Former Fourth and Hope Director Takes Misdemeanor Plea
By Patrick Shum
Leona Jull, the woman who ran the Woodland homeless shelter, Fourth & Hope, and was accused of stealing thousands of dollars from the charity, pled no contest to a misdemeanor grand theft charge. Despite the objection of DDA Jennifer McHugh and the DA’s office, Judge Rosenberg accepted the plea which will only entail misdemeanor probation and $2411 of restitution as punishment.
The judge accepted this plea because, after three days of deliberation, the jury remained deadlocked at 6-6, with no end in sight. Judge Rosenberg also cited several factors in his decision. He said California law allowed for good faith as a legal defense for grand theft, even if the good faith was to some degree mistaken or unreasonable. That is, a jury could accept the defense that the defendant stole only because she thought she had a right to the money or goods, as long as such belief was not completely unreasonable. The judge noted that the policies at Fourth & Hope were amorphous, such as having no written credit card policy, so that the defendant could have been mistaken in her use of Fourth & Hope’s funds and items. Exercising his judicial discretion, Judge Rosenberg reduced the felony grand theft charge to a misdemeanor grand theft charge. He also cited Jull’s lack of a criminal record as well as her decade of service to the homeless as other reasons for reducing the charge
However, the judge said that Jull’s actions were still grand theft. Her crime is not petty theft. It was still grand theft, but it was not felony grand theft. McHugh requested a restitution hearing on the sum Jull was to pay, likely because she considered $2411 to be overly lenient as opposed to insufficiently so, but the judge explained the sum he had decided. He ordered that Jull pay $2411 in restitution for nine items that could be considered theft, such as Jull’s use of the charity’s funds to fix her home door or purchase a marine battery. However, the judge explicitly said he would not order Jull to pay restitution on the other things that she charged to Fourth & Hope, such as gas, meals, clothing and other repairs.
Judge Rosenberg asked a few more questions of Jull as part of the plea deal, first confirming that her initials and signature were on the plea and waiver form. At this point, DDA McHugh spoke up to say that the DA’s office did not agree with the plea, but the judge continued anyway. The judge then reduced the felony grand theft charge against Jull to a misdemeanor grand theft charge. The sentence, as indicated above, would include restitution of $2411 as well as misdemeanor probation. However, this sum would not include any court fees incurred. At that point, Jull formally pled no contest to the new charge. Both the DA’s office and Jull’s attorney Robbin Coker agreed that the plea had a factual basis, and then Judge Rosenberg accepted the plea deal and signed it into order. He then gave McHugh time to speak.
McHugh said that the crime in question is not a misdemeanor but a felony abuse of the power of Jull’s position, violating the trust placed in her as a voice and help of the homeless. However, despite her objection, Judge Rosenberg found it in the court’s discretion to reduce the sentence. Time was waived for sentencing, which is due for August 29 at 1:30 PM.
Status Conference in Daniel Marsh Case
By Silvia Ramos Medina
At a status conference on the morning of July 30, 2014, Daniel Marsh alongside his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson, appeared in court.
Daniel Marsh is charged with the double murder of Oliver “Chip” Northup and his wife, Claudia Maupin. The sixteen-year-old boy allegedly tortured and mutilated the couple in their Davis home.
On June 2, 2014, Marsh changed his plea to not guilty by reason of insanity.
Today in the courtroom, Judge David Reed communicated to the attorneys that they are still waiting on one portion of Daniel Marsh’s psychological evaluation report. The court hopes to have the other portion of the report by August 8.
Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Cabral stated that a protective order was being discussed.
“Do you object to the court signing the protective order?” Judge Reed asked Daniel Marsh’s attorney, Ron Johnson.
“No.”
Judge Reed then told Mr. Johnson the protective order would be filed.
Soon after, Mr. Johnson informed Judge Reed that Daniel Marsh’s sister, Sarah Marsh, had requested to visit her brother.
Sarah Marsh, who was sitting in the audience, then spoke up. She disclosed that she had only been granted two visits: one non-contact and one full contact.
“I’m requesting to see my brother like my parents do,” Ms. Marsh added.
Judge Reed did not object to Sarah Marsh’s request, authorizing her to have one visit with her brother.
The next hearing in Daniel Marsh’s case is scheduled for August 8, 2014, in Department 6.
If I’m not mistaken, law enforcement interrogated this young man, for several hours, when he was only fifteen years old, without an attorney present. When he asked to speak with his mother, they refused.
Now his sister has to go to court, just to have one visit with her brother?
Why are they so afraid to let him have contact with his family? What are they doing to him, that needs to be hidden from his family members? Is he refusing contact with his sister? I don’t get it.
Oliver and Claudia’s daughter will never see her parents again.
So why do we have a constitution then if we can abrogate it anytime someone is alleged to have done something egregious?
David, following up on BP’s point below, what does the Constitution have to do with this situation?
The judge granted Marsh’s sister a visit, so what’s your beef?
Something tells me the judge knows the constitution and the law concerning Mr. Marsh’s visiting rights.
More concerned about the interrogation of a 15 year old without attorney or parent present. That’s what I was responding to: “law enforcement interrogated this young man, for several hours, when he was only fifteen years old, without an attorney present. When he asked to speak with his mother, they refused.”
