I have had the pleasure of getting to know the victim in this case, Mikey Partida, and his family. Everyone responds differently when the unexpected strikes and, for the Partida family, they decided to get involved in community activism to ensure that this never happens to another person.
I greatly respect Gloria Partida, the mother of Mikey Partida, and her commitment to her family and her community. I understand why they wanted to put this behind them, I understand that getting the hate crime enhancement was vitally important to them, and I understand when they say that they are at peace.
But while I can personally respect their decision and the thought process that went into it, a hate crime is an enhancement because a hate crime does not just impact the individual, it impacts an entire community. Following the attack on Mikey last spring, it was a community of hundreds that came to the park to show support and horror that this happened in our community.
The District Attorney’s office represents not just the Partida family but THE PEOPLE. They represent this whole community.
Clayton Garzon copped to a plea on Tuesday morning. He pled to battery causing serious bodily injury and the hate crime enhancement. That is pretty reasonable, given that appears to be what he did.
But at the end of the day, while he is sentenced to five years of local time (and I thought local time was reserved for non-violent, non-dangerous offenders), he will be released in 2.5 years (50 percent time), assuming good behavior.
His supervision will end there. On the top of that, his Solano County charges were dropped as part of this deal.
Supervisor Matt Rexroad, who rarely agrees with me on such matters, tweeted, “Sounds light.” When he learned of the dropped Solano charges he added, “Then that is certainly light.”
Perhaps you are thinking that I am normally pro-defense, so why is this case different? I like to think I am in favor of equal justice across the board, and the punishment fitting the crime.
This troubles me in both respects.
In November of 2010, in West Sacramento four people got into a taxi after a night of drinking. Somewhere along the way one of the men got into a verbal altercation with the cab driver over the fees, and eventually that man severely beat the cab driver, a Sikh, while yelling anti-Muslim slurs.
That man ultimately pled to a felony assault and a hate crime. He got 13.5 years.
In this county, we saw a man who stole a $3.99 package of shredded cheese get seven years and eight months. We have seen people who bounced checks get eight years. We saw people who stole $20 worth of Chinese food from Nugget Market get nearly 10 years.
This is not equal justice. There is something very wrong with the disparate punishment offered in our system where people who commit relatively minor crimes can end up with far longer sentences than much more dangerous people. And I do not really care how many different minor crimes occurred, the bottom line is that someone who attacks and beats someone is more dangerous than the petty thief.
In the Michael Artz case, prior to the convictions being thrown out, Mr. Artz was under supervision for far longer than Mr. Garzon will be, and he was required to take part in numerous counseling and other services as conditions of his probation.
From what we can tell, Clayton Garzon will not have to attend AA, even though he has acknowledged a drinking problem and violent tendencies stemming from his drinking. He will not have to attend anger management.
So, basically, the man who comes out of local custody after two and a half years will have a minimal level of court-mandated treatment – just whatever services are currently available in local custody.
He will come out having been hardened in custody and without having dealt with the core issues. This is a violent person who beat Mr. Partida nearly to death. He is a dangerous person, and nothing will change that in the next two and a half years.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven may well have served the needs of the Partida family, but he has an obligation to protect the community. The man who emerges from custody after two and a half years will likely still be just as dangerous as the man who went in – if not more so.
I do not know if a restorative justice process would work in this case. In order for it to work, even post-sentencing, both sides would have to agree to participate.
Mr. Garzon would have to acknowledge the harm that he has done – something that did not occur when he pled no contest to either the battery charge or the hate crime enhancement.
The court may treat such a plea as though it were a guilty plea, but it is not an acknowledgement of guilt or even a taking responsibility for one’s actions.
A restorative process would not only recognize the harm done, but would compel the perpetrator to take actions to remedy his violation of the community covenant.
This is not a way to avoid a sentence and this is far more difficult than simply serving your time and being released.
The DA’s office – and I give them a lot of credit here – has moved in the direction of restorative justice by implementing the Neighborhood Court program. At the same time, simply practicing business as usual in other cases is increasingly troubling.
