NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — During a pretrial hearing Thursday morning at the Newport Harbor Justice Center, a judge granted court-initiated misdemeanor diversion to a woman while rejecting a defense request to waive restitution fees based on her financial circumstances.
Deputy Public Defender Michael Morrison asked Judge Antony C. Ufland to reduce the accused’s felony charge to a misdemeanor. The deputy district attorney objected, but Judge Ufland stated he would be willing to grant the reduction on Count 1.
Judge Ufland stated that the accused would enter a diversion program that requires her to complete specified tasks for at least one year. These include completing 20 hours of community service, paying restitution, refraining from a certain address, remaining compliant with medication, and continuing her recovery. If the conditions are met and there are no new violations, the case would be dismissed, with probation dating back to 2025.
Judge Ufland added that he would continue a time waiver and scheduled a progress review for December 2026. He also informed the accused that she was not waiving her rights, but rather postponing them.
In another case on the accused’s record, the court stated that she would be required to complete an additional 80 hours of community service, bringing the total to 100 hours. Judge Ufland stated that he did not find the accused in violation of probation.
DPD Morrison asked the court to waive the accused’s restitution payment, arguing that she had been paying for treatment out of pocket for the past three months. He added that she is currently unemployed and has exhausted her savings to cover treatment costs.
Morrison argued that the treatment is demanding and often consumes much of her time, leaving insufficient time to work.
Morrison cited Penal Code Section 1001.90(c), which establishes that the fee must be ordered regardless of a defendant’s current ability to pay, but allows a judge to waive the fee if there are “compelling and extraordinary reasons” and those reasons are stated on the record.
Judge Ufland stated that he could not agree with that finding. Instead, he referenced cases such as People v. Kopp and People v. Dueñas, both of which address fines and fees.
The accused expressed confusion about restitution and how it would be determined. Judge Ufland explained that restitution is part of the terms and conditions of diversion.
He added that he would impose restitution based on the efforts that had been made. He further stated that the court is required to impose a restitution fee and that he would approve it.
The accused is required to pay the restitution fee and comply with all terms of the diversion program.
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.
