Recently a Woodland man was sentenced to 31 years to life in prison as part of a three strikes case stemming from a Picnic Day 2009 fight that broke another man’s eye socket. He was sentenced by Yolo County Judge Kathleeen White on June 24, 2010. On March 12, 2010 a jury convicted Steven Hector Martinez, age 35, of Woodland of one count of Battery with Serious Bodily Injury.
According the District Attorney’s office, on Picnic Day, April 18, 2009, the victim reported he was at the Bistro 33 restaurant in downtown Davis when he saw people he thought he knew getting into a fight in the street area. The victim went over to stop the fight. The defendant, a complete stranger to the victim, “sucker-punched” him in the face with his fist. The defendant and the group with him then fled the scene.
At the scene, the victim identified the defendant, a known Sureno gang associate. The defendant had been released from prison only 100 days before. The victim went to the hospital by ambulance, but left before being treated because he said there were two elderly gentlemen who looked in worse condition. Three days later, the victim sneezed and his eye popped out of his socket. He pushed the eye back in and went to the hospital. A CT scan revealed his eye socket was shattered in two places and parts of the bone were dislocated and depressed into his head, causing extreme pain.
At least that is the DA’s version of facts. Give credit to Lauren Keene, reporter for the Davis Enterprise, who interviewed Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt, the defense attorney for Mr. Martinez who told a very different story about what happened.
First of all, the first trial in November ended with six jurors voting to convict and six others seeking acquittal. Mr. Van Zandt was in trial on another matter and then on vacation, so the Vanguard was unable to clarify what changed between November where the jury split and March when they unanimously voted to convict.
Mr. Martinez denied responsibility for the attack and questioned the witness identification and even the extent of injuries during the trial.
“One person out of all the people on these jam-packed streets testified, saying Mr. Martinez was the person that hit Mr. Tamayo,” Mr. Van Zandt to the Davis Enterprise, referring to the Picnic Day crowds. “Not even Mr. Tamayo, in his testimony, was sure that Mr. Martinez was the right guy.”
“Thirty-one years is a bit much for one act of battery that does not cause the victim to have surgery,” Mr. Van Zandt said, accoring to the Enterprise, “noting two of Martinez’s strikes stemmed from a single incident in which he came to the defense of another assault victim.”
During sentencing, the defense filed for a Romero Motion. A Romero Motion asks that a strike against a defendant be erased. Judge White said that Mr. Martinez was a “poster boy” for when not to allow a Romero Motion and asked Van Zandt to explain why he would ask for one in this case. He said that the victim in this case was not badly injured. He said that two of the strikes happened in one incident, while Mr. Martinez was coming to another person’s aid.
According to the filing, “the Judge may consider all factors in mitigation or ‘reasonable circumstances in mitigation,’ in deciding whether to strike the punishment for an enhancement.”
“Mr. Martinez sincerely believed [in the 1996 case] he had a need to defend himself and others as he saw a friend being beat up,” the motion read. “As this fight was happening, a friend of Martinez retried the gun from the apartment, a gun that had brought it over to his apartment the same day by another person.”
In this 1996 incident, the motion states, “Despite statements by some witnesses implicating another person as the shooter, Mr. Martinez told police from the outset that he fired the shots that hit the two victims.”
In fact they report, “The sentence Mr. Martinez received also reflects his overall culpability. He received probation at the outset, concurrent sentencing, and a lower term-based recommendation, to reflect the fact of the case.”
According to the court record, that case, outlined above, constitutes two of the past strikes.
However, at sentencing, the prosecutor argued that Mr. Martinez has never taken responsibility for his actions, has no remorse for any of his past actions and thus was a danger to the public were he to be let off the three strikes hook. Judge White accepted this and sentenced him accordingly.
As usual, the District Attorney’s Office made an issue over the defendant’s alleged gang ties, even though they never charged him with a gang enhancement. The press release notes, “At the scene, the victim identified the defendant, a known Sureno gang associate.” In their motion they further state, “Officer Munoz identified one of the men with the defendant as a know Sureno gang associate.”
They also use that alleged gang activity to argue for the enhancement noting that, “In the 1996 incident involved gang activity with the defendant. The defendant supposedly left California to go to Colorado to avoid further gang affiliations.”
However, it is not clear how gang activity or gang affiliations tie into the current case or even the 1996 case. It seems once again the DA is using the specter of gang activity to justify a disproportionate sentence.
The bottom line in this case is that while the defendant was convicted ultimately of a single count, the evidence can be called into question as a separate jury split on acquittal. It is unclear what changed from November to March, but it is concerning that in a case that originally ended up in a 6-6 split would result in a 31 year sentence, particularly when mitigating the previous conviction and the apparent responsibility he owned up to at that time, 14 years prior.
