By Taylor Smith
MODESTO, CA – The accused was sentenced here Wednesday in Stanislaus County Superior Court in two cases—one violent felony robbery, and possessing and transporting substances into a penal facility.
Upon delivering his sentence, the judge asked the accused if he understood the consequences of his no contest pleas. The accused said he did not understand.
His public defender had to fight for a chance to speak to the accused after being repeatedly cut off by the judge.
Ultimately, the accused was sentenced to five years in prison for the robbery and a concurrent 18 months for the drug transportation.
Deputy Public Defender Matthew Yeoman explained to the court the accused did not successfully bring drug paraphernalia into jail after he was in a car accident while being transported to jail.
The accused was then taken to a hospital where a glass pipe was found inside his rectum in an X-ray scan.
The DPD referenced a parallel case from 1978 in which the drugs in question were placed 500 yards outside the penal facility. Yeoman argued the accused in that case was charged only with an attempt as they were not successfully integrated into the facility, and requested the same charge for the accused.
Deputy District Attorney Eileen Cavil objected, insisting the law states an accused is technically in jail as long as they are in the custody of the police or sheriff, which the accused was—and thus, the accused did successfully transport his illegal substances. 
She argued he should be charged with the full and successful transportation, but the seemingly understanding judge determined that he only deserved an attempt—the DDA maintained it was a stretch to argue this as the accused ended up in the hospital.
But, as a result of the judge’s decision, the accused’s sentence for this charge was cut in half.
The judge was not so understanding, however, when delivering the accused’s final sentence. She informed him he would be concurrently serving five years in state prison for his robbery charge and a year and a half for the attempted drug transport.
She asked the accused if he understood the conditions of his consequences individually. When she reached the prior ability consequences, he informed her he did not fully understand the consequences, meaning he would not be making an informed plea.
Instead of allowing the accused time to speak with his attorney, who tried to interject, she gave a brief description and moved forward with the sentencing. All she was able to communicate to him was that if he picks up another strike offense, he will be in prison for the rest of his life.
Once more, the accused informed her that he did not fully understand what he was being accused of and began to appear very distraught and confused, realizing that he was unsure about how the statement he was about to make would affect the rest of his life.
The judge also briefly summarized his charges and tried to move on again when DPD Yeoman interjected and demanded the chance to speak with his client.
The two were finally able to quickly discuss what the consequences would mean for the accused and what the best thing for him to do would be moving forward to finalize the case.
Finally, the accused said he understood his plea consequences and was able to make a willing and informed plea of no contest. He will be taken back into custody to serve out his sentences in state prison