California has a 70 percent recidivism rate and part of that, I believe, is due to the fact that, while people may go to custody, while they are there they are simply being trained and prepared to be better criminals – they may do the time, but the core issues remain.
So I am troubled that we are simply putting a young man into custody and, truth be told, if we would give him the help he needs, then perhaps I could live with a sentence that seems short by comparison to other similar crimes – even in cases where there were plea agreements.
I spoke to many in this community and many believe that the resources that Mr. Garzon and his family had available, and their ability along with Linda Parisi’s to drag this out and make the proceedings extremely difficult, played a huge role in the plea agreement and the lenient sentence.
For me the problem is the clear inequity of the length of conviction in similar cases, and the fact that Mr. Garzon had no less than two violent crimes in a short period of time – one of which has now been dropped – and that there is no provision to give him help and ensure that he does not do this again in the future.
I tweeted following the plea, “The man who beat the West Sac Cab Driver got 13.5 years. 7 years 8 mos for stealing cheese. 2.5 for nearly beating a man to death.” I then added, “This is not justice.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks for mentioning the cheese case and the myriad of others where Resisg, creates an illusionary tough on crime stance hand-in-hand with our well qualified judges on the bench. This case exposed the DA and the Yolo court for what they really are, and where the law and our community values ly.
The hate crime statue has little value in Yolo county, at least when you have the connections that the Garzon’s have. Now, if the wimpish, Judge Rosenberg, has his clock wiped out by Garzon, instead of Mikey, under the identical facts, he would be put away for ever. How much will they be donating to Reisig’s next election campaign chest or Rosenbergs?
Who benefits here?
Isn’t any sentence over 3 years automatic prison time under realignment? How come this very violent person is being treated with kid gloves? Sickening that Solano dropped the stabbing charges, would love to have heard the behind the doors deal making. The court & DA did everything in their power to serve the Garzon’s: all bought & paid for.
Back to the latent homosexual drunkard coward, Clayton Garzon, who cried like a baby whimpering for Daddy to come save him, while his Dad opened his wallet (again), needs to meet a strong healthy homosexual for a couple of behind the bars lessons. This we can also call realignment.
[quote]So I am troubled that we are simply putting a young man into custody and truth be told, if we would give him the help he needs, then perhaps I could live with a sentence that seems short by comparison to other similar crimes – even in cases where there were plea agreements.[/quote]
[quote]For me the problem is the clear inequity of the length of conviction in similar cases, the fact that Mr. Garzon had no less than two violence crimes in a short period of time, one of which has now been dropped, and that there is no provision to give him help and insure that he does not do this again in the future.[/quote]
For me, these two quotes neatly sum up the heart of the issue. Although we seem to be moving in the right direction with restorative justice for appropriate cases, we still seem to be entrapped by our traditional belief that incarceration “teaches a lesson” other than how to be a more effective criminal. We seem to be unduly wedded to our desire for punishment and revenge which we repackage under the name of justice even though this approach has been amply demonstrated to be ineffective ( recidivism rate of 70%).
If what we are after is reducing the amount of crime and improving public safety, then perhaps we should take the suggestion that Frankly puts forward frequently to “address the root causes”. I think that we can probably agree that the majority of people who commit and are convicted of crimes have not mastered some essential life skill whether that skill is anger management, or living free of addiction, or impulse control, or living successfully with some form of mental disability, or just successfully negotiating the economics of living in a society based on individual competition.
While there are doubtless some individuals who are so damaged that they would always be a danger at large in the general population and will always require some form of confinement, I believe that the majority of individuals have the ability to be successfully reintegrated into our society. I believe that this would be most successful if we were to focus on what skills are lacking that led to the problem, and to help the individual develop those specific skills. I think this is particularly applicable to youth offenders whose brains are still in a relative state of plasticity that would make them the optimal candidates for intervention.
“I spoke to many in this community and many believe that the resources that Mr. Garzon and his family had available, and their ability along with Linda Parisi’s to drag this out and make the proceedings extremely difficult played a huge role in the plea agreement and the lenient sentence.”
Can you elaborate on the latter?
