By Sophia Barberini and Mia Machado
SACRAMENTO–Judge Delbert Oros of Sacramento County Superior Court Friday denied defense attorney Naomi Coady’s motion to ignore a defendant’s previous conviction, calling him a “walking felony” who has found “more ways to hurt people than some people find in an entire lifetime.”
Oros sentenced defendant Dylan Darling, 25, to 11 years in prison, with enhancements, for felony second degree robbery for attacking a middle-aged man outside of a Chick-fil-A restaurant on April 6, 2020, knocking him to the ground, punching him repeatedly and stealing his wallet.
The offense occurred while the defendant was on post-release community supervision (PRCS) for his previous convictions.
Prior to Judge Oros’ imposition of sentencing, Assistant Public Defender Coady requested a “Romero motion” to strike consideration of the defendant’s previous conviction for sentencing. 
Pointing to the defendant’s tumultuous upbringing and young age at the time of his prior convictions, PD Coady asserted that the driving reason that the defendant picked up a third strike was due to a lack of treatment, arguing “the State of California has failed Dylan Darling,”
Attorney Coady called on the court to provide the defendant the opportunity for rehabilitation, asserting that “prison [does not] reform people.”
Deputy District Attorney Ryan Roebuck, however, disagreed. While being “sympathetic” to the fact that the defendant’s criminal conduct likely “stems from a very rough childhood,” he asserted that “there comes a time where an individual has to take some responsibility for their actions.”
Advocating for the strike to remain on the defendant’s record, DDA Roebuck highlighted potential rehabilitative avenues available in prison. He encouraged Darling to “seize the moment and change his life through those programs.”
Agreeing with the prosecution, Judge Oros denied the Romero motion, affirming that the defendant has not exhibited any ability to return to the community and “safely coexist there.”
Referring to the defendant as a “walking felony,” Judge Oros explained that all he can offer “in good conscience” for rehabilitation “is the state prison system.”
Before coming to a decision on the Romero motion, Judge Oros allowed PD Coady to advocate for the defendant’s prior conviction to be struck from sentencing consideration.
After reminding the court that an adult’s brain is not fully formed until the age of 25, Coady emphasized the defendant’s young age at the time of his previous convictions.
The defendant was “convicted of his very first strike” at 16, after being charged as an adult. When he was 17, he re-offended, charged as an adult once more, due to his legal status at the time of sentencing, said Coady, adding the defendant’s interaction with the criminal justice system came long before that when, at 14, he became a ward of the Placer County Juvenile Court.
Though admitting that she recognizes the defendant’s current status as an adult, and that “he should’ve made different choices,” the driving reason that has brought Darling to court for a third strike is a lack of rehabilitative treatment in the past.
In this case, attorney Coady explained “that’s all he’s wanted from the very beginning.”
While the court is limited as to what it can do, Coady asserted “the court does have discretion, and the court can say… ‘I’m going to give him the opportunity to get treatment because I recognize—as did the California voters—that prison does not help people with rehabilitation.’”
Coady emphasized that “he still has a whole lot of living left to do.” His two prior strikes will already “cripple him for the rest of his life.”
DDA Roebuck, while sympathizing with the defendant’s rough childhood, maintained that it was time for Darling “to take some responsibility for [his] actions.”
After pointing to a number of rehabilitative programs available through the prison system, DA Roebuck stated that “I don’t see how your Honor could strike his strike and sentence him to a rehab program based just on what we know in this case.”
Recalling the defendant’s 2016 case, DDA Roebuck explained that he already enjoyed the benefit of having his first strike removed from consideration of his second conviction. However, when Darling got out of prison and went to a rehabilitation program, he still committed his latest offense.
“That clearly had little to no effect on his future conduct,” he explained.
DDA Roebuck, while reiterating that he is “not unsympathetic” to the defendant’s age, maintained that the defendant still “poses a significant risk to the public.”
Any program outside of prison—as Attorney Coady is advocating for—“does not seem appropriate given (the defendant’s) history and the present conduct that we have had here in this case,” argued Roebuck.
Judge Oros, having “given this case a lot of thought,” chose to provide a contemplative response to the defendant before resolving the motion.
Speaking directly to Darling, Judge Oros empathetically asserted that “you have been dealt a very bad hand by the universe, or God, or whomever it is that arranged your fate.” Referencing his upbringing, Judge Oros admitted he “cannot imagine children living in that environment and dealing with those circumstances.”
Despite this recognition, Judge Oros maintained that he “can’t go back and change things, neither can [the defendant].” As he spoke to Darling, Judge Oros expressed having trouble reconciling points made by both parties in court.
Agreeing with PD Coady, Judge Oros reiterated that the defendant “needs help.” However, he stated that the prosecutor is also right, affirming that “there are programs in the state prison that are designed to address the issues he needs to face.”
Favoring points made by DDA Roebuck, Judge Oros recalled programs offered to the defendant through the Juvenile Court System that he previously refused to participate in. This is why, Judge Oros reasoned, the defendant was sent to adult court at the age of 17.
“They threw up their hands and said, this is not an individual that we can work with because he doesn’t want to work with us,” he stated.
Speaking of California’s penal system, Judge Oros conceded that “it is not designed primarily for rehabilitation… it’s really a holding area until you get out.” Despite this, Judge Oros insisted that “you’re gonna have to make it something more than that.”
He explained to the defendant that “ultimately, it was your responsibility to make that effort, to try and get some value out of it, so that you could find yourself on a day like today not inside a courtroom.”
Cautioning him, Judge Oros explained that he is “now set up for 25 to life on the next violent or serious felony.”
After reaffirming the value of rehabilitative programs within the prison system, Judge Oros explained that “the only way you’re going to save yourself, your life, and your future is to commit yourself to a change, and use whatever resources available, whether minimal or not.”
Otherwise, Judge Oros warned, “you’re doomed.”
In his final remarks on the matter, Judge Oros emphasized that “your task from this point forward…you’re going to have to love yourself.” The defendant needs to “let this stuff go and stop punishing people in the community for the pain (he has) lived through.”
Until the defendant can “recognize some form of respect for himself,” Judge Oros explained, he is “never going to respect the people of this community that [he’s] released to. All I can offer you in good conscience is the state prison system. You’ll survive…survival is not the goal anymore. Change is the goal.
Judge Oros denied the Romero motion, sentencing the defendant to the middle term of 3 years—accompanied by other considerations—for a total of 11 years.
Sophia Barberini, from San Mateo, CA, is a fourth-year student at UC Berkeley. She is double majoring in Political Science and Legal Studies and hopes to pursue a career in law.
Mia Machado is a junior at UC Davis, currently majoring in Political Science-Public Service and minoring in Luso-Brazilian studies. She is originally from Berkeley, California.
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:
What’s a “curious felony”?