by Eric Alfaro –
In People of The State Of California vs. Santiago Rodriguez Ochoa, the Yolo County District Attorney’s office charged an 18 year old with six criminal counts; one of the counts being subject to a gang enhancement. The case was first prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Hamilton in the Yolo County Court.
The newly discovered information prompted the Yolo County District Attorney to drop the charges and transport the defendant to Colusa County for a proper hearing.
Strangely, Deputy District Attorney Hamilton remained as the lead prosecutors in Colusa County (case no. CR50732).
District Attorney’s are legally allowed to assist other counties when fairness to the defendant can only be guaranteed with an outside prosecutor. In this case, the Yolo County District Attorney’s office is prosecuting a case that is outside its jurisdictional reach without a valid reason.
The Vanguard contacted Dave B. Markss, Colusa County Chief Investigator, regarding this unusual case. According to Mr. Markss, the Yolo County D.A’s office formally requested that they be allowed to prosecute Mr. Ochoa in Colusa County.
When asked if Colusa County would reimburse or subsidize the County of Yolo for the services being rendered, Mr. Markss responded that their clerical contributions would offset the costs of Mr. Hamilton’s services. Markss added, “it is a collaborative process” between Yolo and Colusa County.
Mr. Hamilton could not be reached to comment on this matter.
Questions over the proper allocation of funds come to light when the outside spending is put into context. Yolo County and Woodland have been burdened with a great deal of budget woes and have had to limit spending to that which is absolutely necessary.
The resources of Yolo County taxpayers are being used to prosecute in other counties. The stark realization that Yolo residents are subsidizing the legal fees for the taxpayers of Colusa County seems illogical during times of economic uncertainty.
Besides the obvious fact that the Yolo D.A followed a case, subject to gang enhancements, from Yolo County to Colusa County; the misappropriation of taxpayer time and resources cannot be overlooked.
Under what circumstances is it acceptable to spend Yolo County dollars in Colusa county?
It is undisclosed public spending, the nonchalant allocation of funds, and the use of County time that needs to be grounded in the context of Yolo’s economic crisis.
Who cares?
Under what circumstances is it acceptable to spend Yolo County dollars in Colusa county?
Could it be that Yolo Co. built the case and could more easily and efficiently (for all involved) handle the prosecution. Or should we simply drop the case and let an alleged violator/criminal walk away from the situation due to a budget crisis.
Must be a slow news day for the blogger here.
Next week, this case goes to trial. From looking at the court filing, it looks as if Mr. Ochoa tried to murder someone who was driving a car or riding in a car. (In my opinion, attempted murder should be treated just as seriously as murder. The only difference is that an attempted murderer is a bad shot. His intent is what should count.)
Here is what Mr. Ochoa has been charged with by the People of California: [quote] 1. CHARGE: 246 – SHOOTING AT A VEHICLE
2. CHARGE: 186.22(b)(4)(B) – SPECIAL ALLEGATION-STREET TERRORISM
3. CHARGE: 245(a)(2) – ASSAULT WITH A FIREARM
4. CHARGE: 186.22(b)(1) – SPECIAL ALLEGATION-STREET TERRORISM
5. CHARGE: 245(a)(2) – ASSAULT WITH A FIREARM
6. CHARGE: 186.22(b)(1) – SPECIAL ALLEGATION-STREET TERRORISM
7. CHARGE: 417.3 – BRANDISHING A GUN AT A PERSON IN VEHICLE
8. CHARGE: 186.22(b)(1) – SPECL ALLEG-STREET TERRORSM SERIOUS FLNY [/quote] I would guess that in this case Colusa County will be paying any marginal costs of Garrett Hamilton serving as prosecutor. This document ([url]http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/factsheets/chgofven.pdf[/url]) explains change of venue procedures in California and discusses cost considerations.
David, it’s confusing who wrote this–you or Eric. It’s also confusing why you didn’t talk with the Yolo DA’s office before determining that (and posting that) these decisions and actions are “undisclosed…nonchalant allocation of funds…misappropriation of taxpayer time and resources….”
A case that “has numerous complexities” shouldn’t result in such a sloppy, slapdash story. Shouldn’t the writer should have found out whether this really was a “strange” practice “without a valid reason” before concluding that it’s an outrage on our justice system and a secretive, fraud on Yolo County taxpayers?
Is this post really up to your standards?
So, I see your byline has just been removed, David. That clears up the first confusion.
Always forget to swap it at the top. If there is a byline at the top, it’s not me. If the byline is at the bottom… “David M. Greenwald reporting” it is me. Sorry about the confusion.
[quote]It’s also confusing why you didn’t talk with the Yolo DA’s office before determining that (and posting that) these decisions and actions are “undisclosed…nonchalant allocation of funds…misappropriation of taxpayer time and resources….” [/quote]
As i understand it, the D.A will not speak of this issue.
[quote]before concluding that it’s an outrage on our justice system and a secretive, fraud on Yolo County taxpayers? [/quote]
Who mentioned anything about Fraud? Misappropriation of funds is not illegal, just unethical.
Merixcoatl20: “As I understand it, the D.A will not speak of this issue.”
Maybe you’re correct, but that’s not what this story says. Eric writes that the Deputy DA Hamilton “could not be reached….” That’s much different than the DA’s office refusing to speak. I’m just saying there’s no need to rush to publish without reaching the office that’s being criticized. If Eric talked to people in the DA’s office without success, he should say so. If alternative media like The Vanguard are to earn and to maintain credibility, reporters and editors need to meet basic journalistic standards.
Merixcoatl20: “Who mentioned anything about Fraud? Misappropriation of funds is not illegal, just unethical.”
This story charges much more than an ethical lapse. Actually, misappropriation is the fraudulent conversion (and intentional, illegal use) of funds. My point is that more thorough research should have been done before posting such claims to assure that they’re legitimate. As it is, there doesn’t seem to be much to this story or much to support the concerns expressed in it.
[quote]This story charges much more than an ethical lapse. Actually, misappropriation is the fraudulent conversion (and intentional, illegal use) of funds. My point is that more thorough research should have been done before posting such claims to assure that they’re legitimate. As it is, there doesn’t seem to be much to this story or much to support the concerns expressed in it. [/quote]
Misappropriation is not criminal,actually. Where did you arrive at that conclusion? It is silly to suggest that misappropriation is criminal, how much money hasn’t been misappropriated in Yolo county? Show me proof. Where does it say that misappropriation is criminal?
You are jumping to conclusions to tarnish the story. (read under)
On a lighter note. The a jury today found the defendant not guilty in Colusa County. Apparently the judge was highly suspicious behind the motives of the charges. Not guilty on all counts.
Why did the D.A spend so much money to try to charge a person who did not have a case?