NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — A young accused person in Newport Beach Harbor Justice Center on Monday lost the opportunity to earn a dismissal of a misdemeanor case after failing to complete court-ordered requirements on time, with the accused citing limited access to transportation and technology as barriers to compliance.
The accused appeared in court on charges stemming from two violations committed Jan. 13, 2023. Count 1 was an infraction for driving without a valid license or proof of a valid license, cited as a violation of Vehicle Code Section 12500(a), which was dismissed April 13. The second count was a misdemeanor charge for possession of alcohol by a person under 21 in a public place, in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 25662(a).
Judge Susan M. Lee reminded the accused upon their arrival at the podium that the purpose of the arraignment was to discuss the possession charge and the opportunity to earn a dismissal through the court. She noted that the accused had failed to complete 12 self-help classes on time as part of a court-mandated order.
The Legal Clarity organization defines an earned dismissal as a result in which the accused successfully refutes a claim that the court determines is inapplicable to use in an effort to charge them with a crime. The lack of factual basis in the statements made by the individual making the accusation, in addition to the accused’s counterarguments in self-defense, effectively terminates the case before it proceeds to trial.
The earned dismissal is gained through the successful completion of a diversion program that is part of the conditions imposed by the court. An earned dismissal would have allowed the accused to have the court end the case by permanently closing it from the active docket, where cases awaiting trial remain pending, without a conviction or judgment.
Given the existing circumstances of the unfulfilled requirements, the judge said the court could no longer proceed with that option during the hearing.
Beyond dropping the charges, the dismissal would have allowed the accused to have no convictions appear on their record and avoid dealing with the lifelong consequences, such as barriers to housing or employment, that can come from a permanent criminal record. It also would have allowed the charges to be dismissed and prevented the plaintiff from filing the same claim again. By preventing the case from proceeding to trial, it would have spared the accused the costs, fines and fees associated with a full prosecution.
The accused clarified their continued interest in making progress toward completing the court-mandated orders resulting from the violation. They elaborated on how limitations in resources, such as transportation and technology, hindered their ability to complete the 12 self-help classes.
The accused disclosed that the incomplete coursework stemmed from technological constraints, including inadequate access to the internet and challenges securing dependable transportation.
Judge Lee described the two options available moving forward: continue the case or plead guilty. Entering a guilty plea would provide an opportunity to resolve the case with no probation and reduced fines and fees.
The accused asked for more time, reiterating their commitment to finishing the classes. They chose to move forward with the case in the hope that continuing the proceedings would allow them to fulfill the court-ordered requirements by completing all 12 self-help classes before the next court date.
The court scheduled the next hearing for 8:30 a.m. July 15 to continue discussing the progress of the case.
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.
