Did You Know ...
From the Office of the Alameda County District Attorney
Nancy E. O'Malley, District Attorney
July, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Board of Supervisors Adopt a Balanced Budget
| |
The Board of Supervisors adopted a balanced budget on June 26,
2010. District Attorney Nancy O'Malley
presented her budget, which met the target reductions, to the Board and County Administrator.
Ms. O'Malley underscored the increase in the Office's workload in just the
first 6 months of 2010. She also spoke about the outstanding staff of attorneys,
inspectors and support staff that makes up the DA's Office. As she stated to
the Board, "The employees of the Alameda County District Attorney's Office are
not just employees; we are woven into the fabric of our communities like the
threads in a tweed garment." Highlighting her staff's commitment to community
service, Ms. O'Malley told the Board
about the nearly 100 community, state, national and professional boards, as
well as outreach and education programs, on which DA employees serve and/or
have involvement.
January 1, 2010 - June 14, 2010 the first 6 months of this calendar year:
5,288 Felony cases (new
cases/PV in lieu)
(as compared to 9,701 felony cases for all of 2009)
69 FELONY JURY TRIALS in first 6 months
10,939 Misdemeanor cases (new cases/PVs in lieu)
82
MISDEMEANOR TRIALS in first 6 months
873 Preliminary
Hearings (PX) on Felony cases
(737 PXs from Wiley Manuel Courthouse in Oakland alone)
(compared to 667 Preliminary Hearings from
1/1/09-6/15/09 (same time frame but last year)
348 Consumer Fraud, Environmental Protection & Insurance
Fraud/Worker Protection cases opened
Victim-Witness
Assistance Division
Number of New Victims
5,312
(compared to 9,438 victims for the entire year 2009)
V/W Services Provided
21,826
Claims Processed 1,399
Petitions filed against Juvenile Offenders: 2,033 & 70 trials
$3,379,340.68 in RESTITUTION ORDERS in first 6 months
($3,012,217.35
direct restitution to victims)
($ 194,114.33 restitution to State of CA for money paid on
behalf of victims
|
|
Mandatory Ignition Interlock
Device Law Takes Effect July 1
|
July 1, 2010, marks the first
date of a five-year pilot program mandating the
installation of an ignition interlock device (IID) on every vehicle owned or
operated by anyone convicted of driving under the influence in the counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Tulare. AB 91, which created the program, was
authored by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, and signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2009.
 Over the past 12 months, the
Alameda County District Attorney's Office has charged over 7,000 defendants in
cases in which driving under the influence was the primary offense (Vehicle
Code Sections 23152(a) and (b) and 23153(a) and (b)). The Office has also secured convictions in 30
DUI jury trials in the past year.
According to DMV statistics, in 2008 (latest statistics available),
1,355 vehicle occupants were killed and 28,463 injured in alcohol-involved
collisions in California.
The California Department of Motor Vehicles will
oversee the implementation of the Pilot Program and will evaluate its
effectiveness. DMV will promulgate regulations and develop programming to
notify offenders about the IID requirement following a DUI conviction. It will also collect proof of installation
documents and a service fee, and monitor the installation and maintenance of the
IID. This system will track exemptions for those who do not own or
have access to a vehicle. According to
the CHP, the overall goal of this project is to evaluate the effectiveness of the IID in reducing DUI recidivism.
The new law prohibits an offender from being issued or
reissued a driver's license by DMV following a suspension or revocation for any
DUI violation in a pilot county that occurs on or after July 1, 2010, until an
offender provides proof of IID installation and pays an approximately $45
administrative service fee, in addition to meeting all other reinstatement
requirements.
|
Questions and Answers Regarding
the Ignition Interlock Device
| |
The California Department of
Motor Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol have compiled lists of
frequently asked questions regarding the new Pilot Program.
How
long will the IID be required to stay in a person's car after a DUI conviction?
The length of time is dependent upon the number of DUI
convictions and whether the offense was a misdemeanor or felony DUI:
Misdemeanor:
1st Offense: 5
months.
2nd Offense: 12
months.
3rd Offense: 24 months.
4th (or subsequent)
Offense: 36 months.
Felony:
1st Conviction: 12
months.
2nd Conviction: 24
months.
3rd Conviction: 36
months.
4th (or subsequent)
Conviction: 36 Months.
What
if I drive a motorcycle?
The bill prohibits an individual who is subject to IID
restrictions from operating a motorcycle during their IID restriction
period.
How many other states have similar laws?
The following states have programs similar to AB 91 in that
the DMVs (i.e., not courts) require a period of ignition interlock device use
prior to reinstating the driver license:
Arizona, Colorado,
Florida, Maryland,
Michigan, New Mexico
and Washington.