[i]Thanks for mentioning the cheese case and the myriad of others where Reisig, creates an illusionary tough on crime stance hand-in-hand with our well qualified judges on the bench.[/i]
I understand that the DA, Mr. Reisig, is quite involved in the development of a RJ system in the city and county. I know someone that is going through the training and says he is there every meeting.
The opinion of my acquaintance is that Mr. Reisig is heavily invested in the concept as a better way to deal with minor offenses that the regular criminal justice system is ill-equipped to handle. My sense is that this particular case was not considered a minor offense.
Regardless, I think people should show some restraint and maybe do a little homework before attacking the character of the DA. Like many people employed in our justice system, his responsibility is to uphold the law. If you have a problem with the laws as written, attack your representative politicians (i.e., lawmakers) for putting crappy laws on the books and not doing enough to fix those not working well enough.
The bottom line is that the DA is working to keep you safe even as you poke at him and try to trash his reputation.
Frankly:
There are public documents that if the Yolo grand jury were ever to investigate and function within its civil/penal powers, after it tires of being the hand-maiden to the DA, will show Yolo’s Little-Big-Man, Jeffrey Resisg, operates the DA’s office like a criminal enterprise.
Resisg, is as dirty, backstabbing and unethical as they come. Hendersen has been schooled.
So he attends meetings, it’s all a public show. Look at what happened to Randy Skaggs and that federal case. Investigate CPO Don Meyers in Sac. Makes the Broderick Boys look like Disneyland.
The things that really bother me are:
-The discrepancies in sentencing for the infractions, the theft ones seem too severe to me.
-The fact that Garzon can come within an inch of killing someone (almost commit murder and it may be pure luck he did not) and not have supervision after a short sentence. It’s the lack of supervision that bothers me more because I think he needs it.
I am hoping Garzon’s family is going to provide that supervision because I think they see how close they are to “losing him”. I do not know them at all but I would guess they want more for him than simply keeping him out of prison.
It also looks like (from the Enterprise story) compensation for expenses and lost work time are being calculated for Mikey. I hope that is done diligently, the Partida’s have certainly taken the high and constructive road on this.
“Can you elaborate on the latter?”
Basically they could drag things out for a long time, throw a ton of resources at it, etc.
This outcome is especially interesting because many of Linda Parisi’s defendants do not get a good outcome at all, they’re convicted and receive lengthy prison sentences.
I think there’s more to this plea and this case than we know.
[quote]For me the problem is the clear inequity of the length of conviction in similar cases, the fact that Mr. Garzon had no less than two violence crimes in a short period of time, one of which has now been dropped, and that there is no provision to give him help and insure that he does not do this again in the future.[/quote]
I’m sorry you continue to have trouble grasping some of these issues:
1. One conviction, sorry you got that wrong too (again).
2. Cheese case is NOT “similar” this the instant case!
Still pretending to “Think like a lawyer” huh?
Yeah right!
dlemongello
09/18/13 – 10:15 AM
[quote] The things that really bother me are:
-The discrepancies in sentencing for the infractions, the theft ones seem too severe to me.[/quote]
“Infractions?”
How so?
“I spoke to many in this community and many believe that the resources that Mr. Garzon and his family had available, and their ability along with Linda Parisi’s to drag this out and make the proceedings extremely difficult played a huge role in the plea agreement and the lenient sentence.”
To whom have you been speaking? Obviously highly opinionated people who have not followed cases and have more bias than knowledge about and appreciation for our system.
An attorney’s ability to “drag this out” and to “make the proceedings extremely difficult” is not dependent on how much they’re getting paid. What an insult to the profession (including public defenders who are as talented and dedicated as Ms. Parisi) and to Ms. Parisi!
—
Have we really gotten to the point where “latent homosexual drunkard coward,” “wimpish” and “dirty, backstabbing and unethical as they come” are perfectly acceptable if the personal attacks are directed at District Attorney Reisig or others for whom the Vanguard has expressed dislike? Fired up and ready to go!
