WOODLAND, CA – Deputy District Attorney Aimee McLeod late last week in Yolo County Superior Court insisted Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke’s request to give his client a second chance at completing mental health diversion and not send him to jail was the same “excuse” used for years and it was “too much.”
DPD Gocke told the court that his client had a long history of mental health and substance abuse issues.
The accused was first placed in the mental health diversion program, Gocke said, after he was charged with vandalism, threatening a crime with intent to terrorize, petty theft, and several enhancements for being a habitual criminal.
Gocke added, after facing these original charges, the accused was released on his Own Recognizance (OR) after a bed had opened up at CityTeam in Oakland, where he was supposed to engage in mental health and substance abuse services and complete mental health diversion.
After spending 60 days at CityTeam, the accused had abruptly stopped the program and had gone “AWOL,” according to DDA McLeod, adding the accused “let his ankle monitor go dark” after it lost its charge.
It was later noted by DPD Gocke the accused had called his parole officer when his ankle monitor lost charge, and then confirmed DDA McLeod never called the parole office to check if this call had taken place.
DPD Gocke explained that when the accused left CityTeam, it was because he found out his aunt, who suffers from stage four cancer, had fallen and broken bones, adding his client had told him he was struggling to cope with the “trauma” and withdrew from the program.
After withdrawing from the program, the accused then relapsed and turned to substance use as a way to cope, leading to a violation of the terms and conditions of his OR, his defense said.
Before hearing DDA McLeod’s stance on the defense request, Judge Samuel McAdam read two letters submitted to the court: one from the accused’s sister and the other from the CityTeam organization that stated “the path to sobriety isn’t always linear” and noted they would be willing to take the accused back and help him complete his mental health diversion if Judge McAdam granted it.
However, DDA McLeod resolutely opposed allowing the accused to re-engage with CityTeam’s treatment center, instead urging the Court to remand him into custody, reinstate criminal proceedings, and terminate mental health diversion.
“This is no longer ‘a path to sobriety isn’t linear’” DDA McLeod stated, adding the accused had continued to make “concrete” decisions ultimately leading to the violation of his OR.
The DDA cited statute 1001.36 subsection (g) of the California Penal Code, which states criminal proceedings should be reinstated if the accused committed a new misdemeanor or felony during diversion.
DDA McLeod cited the accused’s relapse into drug usage as criminal conduct and noted, “Frankly, I have no idea what he (the accused) has been doing.”
DPD Gocke interjected and clarified to the court that, apart from his relapse, the accused had not violated any laws since withdrawing from the program and no new felony or misdemeanor charges had been acquired.
DDA McLeod also addressed the accused’s aunt’s health, stating the illness of his aunt “has been an excuse for quite literally years” and that DPD Gocke’s argument about this was “too much” for the court to consider.
Judge McAdam expressed uncertainty about how to proceed with the accused’s case, noting he was “trying to assess what the standard is here” since it presented a “difficult case for the criminal justice system.”
Despite hearing from CityTeam and DPD Gocke say that the accused simply withdrew from the program in the first round and did not end on bad terms, Judge McAdam stated the accused’s “first placement did not end on a positive note” and was hearing “too much zig-zagging and not enough commitment.”
Judge McAdam concluded his deliberations stating, “It’s unclear whether he (the accused) is going to comply with anything.”
Judge McAdam sent the accused back to jail, and, instead of terminating the mental health diversion then, set the next hearing to be a termination review on March 6, ordering that probation appear at the hearing.