NOTE: In Florida, an offender
with a BAC of .15 or more or who had a
minor in the car at the time of violation receives an IID term of 6 months for
the first offense; 12 months for the second, and two years for the third.
If someone is convicted, will they receive a list of auto
shops that can install a device.
A list of auto shops
in Alameda County will be provided.
What are the options for a
first-time DUI offender as far as purchasing the ignition locks?
Any individual whose DUI conviction (first-time &
multiple offenders) occurs in a pilot county (Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento,
Tulare) on or after July 1, 2010, must install an IID and submit proof of IID
installation to DMV (DL 924) and pay a $45 administrative service fee.
Offenders may go to any IID installer certified by DMV, even one outside the
county of conviction. The pilot requires manufacturers to offer offenders
reduced-price IID installation based on federal poverty level guidelines.
The pilot also specifies that offenders who do not own or have access to a
vehicle may qualify for an exemption from the IID installation by submitting
the Exemption for Ignition Interlock Device (DL 4055B) form within 30
days of DMV's notification of IID installation. First-time DUI offenders
can opt to wait until the APS/DUI suspensions end and all reinstatement
requirements met and then provide DL 924 and pay $45 fee for IID restriction or
they can opt to obtain restrictions that allow them to drive to/from work and
to/from program in conjunction with their IID restriction (provided all requirements
are met, including DL 924 and $45 fee).
Is the state investing in this pilot program? If so, how much and where is that money
coming from?
Funds are being provided by a $345,000 grant from the
state's Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. These are federal dollars.
Although the legislation also requires a follow-up
evaluation of the effectiveness of the IID in reducing DUI recidivism, which
will be done by DMV's R&D Unit, no funds are being provided for that
purpose. The OTS funds will be used to
cover costs related to the development of programming, regulations, and related
procedures.
What was the law that went into effect in July 2009 that
directed the DMV to send out letters to those convicted of DUI?
SB 1388 (2008). It requires DMV to immediately impose an IID
restriction to the driving privilege of a person convicted of driving while
suspended or revoked for a DUI conviction(s) (§§ 14601.2, 14601.4, or
14601.5). The department is required to notify the person of the
requirement to install the IID upon receipt of the court abstract for a
conviction of (§§ 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5).
How will the process work as far as payments, will users pay
directly to the company for the installation and each time they have to be
calibrated?
Users will pay costs
directly to the IID installers for installing the devices and having them
calibrated by the installers every 60 days or fewer.
Will they need to bring them in for calibration?
Yes, the users will
need to bring the vehicles to the installers for each calibration, install, or
removal.
What happens if the user doesn't get it calibrated on time?
If the user does not
return the vehicle for a scheduled calibration appointment, the installer
contacts the user to reschedule the appointment as soon as possible. After a
third missed appointment, the installer will complete and send to DMV a Notice
of Non Compliance Ignition Interlock.
Who will be checking that calibrations are done on a timely
basis?
Initially the
installers and then DMV, as described above.
What is the penalty for not getting them done?
Upon receipt of a
notice of non-compliance from the IID installer, DMV will pause the IID
restriction period on the user's driver record (i.e., stop counting days of
compliance) and send a notice to the user advising that person that he/she is
not in compliance and the IID restriction has been paused until further action
is taken to get back into compliance.
The restriction
countdown is paused on the driver's record and he/she will need to return to
compliance before the restriction period countdown will begin again.
|
People v. Hunger
| |
On June 16, 2010, a court furlough day, about twenty members
of the District Attorney's Office spent their lunch break to take part in the
first annual "People v. Hunger" Volunteer Day at the Alameda County
Community Food Bank. The Food Bank is the principal source of free food
distribution in the County and supplies food to over  250,000 County residents
each year -- about 1 in 6 people. Through a network of 275 member agencies -
food pantries, soup kitchens, child-care centers, senior centers, after-school
programs and other community-based organizations - the Food Bank distributes
enough food for 300,000 meals weekly. The Food Bank's facilities are located on
Edgewater Drive
in Oakland and
include an enormous warehouse where food is stored, sorted and prepared for
delivery each day.
DA volunteers were given the task of sorting through large
bins of stone fruit to remove the spoiled or over-ripe pieces. Executive Director, Suzan Bateson, remarked:
"We owe your group a huge thank you! We're honored and thankful that you
did the deep dive into the nectarines. They are about $3-4 a pound, and most
low-income areas don't even have supermarkets so they are a tremendous gift to
the people we serve. Thank you so much for your hearts and your hands!"
|
H.E.A.T. Watch Program Wins National Award
| |
 The National Association of Counties awarded the Alameda County DA's
H.E.A.T. Watch (Human Exploitation and Trafficking) Program its 2010
Achievement Award. The annual
Achievement Award Program, begun in 1970, is an awards program that
recognizes innovative county government programs.
