MODESTO, CA – An accused person’s decades-old case was heard here in Stanislaus County Superior Court this week, but the court chose not to grant a motion to dismiss.
The charge went unstated in the hearing, but by the information given, the charge was drug-related.
The basis for the petition to dismiss was a new penal code for “people who have completed and been successful in drug diversion court.” In a prior court hearing taking place in 2009, the program in question was successfully completed.
County public defender Kendra Hall noted the information the office now has was not available to the defense at the time of the previous dismissal during when “those cases” were dismissed.
The issue for the defense, however, was that the charge the accused was charged with in 2009 was possibly “used…in the denial of any employment or benefit.” The defense concluded that this charge on the accused’s record caused “misinformation and confusion.”
Judge Carrie Stephens showed visible confusion as to the matters of the motion, considering that the case was dismissed prior to this hearing.
Prosecutor Matthew Yeoman added that should the accused be dismissed of the charges like the defense desires, the accused would have to plead guilty to all of his charges. The defense holds fast to their not-guilty plea.
This motion was denied eventually by the judge.
Additionally, PD Hall referenced the two felony counts of the accused; the counsel motioned those counts may also be dismissed considering the length of time that has passed since both of the crimes. The first charge was committed in 2010, and the second in 2017.
The defense argued the accused has “made significant efforts to rehabilitate himself,” like getting his associate’s degree and presently pursuing his bachelor’s degree.
Although Judge Stephens agreed the accused “has done a number of things to improve his situation,” she contended “the offenses are just too recent for the court to believe” that the court can grant any sort of relief from these felony charges.
Judge Stephens added she sees “serious safety risks” in the accused, although she agreed there has been significant progress in the accused’s behavior.
Stephens hammers the point that there has not been enough time that has passed in order for her to believe that he has been fully rehabilitated (regarding the charges from 14 and seven years ago.)
Finally, Judge Stephens denied all motions from the defense, noting “confusion” between counsel. The court also denied felony dismissal motions because the length of time is not sufficient for her to believe in a successful rehabilitation.
