By Alessandra Jimena Soberanes
OAKLAND, CA— An accused man who has been serving a 51 years-to-life sentence for crimes committed in 1996 appeared in Rene C. Davidson Alameda County Superior Court Tuesday to request resentencing and leniency with restitution.
Despite agreeing to resentence the accused because of the accused’s severe health issues and advanced age, Judge Thomas E. Stevens didn’t waiver on decreasing the accused’s high restitution fees that remain at $30,000 total.
The accused, who has spent 29 years of his sentence in prison, is currently struggling with significant health issues, including mobility problems and prostate cancer.
Given these conditions and his lack of violent violations while incarcerated, public defender (PD) Loren Williams argued for a reduction of the sentence to 31 years.
The accused was originally convicted of four counts—robbery, assault, false imprisonment, and use of a firearm.
Deputy District Attorney (DDA) John Joseph Mifsud did not dispute the need for reconsideration but emphasized the importance of maintaining certain legal standards.
Despite these considerations, Judge Stevens pointed out he thought of the accused as “a danger to public safety 30 years ago,” which influenced his decisions regarding the resentencing.
During the hearing, the courtroom focused on the accused’s deteriorating health and lack of violent infractions while imprisoned. The DPD argued for leniency, citing the accused’s significant health problems and the likelihood that he would struggle to reintegrate into society. As a result, the judge agreed to reduce the accused’s sentence to 31 years.
But, despite the court’s acknowledgment of the man’s frail health and age, the judge decided to uphold the original restitution requirements. The accused, who was 69 years old at the time of the hearing, remains obligated to pay $20,000 in restitution and contribute $10,000 to a victim’s fund.
This decision persists even though the victim has not been in contact with the court regarding this case. Critics argue these financial obligations are unrealistic given the man’s health conditions and the difficulty he will face in finding employment if released.
Additionally, the judge ruled against adjusting the probation period through earned points. These decisions were accepted by both the DA and the public defender, who did not contest them.