Learn more about the H.E.A.T. Watch program on the District Attorney's Website.
|
|
|
|
Deputy District
Attorney Mark Jackson Appointed to The State Bar Executive Committee
|  Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley and the Alameda County
District Attorney's office are pleased to announce that Deputy District
Attorney Mark Jackson has been appointed to The State Bar's Criminal Law
Section's Executive Committee. The California State Bar Board of
Directors named Mr. Jackson to this three year position on June 1, 2010.
|
Deputy District Attorney Publishes Law Review Article
| |
Deputy DA David G. Lim has authored a law review article
published in the May/June, 2010 issue of Clearing House Review; Journal of
Poverty Law and Policy. Mr. Lim's
article, "Local Prosecutions of Real-Estate Fraud as a Means to Achieving Social and Economic Justice for Low-Income Victims and Communities: A Case Study", offers valuable information and insights into the legal and social
issues surrounding the current real estate fraud crisis in low-income
neighborhoods.
|
|
Verdicts |
June 2010
Felony Verdicts
-
On June 30, 2010 a
jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the trial Defendant Mark
Thibodeaux. He was convicted of a
violation of Penal Code Section 288.5, continuous
sexual abuse of a minor under the age of 14.
The sexual assaults occurred in Fremont
over several years in the late 1990's while the defendant was the live-in
boyfriend of the victim's mother. The
Prosecutor was DDA Stacie Pettigrew.
-
On June 23, 2010, a jury convicted defendant Douglas Jerome
Stevenson of four felony counts of spousal battery, three counts of assault
with a deadly weapon, and one count of assault with force likely to produce
great bodily injury. Stevenson assaulted
his wife by using an extension cord and steel toed boots to whip and kick
the victim, Lisa Evins, over a series of
dates in 2009 and 2010 in their Oakland
home. The Prosecutor was DDA Sharon
Carney.
On June 11, 2010, a jury convicted James Handlin of driving
under the influence and found true the allegation that he refused to take a
chemical test. On January 10, 2009, the defendant was pulled over at 4:30 a.m.
for cutting across three lanes of traffic to make an illegal right-hand turn
from the far left lane. Upon being stopped, the defendant smelled like an
alcoholic beverage and displayed several physical signs of intoxication. He was
then administered a series of field sobriety tests, performed poorly and was
placed under arrest. The officer told him that he was required to take a
chemical test. The defendant became combative with the officer at this point,
refusing to take a test. The Prosecutor was DDA Scott Ford.
On June 17, 2010, Krista Willis, was convicted of a felony,
Failure to Maintain a Dangerous Animal, Penal Code Section 399(b) stemming from
an incident on September 4, 2007 in which her pit bull attacked long-time
Denny's restaurant worker, Trinidad Delgadillo, who was emptying the trash in
Hayward. His injuries were so serious, he required surgery. One hour before
the Denny's incident, the same dog mauled Willis's next-door neighbor in Fremont causing serious
bodily injury. Willis was not home during the attack on the next-door neighbor,
however, her boyfriend, Charles Shelby, who was at home, gave the dog to a
friend who delivered it to Willis. Four months before these two maulings, the dog
had bitten another neighbor which caused the dog to be classified as a
Potentially Dangerous Animal by the City of Fremont. The prosecution presented evidence
that after each of the attacks in September 2007, the defendant tried to
conceal the dog. Willis's boyfriend, Charles Shelby, was also charged with the
offense based on the mauling of the next-door neighbor. A hearing to schedule Shelby's trial is set for
July 14, 2010. The Prosecutor was Karen Bovarnick.
A jury convicted three co-defendants of multiple felonies on
June 10, 2010. The jury found defendant Joseph Harrison guilty of an assault
with a firearm and personal and intentional discharge of a firearm on Oakland
Police Officer Patterson and guilty of willful, deliberate and premeditated
attempted murder of the witness to the assault on Officer Patterson. They also
found Harrison guilty of possessing cocaine
base for sale. The shooting at Officer Patterson took place in Oakland on August 27, 2009, and the subsequent
crimes in the days following.
Co-defendant
Marcus Moore was found guilty of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted
murder of the witness to the assault on Officer Patterson. The jury also found
true that Marcus Moore personally and intentionally discharged a firearm
causing great bodily injury to the witness. Lastly, the jury found Marcus Moore
guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The jury found
co-defendant Lonnel Moore guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a
firearm.
The jury was
deadlocked 10-2 for guilt on the counts charging Freeman Griffin with willful,
deliberate and premeditated attempted murder of the witness to the assault of
Officer Patterson, personal and intentional discharge of a firearm causing
great bodily injury to the witness and being a felon in possession of firearm. The Prosecutor was DDA Colleen McMahon.