BP, do you really think the California Constitution (or the US Constitution) has provisions that cover the visiting rights of prisoners? It seems to me that the framers of the Constitution would have considered that kind of specific provision as “too much detail.”
I don’t know, ask David, that was his response when I wrote “Oliver and Claudia’s daughter will never see her parents again.” Somehow this went there, ask David.
As I explained above, I was responding to an entirely different point.
Here ya go, Palin. It’s kinda long and it uses a lot of big legal words but I know you can get through it if you try really hard. We’ll work our way up to the U.S. Constitution. It’s even longer and more complicated, but you should enjoy that one, too.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html
Since you have made prior comments about your tax dollars, let’s frame it this way. Is this really the best way for your tax dollars to be spent, making his sister appear in court & waste the court’s time, over a visitation dispute? I assue those expensive D.A.’s had to be present in court a few minutes longer. Figure out their hourly wage, and you will realize the taxpayers spent a lot of money for those few minutes of the lawyers’ and judge’s time.
Perhaps we could have another group of folks who could decide visitation disputes and maybe, perhaps, review mistreatment of those incarcerated and the visitors of those incarcerated.
Barack Palin
“Oliver and Claudia’s daughter will never see her parents again.”
Which is in no way the fault of Mr. Marsh’s sister. I have a great deal of sympathy for the family of the Northrup/Marupins.
I have an equal amount of sympathy for the innocents in the Marsh family who are similarly being deprived of contact with their family member through no fault of their own.
What do you feel is being gained for society by punishing the equally innocent family members of the accused regardless of how you may feel about the accused themselves ? I would stress “the accused” since in our system of justice we are supposedly innocent until proven guilty. To me that matters. Does it not matter to you ?
If Oliver and Claudia had locked up their house at night, as common sense would dictate, this situation would not have happened. Perhaps they just felt too comfortable, having lived long and fortunate lives, or perhaps they were becoming forgetful in old age.
Marsh, being very ill, hasn’t had such a comfortable and fortunate life.
Yes, it was Oliver’s and Caludia’s fault, they just didn’t show any common sense and should’ve realised there was a killer stalking who had an uncomfortable and unfortunate life.
Are you serious?
BP, every single day of my 15 years here in California, my wife asks me each time I come through a door, “Did you lock the door behind you.” She started that routine long before the sad events that befell Oliver and Claudia, and is no reflection on them. It is just a mind set, more often practiced by women than by men.
So yes, if I can speak for tj, yes, it is wise to consider the possibility that there always is a killer stalking somewhere, and why take the risk that that “somewhere” is “here.”
I refuse to live my life afraid! Yes, I am cautious and careful, but never have I been afraid to leave my front door open to let cool air in….
Just Me, who said anyone is living their life afraid? Each of us have our own “caution profile.” Women tend to exercise more caution than men. Further, some people don’t have screens on their front door, so leaving the front door open to let cool air in also means letting flies in, and those flies can be pesky.
“If Oliver and Claudia had locked up their house at night, as common sense would dictate, this situation would not have happened”
Are you sure the house was unlocked? I think he (allegedly) got in through a window. They were not asking for it by failing to lock doors (if they did fail to lock door). If a person is intent on a crime, a locked door might slow him down but it doesn’t prevent crime.
15 years old, no lawyer. Innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.
My “beef” is – why does the sister have to go to court to see her brother. It sounds like she’s been denied visitation since the day he was locked up?
I still don’t get it.
Also- who is the protective order for?
Thanks for the update, David.
*granted only 2 visits*
Thank you for admitting you don’t know about the Constitution, even though you’re the one who replied to DG’s remark. Our Constitution is very interesting reading, I advise you read it all someday.
Are you for real?
You made me laugh BP!!!
Me too.
You’re welcome !
One point – Daniel Marsh was not fifteen when he was interrogated at the Davis Police Department. The double homicide occurred before his sixteenth birthday. The interrogation took place when he was sixteen years old. So the question is whether a sixteen year old, not a fifteen year old, should be interviewed without a parent present. The police may have had valid reasons for not contacting his parents, particularly if they were about to conduct a search of the homes of both parents during the interview, and wouldn’t want to alert the parents that their son might be a suspect so that evidence was not concealed or destroyed before the search got under way. If the crimes are serious enough to charge a sixteen year old as an adult ,and if the sixteen year old fully demonstrates adult level competency and articulation at the onset of the interview – then why not continue the interview, despite the absence of a parent?
As to his sister’s request to visit him – was Daniel Marsh asked whether he wanted another visit with his sister?
Paradoxical
” If the crimes are serious enough to charge a sixteen year old as an adult ,and if the sixteen year old fully demonstrates adult level competency and articulation at the onset of the interview – then why not continue the interview, despite the absence of a parent?”
Two points come to mind for me in response to your question.
1) It is not up to the interrogating officers to decide whether or not the suspect will be tried as an adult or not.
At the time of his questioning Daniel would not have been able to enlist in the military, vote, marry or any of
a number of adult activities. It would seem to me extremely inconsistent to treat define him as a child in
most meaningful ways in our society and then decide that he is an adult in such a serious matter.
2) It is well known now, not conjecture that the brains of adolescents do not function cognitively or emotionally in
the same way as those of adults. This alone for me is enough reason to treat him as a child in an investigation.