Word to the wise, do not shoplift from Nugget, you will end up with serious prison time. On Monday, Judge Timothy Fall sentenced Michael Caddick to seven years in prison for being the lookout in a shoplifting heist that saw him aid and abet the stealing of Chinese food from the Woodland Nugget Market.
This marks at least the third case where we know of a person stealing a very small amount from Nugget and landing in prison for serious time. Earlier, a man faced life for stealing a package of shredded cheese, only to see the Three Strikes provision waived, but he still ended up with a seven-year sentence.
Mr. Caddick’s conviction stems from two separate but related incidents, in which he accompanied a woman entering the Nugget, she ordered Chinese food, then she stashed it while behind a display before taking it from the store without paying.
Four days later, they did the same. The woman, both times, was the individual who took the food. The DA claims Mr. Caddick acted as the lookout.
Mr. Caddick was charged with burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, and petty theft for the two incidents. He was acquitted of the first three charges that occurred on January 22 but found guilty of burglary, petty theft and conspiracy for the events on January 26.
The jury had found reasonable doubt for the first day’s events, but not for the crimes on the second day when they ruled he knew what he was doing – that he entered the store with the intent to steal and that the intent was not formed once inside the store.
According to testimony from Douglas Berriman, the loss prevention officer at Nugget, surveillance video from the 26th showed the woman and man walking together, the woman putting the food in a booster bag, the woman handing the empty bag to the defendant, and the two leaving without paying.
He also testified that when he confronted the man outside of the store, that the man denied having done anything and denied knowing the woman.
A similar viedo from the 22nd incident was also shown with the the man and woman holding hands, ordering food, taking a full cart behind a display, leaving with an empty cart, and leaving the store.
Mr. Caddick had an extensive criminal history – although all were fairly low-level prison sentences – and Judge Fall found six prior prison enhancements to be true.
Ron Johnson presented a report on Mr. Caddick’s mental disabilities.
Mr. Johnson said that Caddick has a brain injury, and asked Judge Fall to please consider his cognitive problems in his culpability. In addition to an existing mental disability, he was in a motorcycle accident about the time of the offense, with spinal injuries and broken bones. These were exacerbated in custody with no medical treatment, so that they are now permanent ailments.
He pointed out that Caddick was not the “principal” defendant in this crime (though the woman has never been located), and that this is a fairly minor crime given the dollar value of the theft being well below $100.
The defense requested that the felonies be reduced to misdemeanors. Furthermore, he argued that even though there is substantial criminal history, the nature of this offense suggests leniency. Mr. Johnson said that the nine-year upper term just does not seem appropriate, and seems excessive compared to his past sentences of no more than three years.
Deputy DA Tokhi argued that Mr. Caddick had worked with others, had intent and a long history of re-committing crimes after getting lenient sentences. He said that there should be no mitigation, even though he played a minor role this time and was only the lookout while the other stole the food.
Mr. Tokhi asked for the upper term, arguing that while life has its accidents, the defendant’s conduct shows disrespect for others’ property. Furthermore, even though Mr. Caddick has memory issues and slower mental processing, he knows right from wrong, and is a “career criminal who continues to ignore basic social norms.”
Judge Fall said that he cannot excuse the conduct down to misdemeanors. But he did rule that mitigation outweighs aggravating factors, and thus assigned the lower term of 16 months on the most serious count of second degree burglary. He refused to dismiss the priors, however, so each of them delivered an additional year to the sentence.
Judge Fall seemed very visibly distressed about Caddick’s condition, but indicated he was tied to some administrative, determinate sentencing factors regarding the enhancements. However, it would seem that he certainly had the ability to reduce the counts to misdemeanors, but decided not to.
The public has to decide whether the fact that Mr. Caddick had committed a string of fairly minor crimes over his lifetime necessitates a seven year, four month sentence for helping someone else steal Chinese food. To me, that is a waste of public resources and also a waste of the court’s time.
It seems to me that this punishment does not fit the crime and that Judge Fall had a lot more discretion in this than he implied. He was certainly within his rights to reduce the crime down to misdemeanors (which is really what they were, given the dollar amounts). He also could have dismissed three of the priors and reduced the sentence down to a few years (which is probably still too much, though less egregious than seven).
Does a long criminal history mean that a crime where less than $100 is stolen is worth spending $350,000 of taxpayer money on incarceration? That is a real question that must be determined.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This is absurd. Doesn’t the DA’s office have any real criminals to persecute/prosecute? People who commit petty crimes need help not prison.
