By Anika Khubchandani
SACRAMENTO – Sometimes district attorneys can be Grinches, but fortunately for Kathy E. Miller this week here in Sacramento County Superior Court, Judge Scott Tedmon rewarded Miller’s work ethic with an early Christmas gift, agreeing to dismiss her case.
Co-counsel defense attorneys Michelle Trigger and Shelby Alberts requested the dismissal for Miller, charged a year ago with maliciously and willfully discharging a firearm at an inhabited location, endangering a child, and inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon the victim.
The purpose of the hearing in Sacramento County Superior Court’s Department 60 was an update on a Miller’s mental health progress report.
Tigger explained that the defendant “continues to do exceptionally well with her treatment program,” in contrast to other defendants who, because of difficulties brought on by COVID-19, have found it difficult to maintain their progress with court-ordered programs.
On the other hand, Miller has continued to see her physicians and psychologist throughout these challenging times. Miller also attends support groups for her bipolar disorder every two weeks in 
addition to a support group through her church.
Her court-ordered mental health diversion program began about a year ago on December 20, 2019. Since “she has been doing all of this very religiously…we were hopeful that the court might consider at this point a dismissal because of her incredible progress,” said Trigger.
Judge Tedmon agreed Miller has made phenomenal progress and commended her for her immense effort.
Deputy District Attorney Rona Fillipini, standing in for DDA Ruanne Dozier, said Dozier would prefer to show additional proof of progress for another six months. At the outset of the case, the maximum length of diversion put in place was two years with the possibility of less time based on progress made.
Trigger interjected, noting Miller “would be agreeable to whatever the court is inclined to do, of course,” but that she thought that “the request (to release Miller now) was appropriate because [the defendant] had done so well.” She does not want “the People to think that we are not willing to do more…because Ms. Miller would.”
Considering the substantial progress made by Miller, Tedmon asked why Filippini thinks “an additional six months in the program is necessary or appropriate as opposed to dismissing the matter now.”
Since Filippini was standing in for Dozier, she admitted that Dozier “didn’t give other additional details” as to why she advocated another six months of the diversion program. Both Filippini and Dozier “would like to see Ms. Miller continue to bring progress reports for at least another six months” because of concern that the defendant might not follow through with her commitment.
Judge Tedmon said he does not believe that an extra six months are necessary since Miller “has certainly followed through” thus far “and then some.”
Filippini attempted to explain Dozier’s rationale by reminding the court that “the case was rather serious” and by “giving Miller the opportunity to use these programs to avoid conviction” is an appropriate resolution.
After expressing her gratitude for the court’s initial decision to place Miller into a mental health diversion program, Alberts explained that this serious case was an isolated event. Miller “had not so much as a parking ticket before this incident,” reported Alberts.
“Miller is truly the poster child for the diversion program” and “there is no question in the court’s mind” that this criminal conduct “was a true nexus to her mental health issues,” relayed Alberts.
Alberts shared that she has “never had a client who has committed so much to not only what the court is asking but also understanding her mental illness and bringing in her family and community” to help support her progress, adding, “She has proven that she is going to continue on with her journey to not only stay healthy but further understand anything she needs to keep that going.”
Judge Tedmon noted “the extraordinary efforts” Miller has made over the last year to accept and address her mental health issues. Going beyond the court-ordered requirements “is exceptionally rare,” Tedmon added.
Since this serious case was “a significant exception to what was otherwise a law-abiding life,” Tedmon said he is confident that the defendant has remedied the situation and can continue to move forward.
Overall, he agreed that “this agreement for diversion was appropriate” and that “the court finds that the efforts Ms. Miller has made satisfy the aims, needs, and requirements for diversion,” allowing for the dismissal of the case.
Anika Khubchandani is a 4th year student at UC Davis majoring in both Political Science and Economics. She is from San Jose, CA.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