Jake Wallace is a very disgruntled vendor of a juvenile group in another county who lost income when that County (Probation Chief Don Meyer) decided to not place juvenile offenders in his privately run juvenile detention home. His comments posted here probably give an indication as to why. Jake brought his allegations against Don Meyer to Yolo County when Don was hired here and then accused local officials of collusion and filed a lawsuit in Yolo County when they didn’t respond in the way he wanted and continues to haunt local blogs with his hateful postings.
Ref: http://kidjacked.com/judges/blue_mountain/wilderness_program.asp
Good sleuthing Ryan!
It just goes to prove that those with the strongest criticisms often have some financial interests involved.
“Perhaps you are thinking that I am normally pro-defense, so why is this case different?…For me the problem is the clear inequity of the length of conviction in similar cases, and the fact that Mr. Garzon had no less than two violent crimes in a short period of time – one of which has now been dropped – and that there is no provision to give him help and ensure that he does not do this again in the future.”
“From what we can tell, Clayton Garzon will not have to attend AA, even though he has acknowledged a drinking problem and violent tendencies stemming from his drinking. He will not have to attend anger management.”
“(Clayton Garzon) will come out having been hardened in custody and without having dealt with the core issues. This is a violent person…a dangerous person, and nothing will change that in the next two and a half years.”
You are correct–there’s no doubt that you haven’t been “pro-defense” in this case from the beginning, so your your reaction to this plea agreement hardly is surprising (although you’re also normally pro-plea-deal).
Comparing crimes, criminals and cases is easy and difficult. Habitual, “three strikes,” criminals and enhancement cases provide almost no worthwhile comparative value. They are, by law, in a special category. Who suggests that first offenders deserve such severe sentences?
Are you positive that a five-year sentence to the Yolo County jail doesn’t include provisions to provide “professional help” to help “ensure that he does not do this again”? How do you know that he will not be getting AA or anger management treatment? Also, did you find out whether you’re correct that the county facility is “reserved for non-violent, non-dangerous offenders”?
I’m troubled by your insistence that you have such psychology training and fortune-telling abilities to know that “nothing will change in the next two and one half years.” What are proposing as an appropriate alternative to the five-year sentence? More years during which nothing will change?
When you argue that, “Mr. Garzon had no less than two violent crimes,” are you including the dropped Solano County charge for which he hasn’t been tried?
to AdRemmer
I am referring to:
– a man who stole a $3.99 package of shredded cheese get seven years and eight months.
– people who bounced checks get eight years.
– people who stole $20 worth of Chinese food from Nugget Market get nearly 10 years.
These seem like long jail sentences for what they are stated here to be. While Garzon almost killed Mikey and he gets 5 years and another violent charge dropped. And the beating comparison of the cab driver, 13.5 years.
David, any understanding about why there would be no period of supervised parole as part of this deal? When you note that he’ll be out in two and one-half years, does that depend on good behavior and exclude any parole?
“…depend on good behavior AS WELL AS exclude any parole?”
David, what would be the appropriate time for Garzon to spend in prison?
“David, what would be the appropriate time for Garzon to spend in prison? “
I intentionally avoided that question in my piece. I laid out a few scenarios that would be acceptable to me without listing a year amount. I also put the sentence into perspective of what other people got.
“David, any understanding about why there would be no period of supervised parole as part of this deal? “
It’s part of the AB 109 reform.
“Straight time means offenders serve the complete sentence and once they’re released, they go unsupervised.
Split time means offenders spend part of their sentence behind bars and the other part under probation supervision. Straight time was supposed to be the more severe of the two sentencing options, but with overcrowding in the jails, offenders who choose straight time are often released early and end up unsupervised…”
[quote]“I greatly respect Gloria Partida, the mother of Mikey Partida, and her commitment to her family and her community…and I understand when they say that they are at peace.”[/quote]A very commendable view, albeit hard to understand, and one that might bode well for some restorative justice down the road.
“`[quote]“The District Attorney’s office represents not just the Partida family but THE PEOPLE. They represent this whole community.”
[/quote]This is DA’s responsibility in every case of plea bargaining. There’s no evidence offered that the people aren’t well served by this agreement, just emotional opinion.
The cost of prosecution, issues with the prosecution case, restitution for the victim, etc.–all have gone into this decision (not just what’s on the surface and available to the rest of us).
