By JOJO KOFMAN
SAN FRANCISCO – San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Gold had to feel a little bit more like a mother than a judge in some ways last week after sentencing a young 19-year-old man to 68 days in jail, with 68 days time-served. for a couple of misdemeanor charges, which were not disclosed.
The judge waived all fees for the teen because he lived at home and had no income. His mom picked him up from court.
Judge Gold went to great lengths to describe for the young man what constitutional rights would be lost in his plea to no contest, noting he loses his “right to a speedy trial, the right to see and hear witnesses and attorneys examining the witnesses, the right to subpoena, the right to present evidence on your behalf in defense of the charge, and the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself.”
She even had to repeat it because the teen asked to have it repeated.
Judge Gold had stated, “I will still find the defendant guilty and will still sentence the defendant as if he had plead guilty.”
Looking confused, the teen turned toward the Deputy Public Defender Laticia Way, who quickly clarified the information in a whisper, and the accused stated he understood.
His one year of probation includes a residential treatment program determined by probation. 
Following the court’s confirmation of the plea agreement, Judge Gold abruptly said, “Sorry, I forgot an important element in the probation,” noting the accused would be subject to two criminal protective orders.
Repeating the man’s conviction, plea, and sentencing, Judge Gold stated the accused “must abide by the stay-away orders I will now sign and admonish you on.”
The judge explained the terms of the criminal protective orders, stating that the accused will have no electronic communication with the victim and must stay 150 feet or more from them, and from a specific address.
Judge Gold listed the various fees to be paid, which collectively amounted to more than $300, but his attorney quickly requested the fees be permanently dropped, claiming the young man is “unemployed, lacks the financial ability to pay the fines, previously relied on his parents, and the court-ordered residential program would interfere with the defendant’s ability to get a job and pay the fines.”
The judge agreed to waive the fines, and set an Aug. 16 progress report.
And then the public defender could be heard saying to the young person, “Your mom will be able to pick you up. Your dad can’t.”
