OAKLAND, CA – A hearing at Alameda County Superior Court’s Rene C. Davidson Courthouse this week for an accused, 60-year-old man initially sentenced 358 years to life led to his sentence being reduced—to 90 years to life.
However, the judge presiding over the case refused to give the accused a new trial, and failed to consider how the accused’s age might influence the likelihood of reoffending.
The accused, who has been incarcerated for 16 years, was sentenced under California’s “three strikes” law, which mandates life sentences for individuals convicted of three serious felonies. The nature of the accused’s original crimes, with this law, resulted in a dramatically escalated sentence.
During the resentencing hearing, Deputy District Attorney (DDA) John Joseph Mifsud emphasized the excess of the original sentence, stating it was disproportionate compared to current sentencing guidelines.
Deputy Public Defender (DPD) Loren Williams argued the accused deserved a chance at resentencing, given his age and the passage of time since his original trial.
As the hearing unfolded, it became evident that age and prison behavior were crucial to the case.
Judge Thomas E. Stevens noted the original sentence was “way out of whack with current sentencing policies,” but noted the accused’s prison record revealed 24 rule violations—all non-violent—over the years, raising questions about the accused’s readiness for reintegration into society.
Judge Stevens ultimately concluded “based on his disciplinary record, (the accused) is not eligible to be a candidate for resentencing.”
However, Judge Stevens addressed the shift in sentencing practices over the years, noting that, previously, an accused’s background and childhood traumas were often overlooked during the sentencing process, and current guidelines mandate such factors be considered to ensure a fairer outcome.
However, despite this evolution in approach, Judge Stevens did not inquire about the accused’s personal history or traumatic experiences and denied the individual’s request for a resentencing trial.
Throughout the proceedings, four victims of the original crimes were notified of the resentencing request, with only one victim providing a statement against any reduction. The victim passionately opposed the reduction, underscoring the lasting emotional impact the crimes had on their life.
But the court ultimately decided to reduce the sentence from 358 years to life to a new term of 90 years to life. In addition, the judge reduced the remaining restitution fund from $5,000 to $2,000, acknowledging the accused had no financial assets outside of prison.