The uncertainty of the victim’s identification of the assailant and lack of overall evidence should have given the court greater pause than it apparently did.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
david,
I’m not clear, from this article, weather or not the 2010 case resulted in an extension of the incarceration from a gang enhancement or was the 31 years just because it was his third strike?
David, you sure seem to have a soft spot for gang members. Maybe someday you’ll have a different opinion if you find them roaming your street.
DMG: “The uncertainty of the victim’s identification of the assailant and lack of overall evidence should have given the court greater pause than it apparently did.”
In your opinion. But you are not the judge. Furthermore the victim’s eyesocket was crushed to the extent his eyeball fell out. That is pretty serious stuff…and most likely what swayed the judge. Why? There was a recent case of road rage, where someone got out of his car and stabbed the other driver in the arm – and killed him bc it hit a major artery. Assault and battery is a serious crime…
“Furthermore the victim’s eyesocket was crushed to the extent his eyeball fell out..”
When he was hit, the blow fractured the bone(s) that form an orbit around the eye socket. Not an uncommon injury when when you get a pretty good blow in the cheek/eye area. When you fracture these bones you can weaken the area that separates the sinus cavity from the eye socket. When you increase the pressure in the sinus cavity from blowing your nose, the pressure can follow the path of least resistance, which in this case was through the fracture in the bone separating the sinus from the eye socket. The increased pressure in the eye when blowing his nose caused his eye to bulge out. Unless the muscles attached to the eye, the optic nerve, and some other connective tissue were cut it would be impossible for his eye to fall out.
I suspect the DA’s use of the verbiage that “his eye fell out” served it’s purpose to convince the jury that this was some sort of horrific injury when it was not.
No surgery was required and there was a full recovery by the victim. One of the questions those is whether this guy did it, six jurors in one case thought no.
“David, you sure seem to have a soft spot for gang members. Maybe someday you’ll have a different opinion if you find them roaming your street. “
I don’t have a soft spot for gang members, I have a question as to whether the people they are calling gang members really are gang members. I also have a question as to their application of gang laws in cases where they would not seem to fit. I also have a concern about labeling someone a gang member when the charge is unproven and they did not commit nor were accused of committing a gang crime.
He put his own eye back into his head? That had to have been the strangest moment of his life.
KATHLEEN M WHITE’S UGLY DIRTY CORRUPT LITTLE NAME REARS ITS UGLY HEAD AGAIN.
SOMETIMES YOU’D THINK WE’RE LIVING IN 1956 IN A LITTLE TOWN IN THE DIRTY DIRTY SOUTH
In my opinion there should be a 10 year enhancement for anyone who would sucker punch another person. It can cause serious injury. Many times the victim is knocked unconscious and fall to the ground striking their head on the ground. Search “sucker punch” on youtube if you don’t believe me or don’t think it’s that violent. The criminal justice system is not only there to penalize people who break the law but to protect law abiding citizens from people like this.
I am comfortable with the verdict and the sentence. A jury of 12 people believe he did it.
Given that two juries came to very different conclusions and what we know about juries and have learned through talking with some jurors in other cases I possess a far greater degree of skepticism that the victim successfully and accurately identified his assailant given as you suggested he got sucker punched and therefore probably did not get a good look at the perp.
I think it would be safe to say if a jury were hung and the case is retried then the DA would change his strategy. My concern is that you are predisposed to suspect the DA’s office of wrongdoing. Does the same apply to any case when a jury is hung and upon retrying the case the jury comes back with a conviction?
There have been MANY accusations against the DA’s office yet there has been no proof of misconduct. In the Abrhams case, the Navarro case, the three strikes cheese case, none. I believe if the DA’s office was mishandling cases the Grand Jury, the Public Defender, or a private attorney trying cases in Yolo County would have come forward. Lawyers are disbarred because of misconduct. If there was misconduct the prosecutors and the DA could be disbarred along with defense attorneys for not coming forward with information on misconduct.
I will agree that there are bad apples in every profession and the bad apples need to be removed. As of now I have seen no evidence that leads me to believe there has been any misconduct.
Your opinion of the DA’s office is that cases are not being handled properly. We all have an opinion but it doesn’t make it fact. Some day evidence of misconduct may come forward. If it does all those responsible should be removed and dealt with in accordance of the law.
I have followed this site for a while and don’t believe you present an objective view. If you were “watching” and observing in an unbiased manner you would ask yourself and your followers if it is possible the DA’s office is handling cases within the confines of the law. Handling cases in a lawful manner but not how you would like to see them handled are two different topics.
Yolo County is costing the state of California a fortune in prosecuting these ridiculous cases and then imposing these outrageous sentences. When will the citizens of this county be outraged?