Court ‘Mishaps’ in Sentencing Cause Confusion and Tension

By Mella Bettag

SACRAMENTO – During her sentencing hearing at the Sacramento County Superior Court, Ruby Gutierrez ended with a thank you—not because the judge reduced her sentence or was particularly kind. All he had done was stick to the court’s promise.

On May 31, 2018, Gutierrez was arrested under Penal Code section 273.5 for corporally injuring her cohabitant or spouse. Following her arrest came arraignments, criminal protective orders, warrants, intermittent jail stays, releases, and a change of plea from not guilty to no contest.

After the calling and dismissal of a separate case, in which Gutierrez was held in contempt of court, she arrived at her sentencing on June 12 after two years, and a bit more, of court hearings.

The first issue that came up during the hearing was Gutierrez’s tentative release date.

After sitting down at the counsel bench, Gutierrez turned to Assistant Public Defender Emilia Carbajal and asked what her estimate for the release date was. Carbajal responded, saying, “I calculated it… as Saturday, June 27.” This meant Gutierrez would be staying in custody for just a little more than two more weeks.

The estimated date was not confirmed by Judge Mark Cullers. According to the court’s calculations, Guttierez had 25 more days to serve, half of her original 50-day sentence. This meant she would serve 10 more days than she had expected.

The news distressed Gutierrez, who, after hearing the real release date, turned to Carbajal and said, frustrated, “You said 15 days.” This was the first of several sentencing changes that were strung on Gutierrez unexpectedly during the hearing.

Judge Cullers then laid out the terms of the sentence—the remaining 25 days of incarceration, three years of formal probation, which included limiting the defendant’s travel out of state, and cumulative fines of $1,120.

Throughout the reading, the defendant grew increasingly distraught, and muffled sobs could be heard in the courtroom. After Judge Cullers finished, Gutierrez turned back to her lawyer, telling her that the judge was wrong. Gutierrez was heard saying that “it’s not my fault,” and “it’s totally wrong.”

According to Gutierrez and defense counsel, the sentence that Gutierrez had been promised stipulated that, after the defendant had served her sentence, she would not have to go on probation. This was pertinent for the defendant; she lived in Washington, and the terms of her probation would mean she would be stuck in California for three years.

The cause of Gutierrez’s apparent sentence change? A mistake on the judge’s part.

On July 26, an order was issued that the defendant would not be put on probation if she finished her original sentence. Judge Cullers struck the parole from Gutierrez’s sentence. However, that changed at the sentencing.

And the unexpected shifts had been quite a shock for Gutierrez. But as she exited the courtroom, she repeatedly thanked Judge Cullers and ADA Carbajal.

Gutierrez’s tentative release date is July 7, 2020.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9


Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$USD
Sign up for

About The Author

The Vanguard Court Watch operates in Yolo, Sacramento and Sacramento Counties with a mission to monitor and report on court cases. Anyone interested in interning at the Courthouse or volunteering to monitor cases should contact the Vanguard at info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org - please email info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org if you find inaccuracies in this report.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for