Just because we think the defendant should have gone to prison and for a longer time isn’t adequate to prove that the the agreement wasn’t in the public interest and doesn’t serve justice.
Just a question: How would we feel if Garzon had been found not guilty by a jury? You know how these judges and juries and defense attorneys are. You know how incompetent the prosecutors are. We’ve all known, of course, from Day One that he was guilty as hell and deserved the most severe punishment. But, what if….
“Are you positive that a five-year sentence to the Yolo County jail doesn’t include provisions to provide “professional help” to help “ensure that he does not do this again”?”
Yes, that would be attached to terms of probation.
” How do you know that he will not be getting AA or anger management treatment?”
He could, but he would have to do it on his own.
“Also, did you find out whether you’re correct that the county facility is “reserved for non-violent, non-dangerous offenders”?”
I was wrong. The transfers are reserved for that category, the new offenders are not.
“The cost of prosecution, issues with the prosecution case, restitution for the victim, etc.–all have gone into this decision (not just what’s on the surface and available to the rest of us).”
Okay.
“Just because we think the defendant should have gone to prison and for a longer time isn’t adequate to prove that the the agreement wasn’t in the public interest and doesn’t serve justice.”
I laid out several scenarios that did not involve longer time that would have been acceptable to me. My problem was if he served 2.5 years, no supervision, no treatment, is he better off than he is now?
“Just a question: How would we feel if Garzon had been found not guilty by a jury? You know how these judges and juries and defense attorneys are. You know how incompetent the prosecutors are. We’ve all known, of course, from Day One that he was guilty as hell and deserved the most severe punishment. But, what if….”
If they couldn’t probe the case, then he shouldn’t be in prison at all.
“If they couldn’t prove the case, then he shouldn’t be in prison at all.”
Agree, but I think you’re intentionally missing my point. You know it’s a matter of risk management on both sides. Sometimes the guilty don’t get found guilty even if the case seems really strong. Second guessing’s fine, but we’ve got to give priority and some level of respect to those responsible for prosecuting the case to weigh all factors.
I’m still confused about whether mental health services, skills training and addiction programs are available to Yolo County prisoners. You suggest that these things are absent in our system, and that prisoners would somehow have to get such support on their own. If that’s the state of incarceration care in our county, I share your concern that prisoners could go through the system without improving their potential for the future. If true, it’s really shortsighted.
Would you also clarify what happens when a prisoner is released after good behavior for half of his sentence. No supervision can be imposed? Combining that with the aforementioned lack of in-jail services would seem to assure high recidivism rates. I don’t think it guarantees that people like Garzon will be the same messed up bad actors when they get out, but it certainly reflects missed opportunities.
[quote]“David, any understanding about why there would be no period of supervised parole as part of this deal? ”
It’s part of the AB 109 reform. [/quote]
One of the many unintended consequences of AB 109.
JustSaying: there are some services, but this guy, based on what has come forward in the public record, needs real help and I am very concerned he will not get it.
There is no supervision at all under a straight sentence, as Mr. Obvious pointed out, it is one of the unintended consequences of AB 109.
“I don’t think it guarantees that people like Garzon will be the same messed up bad actors when they get out, but it certainly reflects missed opportunities. “
We agree.
Hello Ryan Kelly,
The facts of that case have been muddled as no grand jury or police agency (Calaveras & Yolo) would investigate. Then Calaveras probation chief, Don Meyer, wrote that an independent (outside that county) investigation on the alleged illegal arrest of a Honduran national foster youth, would take place. Because the allegations also included the Chief’s threats and other alleged subversive acts.
Two counties, Tuolumne & Sacramento, stated in writing they would conduct an investigation but then drop the matter. Chief Meyer, asked his former employer of 25 years (Sac co) to investigate him and we cried foul–after leaving that agency 14 months earlier!
In the meantime, Chief Don Meyer, is in the process of being appointed-promoted to Yolo. Yolo is notified by our facility that Meyer’ transfers could muddle the investigation. After some time, Chief Meyer, coerced a subordinate in Calaveras, DPO lll Hall (Teri Hall,is now the Calaveras chief) to fabricate the investigation. Chief, Teri Hall, conducts no “real” investigation and buried the facts in a one page response.
