you find inaccuracies in this report.

    View all posts

Categories:

Breaking News Court Watch Sacramento Region

Tags:

Leave a Comment