I am no fan of the DA, but the extensive criminal history should be a factor to consider. However, Jurors have the right to stop DA Reisig by not voting guilty.
If people really want to send a clear message to Mr. Reisig they need to stop voting guilty. A DA that cannot get a guilty verdict is not effective and will get the message.
As long as Jurors continue to give out guilty verdicts then they condone, support and empower the DA to continue to do what he wants.
dmg: “The public has to decide whether the fact that Mr. Caddick had committed a string of fairly minor crimes over his lifetime necessitates a seven year, four month sentence for helping someone else steal Chinese Food. To me, that is a waste of public resources and also a waste of the court’s time.”
dmg: “Mr. Caddick had an extensive criminal history – although all were fairly low level prison sentence – and Judge Fall found six prior prison enhancements to be true.”
dmg: “Judge Fall seemed very visibly distressed about Caddick’s condition but said he was tied to determinate sentencing factors.”
How many bites at the apple do you want to give the defendant before you are willing to put him in jail? And how much discretion do you want to give the judge in sentencing? These are really the two factors at issue here. To what extent does a defendant’s past criminal history determine the sentence; and how much discretion do we give judges in determining sentencing? The 3 strikes law was enacted bc of too many judges being too lenient in the public’s view. But w the 3 strikes law in place, we have seen some pretty ridiculous sentencing being handed down for what amounts to petty crime.
I am assuming the judge in this case had no choice but to give the defendant prison time because he was a repeat offender charged with a felony. I’m also assuming the judge was not willing to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor bc the defendant was a cronic repeat offender. This guy, if well behaved, will serve about 3 1/2 years – for being part of a shoplifting operation.
So now, I repeat my questions:
1) How many bites at the apple do you want to give this defendant before putting him in jail?
2) How much discretion do you want to give the judge in sentencing a repeat offender?
The public has already spoken on this issue. From Wikipedia:
“The first true “three strikes” law, with virtually no exceptions provided was passed in 1993, when Washington state voters approved Initiative 593. California passed its own in 1994, when that state voters passed Proposition 184 by an overwhelming majority. 72% in favor and 28% against. The initiative proposed to the voters had the title of Three Strikes and You’re Out, referring to de facto life imprisonment after being convicted of three felonies.[3]
The concept swiftly spread to other states, but none of them chose to adopt a law as sweeping as California’s: By 2004, twenty-six states and the federal government had laws that satisfy the general criteria for designation as “three strikes” statutes—namely, that a third felony conviction brings a sentence of life in prison, with no parole possible until a long period of time, most commonly twenty-five years, has been served…
Generally, early studies of three strikes laws found negligible impacts on overall recidivism rates amongst the general population, a trend substantiated by the weak correlation found between demonstrative prison sentences and general or individuals deterrence[citation needed], but this is just amongst the general population, which excludes those already imprisoned, whose ability to commit crimes and break the laws of the state has effectively been neutralized. It should be noted that incidence of murder, rape, and aggravated assault has risen from 2002 to 2008 according to the United States Bureau of Statistics and the Disaster Center, although this does not tell us anything about immigration into the state or break down the crime rate among those who were living there before 2002 and those who entered the state afterwards. The phrase “incidence of murder, rape and aggravated assault” is not the same as “ratio of crimes vis-a-vis the general population”—and could therefore simply reflect a growing population…
On November 7, 2000, 60.8% of the state’s voters supported an amendment to the statute (offered in Proposition 36) that scaled it back by providing for drug treatment instead of life in prison for most of those convicted of possessing drugs after the amendment went into effect.
On November 2, 2004, California voters rejected Proposition 66, which would have significantly amended the state’s Three Strikes law by requiring that the third felony charge against a suspect be a special violent and/or serious crime to mandate a 25-years-to-life sentence. It also would have changed the definition of some felonies.[9] Though polls indicated that the measure would be overwhelmingly approved by California voters, public opinion shifted dramatically in the last days of the campaign. Opponents argued that its wording was so ambiguous that it threatened to shorten sentences for far more convicts than proponents estimated, and that it would have categorized some serious felonies—assault with intent to rape an elderly or disabled person, for example—as nonviolent crimes.[10] Days away from the election, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was joined by Henry Nicholas, co-founder and former Co-Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Broadcom Corporation and a victims’ rights advocate whose sister was murdered in 1983, as well as former Governors Jerry Brown, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis and George Deukmejian in launching an intensive radio and television advertising campaign against ballot initiative.[11] The ads warned that Prop. 66, if passed, “would release 26,000 dangerous criminals and rapists.”
