YOLO COUNTY, Calif. — A probation violation sentencing Monday at Yolo County Superior Court ended with the accused being sentenced to six years and four months in California state prison. Deputy Public Defender Peter Borruso asked Judge Sonia Cortés to use the accused’s conduct credits — points earned for good behavior and participation in certain programs — to reduce his principal term, or longest sentence. Deputy District Attorney David Robbins argued against the request, saying it would be inappropriate.
The accused was brought in on charges of violation of probation, criminal threats, possession of controlled narcotics and possession of firearms.
Judge Cortés presented the accused with two possible options: reinstating a previously suspended sentence of six years and four months or granting probation.
Borruso asked the court to read a letter written by the accused explaining his difficulties in mitigating his drug addiction and the effect it has had on his life. He argued that, given these challenges and the fact that none of the cases resulted in physical harm to anyone, the accused should receive one more chance at probation.
Robbins countered, saying the accused had multiple opportunities over the years and had “thrown them away.”
Robbins underscored the accused’s charge of criminal threats as well as his history of selling controlled substances, citing the negative impact on the surrounding community. He said that while he appreciated the letter, it failed to acknowledge the harm left on those around the accused and did not demonstrate the remorse or growth needed to lead a successful life after probation.
Robbins also raised concerns about the accused’s prior claims of undergoing cancer treatments that allegedly kept him from making court appointments.
Robbins said he had looked into the treatment records and found none at the facility where the accused claimed to have been treated, bringing into question his honesty. Robbins closed his argument by asking the court to follow the probation department’s recommendation for a prison sentence of six years and eight months.
Borruso commented that, while the accused made mistakes, he acknowledged them in each case and admitted to his probation violation.
Judge Cortés said the accused had been given too many opportunities and that, while he had faced many adversities, misleading the court with a false medical diagnosis raised serious questions about his integrity.
Cortés reinstated the previously suspended sentence of six years and four months.
Following the ruling, Borruso asked that the court consider putting all of the accused’s conduct credit on his principal term of four years.
Conduct credits are earned through good behavior and reduce sentences. Under California Penal Code section 4019, defendants sent to state prison can earn pre-sentence credits; for every two days served, four days of the sentence are deemed served.
In this case, the accused had multiple cases with differing amounts of credits on each.
Borruso asked that all the credits from the multiple cases be applied to one case, the accused’s principal term.
Under California Penal Code section 2900.5, custody credits are awarded “once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.”
Borruso argued that the accused was brought into custody under the same case in every subsequent act, so the credits should be consolidated. He clarified he was not asking the court to award multiple instances of credits, but simply to apply all the credits into one instance since the accused was in “a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses.”
Robbins objected, arguing that applying all credits to the principal term would shorten it and make the accused eligible for parole earlier.
In California, nonviolent offenders are eligible for parole under Proposition 57, which allows those convicted of nonviolent felonies to be considered for parole after serving the sentence for their primary offense.
Robbins argued that consolidating the credits would essentially reward the accused for committing more crimes, since he accrued a high number of credits due to multiple cases.
Robbins said the accused would still be entitled to those credits, but they should remain allocated to each case rather than all under the principal term.
Borruso argued that since the accused was in custody for consecutive cases, it did not make sense for the credits to be split among different terms instead of consolidated.
He also dismissed the prosecution’s argument about parole, stating that if the accused wanted to qualify for release under Proposition 57, he would still have to serve the entirety of his principal term, of which only one year had been served.
Therefore, even if all the credits were applied to his principal term, the accused would still have to serve three more years to complete his four-year term.
“So if it doesn’t benefit, then what’s the advantage to him?” Judge Cortés asked.
Borruso clarified that he did not believe it would benefit the accused to the level the prosecution claimed.
Robbins rebutted that it would still shorten the accused’s principal term and make him more eligible for Proposition 57 release once he reached his subordinate terms, effectively giving him an advantage despite committing new felonies.
Robbins closed by saying that, while the court had discretion to allocate all the credits to one case, it was not appropriate given the number of subsequent felonies.
Despite the defense’s arguments, Judge Cortés ruled that the credits would remain allocated per case.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. To learn make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
