By Rena Abdusalam
WOODLAND, CA – During a resentencing hearing here this week, Yolo County Superior Court Judge Daniel Wolk reduced by one year a 15-year, eight-month sentence for a man living with mental illness.
In addition to a prior prison and strike enhancement, the accused man was convicted of driving under the influence of methamphetamine in 2015.
Deputy Public Defender Sara Johnson asked Judge Wolk to nullify the accused’s prior prison enhancement and reconsider another enhancement due to a prior strike.
DPD Johnson said, “I would ask the court to take into account his mental illness and that prison has not been a place that has enhanced that…it just has not helped him to be in prison. That’s kind of why we’re asking for the court to consider that.”
A report that described the accused’s behavioral health symptoms present at the time of the offense stated that, after being booked into jail, “(the accused) appeared in high arousal… TP [thought process] disconnected, disorganized… presents w/ paranoia labile mood.”
The DPD said the accused saw a psychiatrist two days later and continued to be treated at Yolo County Jail. Records documented the accused had auditory and visual hallucinations, paranoia, ongoing sleep issues, and displayed labile mood, anger/agitatation and belligerence.
The report specifically described the accused’s behavioral systems present since the time of the offense, noting his current mental health diagnoses include “Schizoaffective Disorder, bipolar type; Mood Disorder; Adjustment Disorders, with depressed mood; Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Drug Abuse, amphetamine type (i.e. a substance use disorder).”
Although Deputy District Attorney Melinda Aiello also agreed to strike the accused’s prior prison enhancement, the DDA argued there was no need to reduce the man’s resentence any further.
“Unfortunately, we have an individual who has a lifetime of criminality, engaged in violent behavior, engaged in reckless and dangerous behavior in this case and caused injury to the passenger in his vehicle,” DPD Aiello asserted.
DDA Aiello added, “While I am not unsympathetic to someone who does appear to have a mental illness, I do not believe the defense has sufficiently shown a nexus between his mental illness and the crime spree that took place on the day that led to his current conviction and commitment.”
Records from the report on the nexus between mental illness and the offense in the accused’s case additionally described that following the accused’s arrest he was taken to a hospital.
The records note an officer accompanying him at the hospital described his behavior as restless, with high pulse rate, incoherent speaking, lack of full awareness of his surroundings, and “his mood changed dramatically from every couple of seconds.”
The report stated, “While these are signs and symptoms of someone who is under the influence of substances, these are also symptoms which are consistent with someone who is experiencing mania and/or psychosis.”
The DDA added, “I think the thing that truly sticks with the People is what he has done while in prison and that is to continue to engage in violent and dangerous behavior. If you look at the nature of the offense, you have an individual who [was] on parole for three months, who stole a vehicle, [and] was driving erratically on the freeway… There were people that were nearly struck.”
DDA Aiello additionally raised the accused’s parole qualifications for an early release under Proposition 57, which authorizes sentence reductions for inmates with “good behavior,” but he is ineligible due to the man’s “unreasonable risk of violence to the community.”
However, DPD Johnson stated Prop. 57’s parole review process is not relevant to the accused’s sentencing decision.
DPD Johnson added, the accused “falls outside of the spirit of the Three Strikes law because one of the important factors is that the court should not be asking what could have happened… the [DDA] is talking about people who could’ve been hit by his reckless driving, but the court is to look at what did happen and so I just want to make sure that’s a very important part of the analysis.”
Although acknowledging to strike the accused’s prior prison enhancement, Judge Wolk ruled in favor of the prosecution, stating the man is qualified for the convictions under Penal Code section 666.5 and the Three Strikes law while also factoring in his post-conviction behavior.
After stating the decision, Judge Wolk then communicated to the accused about his rights to appeal the resentence.
“Yeah, but I can’t read and write,” said the accused.
DPD Johnson replied, stating that she will discuss that matter with the accused later.