Nicholas contributed $3 million to the campaign[12] and flew former Gov. Brown to Long Beach from Oakland to record radio ads with him in the home recording studio belonging to Ryan Shuck of the rock group Orgy. Joining them was Dave Silvera, of the band Korn.[13] Over the next several days, an ad blitz including spots from Shuck and Silvera blanketed radio stations across the state. At one point ahead in the polls by more than a 3-to-1 margin [6], Prop 66 failed to pass, with 5,604,060 voters (47.3 percent) voting for, 6,238,060 (52.7 percent) voting no, and 747,563 (5.9 percent) casting no vote. Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, called the come-from-behind campaign to defeat Prop 66 “unprecedented” in California electoral politics.[14]
Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving under $400 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, previous convictions for robbery and attempted robbery, sentence later reduced to six years).[15] In Rummel v. Estelle (1980), the Supreme Court upheld life with possible parole for a third-strike fraud felony in Texas, which arose from a refusal to repay $120.75 paid for air conditioning repair that was subsequently considered unsatisfactory.[16] Rummel was released a few months later, after pleading guilty.[17]
In California, first and second strikes are counted by individual charges, rather than individual cases, so a defendant may have been charged and convicted of “first and second strikes”, potentially many more than two such strikes, arising from a single case, even one that was disposed of prior to the passage of the law. Convictions from all 50 states and the federal courts at any point in the defendant’s past, as well as juvenile offenses that would otherwise be sealed can be counted (although once a juvenile record is sealed, it cannot be “unsealed;” it does not exist any longer and there is no longer any record to be used as a prior conviction), regardless of the date of offense or conviction or whether the conviction was the result of a plea bargain.
Defendants already convicted of two or more “strike” charges arising from one single case potentially years in the past, even if the defendant was a juvenile at the time, can be and have been charged and convicted with a third strike for any felony or any offense that could be charged as a felony (including “felony petty theft” or possession of a controlled substance prior to Proposition 36 (see below)) and given 25 years to life. (In the California Supreme Court decision People vs. Garcia, 1999, the Court withdrew residential burglary from the juvenile strike list. For a juvenile residential burglary to count it must also be adjudicated in combination with another felony such as armed robbery, which is a strike. Out of the over 43,000 second and third strikers in California prisons today, none has received a prior strike for residential burglary as a juvenile.)
It is possible for a defendant to be charged and convicted with multiple “third strikes” (technically third and fourth strikes) in a single case. It is also possible for multiple “third” strikes to arise from a single criminal act (or omission). As a result, a defendant may then be given two separate sentences that run consecutively,[18] which can make for a sentence of 50 (or 75, or 100) years to life. 50 years to life was the actual sentence given to Leandro Andrade (more information below).
In turn, as a result of all these factors, three strikes sentences have prompted harsh criticism not only within the United States but from outside the country as well…”
correction: chronic
No wonder there is a 25 billion deficit. Free him and hire a teacher for seven years.
It’s called jury nullification… citizens can choose to get him into mental health treatment options other than state prison…
hpierce: “It’s called jury nullification… citizens can choose to get him into mental health treatment options other than state prison…”
What mental health treatment options? The budget cuts decimated Mental Health Services…
[i]”citizens can choose to get him into mental health treatment options other than state prison …”[/i]
Correct me if I am wrong, but the story does not say he has psychiatric problems. Rather, he allegedly has some cognitive problems–in other words, he is stupid. Psychiatrists and psychologists cannot cure stupid. Perhaps a neurologist could offer him some succor.
As to whether a 7 year prison term makes sense –> no, it’s idiotic. It’s punishing the taxpayers more than anything else. Presuming this guy is not retarded or otherwise incapable of intellectually associating what he did with the punishment being meted out, I think a much more sensible approach (for any habitual petty thief) would be 6 months of hard labor. Say put him on a chain gang in the high Sierras clearing granite off of pedestrian paths 16 hours a day.
Rich:
“Ron Johnson presented a report on Mr. Caddick’s mental disabilities.”
Also, he’s not stupid, but apparently brain damaged.
Question: What is the social cost for more lenient sentencing? These harsh penalties are difficult to accept, but less harsh sentences would result in greater property crime, would it not? People forget the hot social topic of the Clinton era was increasing crime.
Problem is crime wasn’t increasing during the Clinton years, crime peaked around 1980 and has decreased ever since.
To me, the fiscal cost of more reasonable sentences for minor crimes is that it frees up space and resources for more serious crimes.
