Does 27 Years for a 373 Dollar Robbery Serve the Interest of Justice?

Mr. Dupree was convicted back in October of second degree burglary.  He had two prior serious felonies as well, which contributed to the length of the term.

He approached a teller and told her, “I’m not trying to ruin your day, but this a bank robbery.”

Mr. Dupree asked for the manager and when the bank manager approached, Mr. Dupree again indicated that this was a bank robbery and he needed money.  Mr. Dupree was handed $373 in bank funds and left the bank, and was apprehended a short distance away by Woodland Police Officers.

Mr. Dupree was represented by Deputy Public Defender Teal Dixon.  While Ms. Dixon declined to comment to the Vanguard, the Vanguard was directed toward numerous court filings which clarified a number of factors in the case.

Mr. Dupree would testify that “he was in the throes of a lengthy drinking binge” on the day of the robbery.  He said that he had little memory of that day, but “knows that he went to the unemployment office and had several beers that morning.”

According to witnesses at North Valley Bank in Woodland, “Shortly before l0:00 AM Mr. Dupree entered the bank, asked for the manager and requested money, calmly telling the bank manager ‘Believe it or not, this is a bank robbery.’ ” He was calm throughout the encounter, was handed $373.00, and left the bank. He made no threats, did not claim to have a weapon, and did not have physical contact with any bank employees.

The filing continues, “Within sight of the bank employees within, he waited for the light to change, and crossed at the crosswalk. He then turned to walk up the block and was apprehended by police before reaching the corner. He was cooperative with officers and gave a statement implicating himself.”

The Vanguard has also learned from a prospective juror about the questioning process for jury selection.  Apparently, the DA booted an individual who refused to agree that one did not need a weapon to commit robbery or burglary. 

According to the filings by Ms. Dixon, Mr. Dupree is 64 years of age and has been a binge drinker “who goes through periods of sobriety but who, when he drinks, will drink steadily for long periods of time.”

He has also had periods of steady employment, especially later in his life.  Prior to his arrest, Mr. Dupree had been working at La Tourangelle, a gourmet nut oil company in Woodland. He was employed there from May 3, 2006 to January 4, 2010.

According to his boss, Mr. Dupree was a good employee, but he periodically had difficulty with alcohol. He also reported that during his period of employment Mr. Dupree was emotionally devastated by news that his daughter had died of a drug overdose.

Ms. Dixon argued, “While Mr. Dupree does have a history of criminal convictions and imprisonment, it seems clear that his alcoholism contributes to his situation. It is important to note that non-violent nature of the current offense, as well as the strange behavior exhibited by Mr. Dupree, in standing in front of the bank waiting for the light to change rather than running, or even walking, away from the bank immediately following the incident.”

In moving to dismiss Mr. Dupree’s prior strike’s, Ms. Dixon pointed out, “It has been 15 years since Mr. Dupree’s last felony and strike prior, from 1996. The previous strike prior was 9 years before that. An argument can be made that the 1996 case is more serious than the instant case, not only because Mr. Dupree was convicted of a robbery in Violation of Penal Code section 211/212.5, but because Mr. Dupree initially fled the scene. However, it does not appear that any weapons or egregious force were used and no one was injured.”

She did acknowledge that in the 1987 incident there was some injury to the victim of the assault, however, she argued that incident occurred 24 years prior and was “not indicative of Mr. Dupree’s current behavior. In addition, it appears that in that case, the prime aggressor was Mr. Dupree’s wife and that his plea agreement was conditioned on some consideration in her case.”

Court psychiatrist Gregory Sokolov evaluated Mr. Dupree following his arrest and concurs that Mr. Dupree was intoxicated with alcohol at the time of the robbery.

Dr. Sokolov provides us with a full account of the crime in Mr. Dupree’s own words.

Mr. Dupree reported the following: “1 remember that morning. I was in my hotel room. I woke up and started drinking again. I ran out of alcohol, so I walked over to the 7-11 on Main Street. I remember walking back and I was carrying a heavy sack of beer, but I couldn’t carry with my left arm, because I had a sling. I got back to my hotel room, and sat around drinking, and I remember taking my pills, Vicodin and blood pressure pills.”

Mr. Dupree continued: “I then remember I was walking down Main Street, and my recollections of things around then are very blurred, I was on the tail end of two weeks of I being drunk. I stopped at the Chevron station (on West and Main) and bought another beer, I put it in my coat pocket, and then went to the cigarette store. I also stopped at the Indian Health Clinic, but they said a doctor wasn’t available, and they made me an appointment for a couple days later. I then went to the unemployment office (on Cottonwood and Beamer), and I was talking to this lady at the desk about filling out papers for unemployment.  Next thing I remember, I am at a pay phone at Walgreens, but I don’t remember who I was calling. I remember I had drunk another forty ounce of beer, and then I was heading back to my hotel room.”

Mr. Dupree continued: “At some point, pretty much all.the alcohol and the pills must have kicked in. As far as the incident [alleged bank robbery], I’ve read the reports later about it, but don’t remember it happening. I do remember walking down Main Street, and then next thing I know I was sitting on a sidewalk, and there was a woman standing next to me with a camera and she was taking pictures of me, maybe she was a reporter for the newspaper, and there was a police officer.”

Dr. Sokolov continues that Mr. Dupree reported, during his police interview, his reasoning to rob the bank as: “So when I when saw that bank, after I bummed a cigarette from somebody, as bad it sounds, it sounded like a good idea to do.”

Dr. Sokolov writes, “This explanation by Mr. Dupree for his alleged offense can be considered to be an example of ‘ impaired judgment.’ “

After our initial report, some of the posters suggested that this is “another instance where the criminal justice system is working like a well-oiled machine in Yolo County.”

The question really ought to be how much of a threat Mr. Dupree actually is to society, what the best way is to deal with that threat, and whether the 27-year sentence, given his age, the time elapsed since prior crimes and the lack of severity of this present crime, necessitates the expense involved, particularly given, presumably, the advanced age of the convicted felon.

He did not use any weapons, he was drunk and therefore had his judgment considerably impaired, and he stole a very small sum of money for which the state will now have to pay $50,000 per year for however long Mr. Dupree lives. 

It just seems there must be a better way to do this, that would be cheaper for the taxpayer and more effective for Mr. Dupree.

Is 27 years an appropriate punishment for an individual who ended up with $373, using no weapons, with priors that are 15 and 24 years old, and the only  violent offense being 24 years ago in which he was not the instigator?

Ultimately, that is a question for the voters and the lawmakers, but even under existing statutes there is considerable discretion.

As Ms. Dixon wrote, “The Court possesses the ability to dismiss or strike a ‘strike’ in ‘the interests of justice,’ ” and she calls this discretion”quite expansive.”

She argued, “The facts of this particular case would ‘motivate a reasonable judge’ to dismiss the priors in the ‘interests of justice’ while still preserving ‘the fair prosecution of crimes properly alleged.’ “

—David M. Greenwald reporting