We all know that subordinates in police organizations cannot investigate superiors especially over a civil rights issue. We have a plethora of public records in both county courts, DA, BOS, grand jury.
Yolo judge, Donna Petre, then appoints Chief Meyer with the BOS (who also knew the facts) next, Calaveras & Yolo (BOS & Judges) blame the other on why that investigation was mishandled. Both grand juries refuse to investigate the court appointee-Chief Meyer.
Later in the court’s role with the grand jury, judge Donna Petre, resurfaces and wrote that the Yolo GJ would not investigate because the issues originated in Calaveras. Judge Petre, also knew that the court’s appointment helped bury the allegations.
DA Hendersen and then Reisig, are asked to investigate and they never did just like their colleagues in Calaveras.
Earlier on, Chief Meyer, threatened that if our org pursued the matter we would never get another probation placement.He acted on that threat and our placements vanished. We then switched to placing social services, which was successful.
You misrepresent the financial issues.
Mr Kelly, if you think is is appropriate for a probation chief, district attorney and the courts to act this way, then I am in total disagreement with you. The DA should have protected the public interest (foster youth & state licensed group home) and the grand jury should operate under the statues and constitution.
As a result, Sacramento & Calveras county NOW have probation chiefs (Don Meyer & Teri Hall) who likely violated state & federal laws, while at the same time the probation dept plays a serious role in sentencing recommendations, incarceration and probation issues, ect.
Sacramento & Stockton FBI, after several contacts, stated that the issues were “very disturbing”, which is meaningless. Then attorney general, Jerry Brown and his “wife”, Anne Gust, number 2 at the AG’s office instructed a subordinate to “sit-on” a false claims act case filed with the AG’s office. The AG subordinate was very forthcoming.
So, yah, the system is rotten from the inside out and the Garzon case is another example of the stench emanating from Yolo.
Frankly
[quote]Like many people employed in our justice system, his responsibility is to uphold the law. If you have a problem with the laws as written, attack your representative politicians (i.e., lawmakers) for putting crappy laws on the books and not doing enough to fix those not working well enough. [/quote]
With the exception of vitriolic and personal statements such as those of Mr.Wallace, I think the typical Vanguard criticisms of the DA are with regard to his actions, not his character. While it is true that the laws are made by the politicians, it is also true that the DA has room for interpretation within the framework of the laws. I believe that for the most part, David has been clear when what he is objecting to is the law itself vs the selective charges made by the DAs office. In my opinion, both should be open to criticism as well as to praise when something ( such as restorative justice) seems to be moving in a positive direction.
Medwomen:
Those are some mighty fine hairs you are splitting, If I understand you, character has no connection to one’s actions or attacking job performance does not involve character? The voter’s of Yolo never vetted his character? Resisg never said in the campaign “that you can trust me” or ” that I am of sound character” or similar?.
That’s a humdinger.
Wrong, it has been Reisig’s actions that we have targeted, that oath of office, the obstruction of justice. In that morass lys his character connected to his ethics-all interrelated. If Resig wants to protect public officials he should resign and apply for a job with the county council.
In the meantime, the DA’s office is to investigate and prosecute criminal acts in the county, regardless of who may be involved. Yolo does not do this, there are two rule books, one for the Garzon family, the others exemplified in this editorial.
Resig cannot/will not perform the job description. The DA has hobbled the grand jury to protect himself.
We have gone to the legislative branch numerous times. for example, Karen Bass’, Select Committee on Foster Care; Bass refused to hear us out. Social worker & Assemblymember, Mariko Yamada, who appointed Meyer from Calaveras as a BOS in Yolo. With Yamada later on the legislative ethics committee, we filed complaints over possible unethical behavior, that if investigated may have interrupted Yamada political ambitions. The committee refused us and Yamada called the CHP to intimidate us. In the end, the legislative staff said, look, we pass laws we do not enforce them.
It does not sound like you have been in the hopper much, throw that script away and start thinking for yourself, better yet, get out there and try the system out yourself.