[b]”Also, he’s not stupid, but apparently brain damaged.”[/b]
In practical terms, if you know, what does this mean? Does it mean the damage to his brain has lowered his IQ, and thus he is stupid due to the brain damage? Does it mean the damage has affected his personality in such a way that he is a sociopath or has some other personality defect due to the brain damage? Or does it mean that due to brain damage he cannot physically control himself (like some stroke patients)?
I took it to mean he was rendered an idiot. However, I’m happy to be corrected if you know what the capacities or limitations are of his defective brain.
It seems to me this is relevant, because there is not much point in punishing someone who is incapable of understanding the reason for the punishment or associating the punishment with the crime. However, that does not mean that such persons don’t need to be segregated from the rest of society, because they may well not be able to function normally in society on their own.
I didn’t see the medical report, so I cannot answer that question.
I agree that he needs treatment rather than prison time if indeed he has diminished mental capacities and brain damage.
While driving in other states I have seen prison chain gangs out along the highways cutting brush and doing hard physical labor. Given a persons ability to connect the crime with the punishment, that has always seemed to me to be a good method of distributing the punishment more to the criminal and less toward the honest citizens who foot the bills for prisons. So I like Rich’s idea of shorter sentences that cost the taxpayer less, combined with hard labor which should serve as a deterrent to somebody who is too lazy to work and finds it easier to steal for a living. Does anybody know why we don’t see prison chain gangs in California?
r.b.: sounds like an Eighth Amendment issue…
They used to have youth do that kind of thing, but they’ve cut back on funding in recent years. I don’t think there’s a lot of evidence that that kind of work yields results of that sort.
RR: “Correct me if I am wrong, but the story does not say he has psychiatric problems. Rather, he allegedly has some cognitive problems–in other words, he is stupid. Psychiatrists and psychologists cannot cure stupid. Perhaps a neurologist could offer him some succor.”
dmg: “Also, he’s not stupid, but apparently brain damaged.”
RR: “In practical terms, if you know, what does this mean? Does it mean the damage to his brain has lowered his IQ, and thus he is stupid due to the brain damage? Does it mean the damage has affected his personality in such a way that he is a sociopath or has some other personality defect due to the brain damage? Or does it mean that due to brain damage he cannot physically control himself (like some stroke patients)?
I took it to mean he was rendered an idiot. However, I’m happy to be corrected if you know what the capacities or limitations are of his defective brain.
It seems to me this is relevant, because there is not much point in punishing someone who is incapable of understanding the reason for the punishment or associating the punishment with the crime.”
dmg: “Judge Fall seemed very visibly distressed about Caddick’s condition, but indicated he was tied to some administrative, determinate sentencing factors regarding the enhancements. However, it would seem that he certainly had the ability to reduce the counts to misdemeanors, but decided not to.”
Bottom line is Judge Fall was not willing to accede to the defense’s position that the defendant did not know right from wrong. Also, the defendant was clever enough to try and make and effort to escape detection – the hallmark of legal capacity – the ability to understand the conduct engaged in is wrong from society’s point of view.
dmg: “I agree that he needs treatment rather than prison time if indeed he has diminished mental capacities and brain damage.”
I honestly don’t know if this defendant would even be eligible for mental health services, bc physical injury to the brain/body is not addressed by mental health services. You must have a formal diagnosis of a MENTAL CONDITION. At least that is how I understand things are now…
dmg: “Problem is crime wasn’t increasing during the Clinton years, crime peaked around 1980 and has decreased ever since.”
As Wikipedia noted, the decrease in crime may have been caused bc the bad guys were locked up under the 3 Strikes Law and other tough on crime statutes.
As to the chain gang idea, talk to those who have suffered with that sort of thing under Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ. He has had pregnant women in over 100 degree heat in tent cities. One lost her baby bc of it. Arpaio is absolutely ruthless. The problem with chain gangs is that it depends on who is running it. There is another warden in a southern state who has prisoners growing their own food, which seems to be working quite well. But that sort of thing takes a willing warden, many guards for security, and a vision that goes beyond pure cruelty towards building character in people who often have little of it.
“Also, the defendant was clever enough to try and make and effort to escape detection”
I’m not clear that that indeed occurred. Nevertheless, I don’t believe you read is correct. Judge Fall argued that he could not reduce the charges to misdemeanors or dismiss the strikes. He was concerned about the condition of the defendant.
He is not subject to a sanity defense, his condition appears have deteriorated while in prison. The judge did not feel that he had the discretion given the charges that the DA filed in this case.
“I honestly don’t know if this defendant would even be eligible for mental health services, bc physical injury to the brain/body is not addressed by mental health services. “
As I understand it, his mental condition is separate and distinct from the physical one.
