VAN NUYS, CA – A woman requested a public defender and continuance to complete the terms of her probation over the objections of the prosecution and unfriendly comments by Judge Adan Montalban Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The accused, who formerly self-represented, asked for a public defender because she said she believed she would need one for the continuances she was asking for, based on the comments of a previous judge.
Deputy Public Defender Hope Casella took on the accused’s case and argued for her at this Thursday’s progress report hearing.
After being placed on one-year probation nearly a year ago, March 11, 2024, the hearing Thursday was simply meant to be a check in–ensuring the accused was on track to finish the terms of her probation by March 11.
However, DPD Casella explained the accused still had items left to finish on her probation, such as her community service and the Licensed Driving Under the Influence Program.
The accused had made some progress toward her terms with four of her 20 required hours of community service completed, enrollment in a Hospital and Morgue Program, and completion of her MADD Victim Impact Program.
Because the accused was previously self-represented before Thursday, she said was not sure of what paperwork to bring to demonstrate her completed MADD Victim Impact Program, and still had outstanding items to go in terms of her probation.
When asked by Judge Montalban why she had so many requirements left to do and why she had done so little to finish her probation, DPD Casella clarified the accused had made “diligent efforts to enroll” in the necessary programs as soon as she was given the orders in March of last year, but encountered issues with probation and program enrollment.
Typically, DPD Casella described, this would mean that you contact your attorney for help but because the accused was representing herself at the time, she did know how to proceed. She said she was also in the midst of firing her private counsel who had previously represented her and could not turn to them either.
The prosecution then argued for the accused’s probation to be revoked entirely and to start a new term for another year, explaining that she had enough time to complete the terms of her probation and failed to do so.
The prosecution added the accused would not be able to finish her requirements by March 11, as she had yet to enroll in the Licensed Driving Under the Influence Program which would take a minimum of four more months to complete and her probation was set to expire.
Judge Montalban also chimed in, adding he was considering increasing her community service requirements by one or two days as a penalty for not having finished most of the terms of her probation so close to her sunset date and was unsure if he should send the accused to jail because of the lack of progress on probation.
DPD Casella insisted the accused was now aware of how serious the situation is and the urgency in completing the terms of her probation, therefore the extra days of community service would be extreme.
Judge Montalban pushed back, stating he did not think it to be extreme because of the lack of interest the accused appeared to be showing in taking care of her case.
Describing others he had seen in court, Judge Montalban stated he had seen people come into the courtroom with physical disabilities, mental disabilities, who cannot speak English, or other difficulties, and they were all able to “handle their business,” but the accused “didn’t appear to suffer from such ailments” yet cannot finish the requirements.
The accused then appeared to express the desire to speak and address the court, and Judge Montalban responded, that “literally nothing you say is going to help you,” adding, “I guess you didn’t think it was important,” referring to the accused’s probation.
In his decision, Judge Montalban revoked the accused’s probation and provided her with a new hearing date to address this potential probation violation, insisting she was lucky and this was only because her attorney had advocated so strongly on her behalf.
The case is set to be heard June 26 for a setting of the violation hearing at the Los Angeles County Superior Court Van Nuys location.