On June 9, 2010, defendants Sheridan Smith and Willie
Williams were convicted of first degree murder and a robbery special
circumstance in the May 28, 2005, stabbing death of 39-year-old Vincent Simien.
Smith was also convicted of forcible rape of the victim's girlfriend, who
witnessed the murder. According to evidence presented at trial, the defendants
walked to a homeless encampment in West Oakland,
woke up a group of four people, and began harassing them. The taunting began by
the duo robbing one man of $10 and accelerated it into a physical assault that
culminated in Smith stabbing Simien in the chest with a cane sword -- a long,
wooden weapon with the outward appearance of a walking cane, but with a hidden
16-inch sword blade. Smith then summoned Simien's girlfriend over to him. Smith
took the woman to an unoccupied side of the homeless encampment, where he
forcibly raped her. Both defendants face sentences of life without the
possibility of parole at the August 27th sentencing. DDA Melissa Krum
prosecuted the case.
On June 3, 2010, a jury convicted Allen Thomas of first
degree murder and arson of an inhabited dwelling house. The jury also found to
be true the special circumstances of robbery, burglary, and rape by instrument.
Allen Thomas stabbed and beat his 89-year old great-aunt, Amanda Pierre, to
death in her home on September 14, 2007. He then set her house on fire as he
fled the murder scene. At the time of the crimes, Ms. Pierre had an active
restraining order against defendant based upon an earlier violent incident. The
Prosecutor was DDA Annie Saadi.
Misdemeanor Verdicts
On June 21, 2010, a jury found Victor Pavlov guilty of
driving under the influence of alcohol and found true the allegation that he
had an excessive blood alcohol level. On November 12, 2009, the defendant, who
was intoxicated, drove his car into a parked car in Berkeley. Police found him in the driver's
seat at the accident scene. A test revealed his blood alcohol level to be
.16/.18. The prosecutor was certified District Attorney Law Clerk Mary Kate
Sullivan.
On June 15, 2010, a jury convicted Brittany Baker of driving
under the influence and found true an excessive blood alcohol clause. On
December 5, 2009, at 2 a.m., Baker left a bar and tried to drive onto the 880
in Oakland. She
could not navigate the on-ramp and crashed her car into the metering light. The
Prosecutor was certified DA law clerk Keydon Levy.
On June 15, 2010, a jury convicted defendant Alvaro Escamilla
of driving under the influence, driving with a blood alcohol level greater than
.08, hit-and-run and driving on a revoked or suspended drivers license. The
trial facts revealed that at 12:14 am on October 2, 2008, after drinking
tequila at two bars with his buddy, the defendant caused a three-car collision
on Interstate 880N at Winton in Hayward.
Immediately after the accident, defendant got out of the car and fled on foot,
choosing to ignore the other cars and passersby who had stopped to help. The
citizens asked him not to leave but he ignored them by jumping over a wall and
fleeing. His description was given to CHP officers who arrived and located the
defendant sitting at a nearby bus stop. Though Escamilla claimed he was just
waiting for the bus and had not been in a collision, he was identified by the
citizens as the driver. Escamilla's blood alcohol level was .19%, over twice
the legal limit. The Prosecutor was DDA Warren Ko.
On June 10, 2010, a jury found defendant Rashad Robinson
guilty of Penal Code Section 422, criminal threats, a misdemeanor. On April 15,
2010, the defendant, a parolee, entered a convenience store on 65th Ave. &
International Blvd. in Oakland
talking on his cell phone. The defendant sat down in the store, did not attempt
to buy anything and was asked to leave multiple times by the cashier. After ten
minutes of refusing to leave, the cashier came from behind the counter to ask
the defendant to leave. Robinson took a fighting stance and then pointed a
"finger gun" at the victim and said, "I will shoot you in the
face" and words to that effect multiple times. The victim called the
police, defendant left and was arrested outside the store. The Prosecutor was
DDA Eric Swalwell.
|
|
"I
was arrested for DUI before July 1, 2010 but won't be
convicted until after July 1. Will I
still be required to install the IID?"
| |
Yes, you will. The
requirement applies to all drivers
convicted on or after July 1, 2010. |
Do you have a question for the District Attorney's Office?
|
The District Attorney's Office receives many calls and
e-mails from the public asking a wide variety of questions. Each month, we will print one of these
questions along with the answer. We hope
that many readers will find the information useful.
Please feel free to e-mail a question of your own that you
would like to see answered here. |
We hope you found this newsletter informative. Please visit our web site at alcoda.org
for updated news items as well as more detailed information regarding the
District Attorney's Office.
|
|
Nancy E. O'Malley
Alameda County District Attorney
|
|
|
|
|
