WOODLAND, CA – Judge Daniel M. Wolk last Friday at Yolo County Superior Court denied judicial diversion to the accused in a Trial Readiness Conference, reducing her chances of gaining future employment.
The accused is charged with a misdemeanor hit-and-run injury in a prior hearing, which had been continued to Friday for ruling. The accused did not speak English and was connected with a Punjabi interpreter to translate the statements of the court.
Deputy Public Defender Jailene Gutierrez had filed a motion requesting judicial diversion for the accused, asserting that, if diverted, the accused would be rehabilitated and able to secure future employment if needed.
Referencing the “Superior Court of California vs Wade” case on military diversion, DPD Gutierrez claimed judicial diversion would allow the accused to “avoid criminal conviction by completing a specialized rehabilitative treatment plan.”
DPD Gutierrez argued the accused would benefit from judicial diversion to avoid a conviction on her record. Considering she was a non-English speaker, and had gaps in her resume, the DPD said a conviction could negatively affect any future employment opportunities.
DPD Gutierrez quoted the Wade case again, stating “the question of suitability is centered on the individual’s willingness to participate in their own rehabilitation” and the court must consider providing treatment instead of conviction.
According to DPD Gutierrez, the accused was suitable for diversion because she had come to every court date and wanted to take responsibility through rehabilitation. Additionally, the accused had agreed to do any tasks set by the court beyond judicial diversion.
Deputy District Attorney Ashley Harvey countered by claiming the terms of diversion were the same as the terms of probation offered earlier, but the accused simply did not want to have “any accountability as reflected on a record.”
DDA Harvey also claimed there were no adverse consequences to the accused’s community involvement or job after conviction.
Following this, DDA Harvey invited the alleged victim and his mother to make a statement to the court, detailing the injuries sustained, emotional trauma, and the monetary damages incurred as a result of the hit-and-run accident.
The alleged victim’s mother claimed in her statement that “this isn’t a forgivable mistake,” and the accused had failed to act like a law abiding citizen by offering no apology and not taking responsibility.
DDA Harvey added the accused has yet to be held accountable for her actions, and she remains unremorseful and unapologetic toward the alleged victim.
To this, DPD Gutierrez insisted the accused was simply making use of her right to remain silent, and pursuing diversion was a way to take responsibility for her actions.
Judge Wolk stated he “really wrestled with this decision,” appearing sympathetic to both sides after hearing the statements made by the alleged victim and the accused at a prior hearing.
He acknowledged the case ‘People v. Wade’ referenced by DPD Gutierrez informs this area of the law, but stated he was unsure of whether the Wade case could be incorporated into this case.
Judge Wolk ultimately decided this case did not fit the purpose of rehabilitation, given the accused did not meet the eligibility of military, drug, mental health, or cognitive impairment related diversion. He proceeded to deny the motion.