“As Wikipedia noted, the decrease in crime may have been caused bc the bad guys were locked up under the 3 Strikes Law and other tough on crime statutes.”
I don’t know that I would look to Wikipedia as a source here, look at the trend line, there are a lot of different theories aobut the why, but the bottom line is that by the time three strikes was enacted, crime had been decreasing for over a decade and a half off its peak. Moreover, crime declined nationwide regardless of three strikes. And three strikes tends to impact most those who are older criminals, already in the system for years, which means you are locking up people in their late 40s and 50s, people not likely to continue to commit crimes at the same rate or severity than when they were younger.
To dmg: Notice I said “3 Strikes Law and other tough on crime statutes”. If I remember correctly (and I may not – I’d have to more fully research the issue), there were many other tough on crime statutes going on all over the nation as a whole long before 3 Strikes came into the picture. And why be so dismissive of Wikipedia? Do you have more credible sources for your theories? If so, what are they? The problem is that statistics probably cannot clearly quantify what the root cause is of crime declining. It could be from a number of different factors – more law enforcement officers, tougher DA’s, who knows. But I think it is very clear that if this defendant is put in jail, there will be less property crime here in Yolo County…
“But I think it is very clear that if this defendant is put in jail, there will be less property crime here in Yolo County… “
Not if we lack the money to prosecute other cases or if we have to release other prisoners to accommodate this one.
You’ll have to look more into the other issue, the empirical findings I have seen do not bear out your conclusion.
As for Wikipedia, do a search on Wikipedia errors.
Age demographics probably* play a role in rates of crime. Murders and a lot of other crimes are largely the work of males 15-29. When that group falls in population, so too do the crimes they are the biggest perpetrators of.
In the early 1960s, when the first wave of the post-WW2 baby boom started reaching the middle-teenaged years, crimes of all sorts started to increase. And then kept increasing through the ’60s and the 1970s. But by the early 1980s, when the percentage of our population 15-29 had substantially decreased, crime rates fell all over the United States, regardless of the length of sentences.
*There is a competing theory which states that the demographic correlations are better explained by the so-called misery index (the inflation rate + the unemployment rate). This macroeconomic theory would predict a higher murder rate today than we had 5 years ago, because inflation has held steady but unemployment has increased. I tend to think the demographic theory is more likely than the macroeconomic theory, but I have heard experts espouse each of these notions.
In this county we do have The Yolo County Probation Alternative Sentencing Program, which “allows individuals to perform work in the community in lieu of a paying a fine or incarceration.”
If this guy’s “brain damage” is from a head injury…….It is very typical for a person with a significant closed head injury to have a loss of inhibitions as a result of the injury. They do not have any scars on their head because their was no surgery, so they look very normal.
Unfortunately because of this loss of inhibitions they often get repeatedly assaulted on the streets for inappropriate comments or behavior, sustaining even more significant head injuries. Many end up in the prison system because their lack of inhibitions gets them in trouble.
I suspect in a few years we will see a significant increase in the number of Irag and Afghanistan vets with closed head injuries from the wars in our prisons for this reason.
dmg: “You’ll have to look more into the other issue, the empirical findings I have seen do not bear out your conclusion. As for Wikipedia, do a search on Wikipedia errors.”
Wikipedia merely posited a possible explanation of what may have caused a decrease in crime – the fact that bad guys have been locked up. How is a “possible explanation” wrong? Rich Rifkin and wesley506 have posited some other possibilities. I would guess that all these factors play a part, that it is not any one thing that leads to an increase/decrease in crime. Not only that, add geography to the mix. For instance, crime rates are usually higher in big cities, which is a whole other issue.
dmg: “Not if we lack the money to prosecute other cases or if we have to release other prisoners to accommodate this one.”
You talk about “ifs”, but should this prisoner be locked up, it is certain he will not be committing any more property crimes. Once locked up, it is not clear whether some other prisoner will be let go early to make space for him. You are going on sheer speculation – I’m going on sheer certainty – which is where the judge was going on this case…
“How is a “possible explanation” wrong?”
Because it is not borne out by an examination of empirical evidence.
dmg: “Because it is not borne out by an examination of empirical evidence.”
Are you actually trying to tell me that there is zero chance that locking up the bad guys under tough on crime statutes had anything to do with the crime rate going down?
No. I’m telling you that whatever was driving down the crime rate was at work well before prison numbers soared. Prison numbers soared well into a period of reduced crime rates indicates that one did not primarily cause the other. It is possible that locking up bad guys did that, but a lot of the increase in prison population was due to putting more people in prison for minor offenses and locking older inmates up for longer.