By Stacie Guevara
WOODLAND, CA – After being charged in Yolo County Superior Court Tuesday morning with accessory to felony and child abuse/endangering, defendant “AW__” (not real name, which was redacted to protect victim) was sentenced to a split sentence, 60 percent in custody and 40 percent on mandatory supervision.
Though many of the details of the case were unable to be heard over the public livestream, it appeared a baby was murdered and a young boy was very badly beaten.
Though AW__ knew about the incident, she still never called for help or called the police.
During the trial, a victim was giving her impact statement through tears, explaining how horrendous the situation was.
As Judge Peter Williams was going through the trial, he said he was thinking of that sentence, saying he was taking into account “the lack of humanity that was exhibited here.” Because of this, Judge Williams said, “I feel compelled to impose the high term of three years county prison.”
Williams gave AW__’s defense attorney, Rob Gorman, a chance to speak, and he asked that the court consider giving AW__ a split sentence.
Gorman said, “I don’t see any purpose in locking Miss AW__ up for another 11 months.”
Judge Williams entertained the idea.
Gorman said this situation was “another example of the prosecutor being blinded by the case.” He explained how, at the preliminary hearings, the court fixated on the child endangerment charge.
The prosecutor responded, saying AW__ had been sentenced to prison and should be remanded into custody as she is now under a local housing sentence.
“Your Honor, she is now bullying,” Gorman responded in regard to the prosecutor, and there was a commotion in the courtroom.
Judge Williams interrupted Gorman and said he was ready for a ruling. Judge Williams said he would have AW__ come back to court and remand her at that date.
The prosecutor then interrupted, saying the court did not have jurisdiction. She insisted AW__ had to be remanded on that day.
Judge Williams gave Gorman a chance to respond and Gorman stayed silent for a few seconds, before saying, “Taking a deep breath for a moment.”
He said a sentence can be recalled within 90 days, but it was true that once a sentence was imposed, the court loses jurisdiction for purposes of recalculating that sentence.
Gorman said the victim that gave their victim impact statement was strong enough to do so and brought up the idea of a tentative ruling, waiting until the “actual last moment of sentencing on the date that [they] come back.”
Judge Williams said, “Well, it sounds like we’re doing semantics here. Whether or not we’re all the way to the very end of the sentencing.” He asked the prosecutor why the sentence would be considered final.
The prosecutor said the court had already imposed the term of three years and that they had started the sentencing. “We can’t come back. The court then loses jurisdiction to remand her back into custody,” the prosecutor said.
With this information, the judge decided to split the sentence 60/40, and calculations were done for the number of days to be split into three years. AW__ will spend 648 days in custody and 432 days on mandatory supervision, which comes out to a 1,080-day sentence.
