SAN FRANCISCO — During a disposition hearing in San Francisco County Superior Court on Tuesday, Judge Linda Clark intervened in a proposed plea agreement, assisting the prosecution in restructuring its proposed disposition before ultimately granting an informal deferred entry of judgment for a man facing felony and misdemeanor drug-related charges.
On March 17, 2026, a man facing multiple charges appeared before Judge Linda Clark for a disposition hearing regarding three felony and misdemeanor matters.
The hearing began with Judge Clark addressing the proposed disposition form she had received and asking if Deputy District Attorney Andre Guiulfo was seeking a deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) on the first matter. DDA Guiulfo replied, “More or less yes.”
It was then explained that the proposal was for the accused to plead guilty to Count 2 of the alleged charges, a felony, and plead not guilty to Count 5, a misdemeanor.
The accused would then enter a treatment period of 90 days to attend an outpatient rehabilitation program.
Upon completion of the program, he would return to court, be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea on Count 2, and enter a guilty plea on Count 5.
Judge Clark informed DDA Guiulfo that he “cannot force him to plead guilty if he doesn’t comply with the terms of the DEJ,” and proposed instead that the accused plead guilty to both Count 2 and Count 5, be placed in a diversion program, and then return to court upon its completion or non-completion.
If the diversion program were completed, the accused would be sentenced in accordance with the misdemeanor, and the accused’s other two matters would be dropped.
If the diversion program were not completed, the accused would be sentenced in accordance with the felony, and the other matters would remain open.
She then asserted that “if this is what you intended to have happen,” waving the proposed disposition form from the bench, “this goes back to the trial stage.”
After explaining her revised proposal to counsel multiple times, both DDA Guiulfo and Assistant Public Defender Naira DerKiureghain, on behalf of her client, agreed, including the provision that the other matters would trail the result of this order.
Judge Clark pointed out to DDA Guiulfo that the way this was structured meant that the DA “can’t plead a Harvey case later.”
DDA Guiulfo engaged in some discussion of what this meant and why, with Judge Clark ultimately asking, “Do you want to consider a Harvey stipulation [regarding considering dismissed counts in the future] in the future?”
Since the answer was in the affirmative, the judge noted that the DA was “prepared to enter a Harvey stipulation should the defendant be unsuccessful” in the diversion program.
In a final discussion, prompted in part by a confused court clerk who highlighted this deal’s departure from standard practice to the extent that she did not know how to classify the next court hearing, Judge Clark clarified that “this is not an actual DEJ, the DA is just making a promise” and that, therefore, the accused is not on probation.
The accused was placed on own recognizance with ACM (Assertive Case Management) and an outpatient drug treatment program, with conditional OR revocable should the accused be found in possession of any illegal substances or drug paraphernalia, consume any non-prescribed drugs, or be present in any place where it might reasonably be assumed that illegal substances are being consumed or sold.
The accused is scheduled to return to court on June 15, 2026, in Department 26 at 9 a.m. for a status and sentencing hearing, with further dispositions in the other matters trailing on the same date.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To 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.
