Judge Gives Stern Ruling to No-Show DUI Man, Drops Charges for Another Accused after Violation of Due Process

Share:

By Darling Gonzalez

RIVERSIDE, CA – Wilbert Larkin, accused of theft and two counts of driving under the influence (DUI), received a strong and stern ruling from the judge here in Riverside County Superior Court for continually failing to appear in court.

Public Defender Jason Kralovic indicated to the court that Larkin had shown up to his initial court hearing on Aug. 10 and this showed his willingness to cooperate.

“In light of the fact that he did avail himself in the first court process, I believe that there are alternatives that could be imposed upon Mr. Larkin to ensure public safety, but by also allowing Mr. Larkin to retain liberty, said PD Kralovic.

Kralovic then, as an alternative to jailing, suggested placing a SCRAM system on Larkin that could monitor Larkin’s alcohol intake.

Kralovic argued that due to Larkin’s DUI charges he understood the worry for public safety, but that the SCRAM device would offer a better alternative that could ensure both public safety and Larkin’s freedom.

The judge explained that normally he would not have a hands on decision in traffic matters, but this case was noteworthy due to the two pending DUI charges and Larkin’s failure to appear in court multiple times.

“It appears to the court that Mr. Larkin has had difficulty complying with the law especially as it relates to traffic matters and the court is concerned not only for public safety in this matter, but also concerned about your own safety sir,” the judge stated.

The judge was not necessarily concerned about the petty theft charge, but felt that due to previous failures to appear, the numerous traffic matters, and the seriousness of the offenses bail would be set to ensure he would show up to the next court date.

He set bail of $5,000 for each of the DUI charges, and $100 for the petty theft charge.

IN ANOTHER CASE later that morning, the judge ruled on an arraignment for defendant Graham Muriuki, who was charged with driving on a suspended license.

Private Defense Attorney Scott Gomez asked that Muriuki’s charges be dropped because of a speedy trial violation, and began to state a long list of cases and their dates indicating the long, extended gap between warrants, arraignments, and complaints that had been filed for the cases.

The prosecution had no opposition.

The judge stated, “No justification is offered for the length of the delay in your matters and the court does find that the prejudice to you is unreasonable here and based upon the nature of the charges the court will dismiss both of your matters as a violation of due process.”

Share:

About The Author

Darling is an incoming junior at UCLA, majoring in English and Political Science with an interest in law. She is originally from Bell Gardens, California.

Related posts

4 thoughts on “Judge Gives Stern Ruling to No-Show DUI Man, Drops Charges for Another Accused after Violation of Due Process”

  1. Taryn J White

    The judge seems to have ruled quite fair in both DUI cases.  Giving the DUI defendant who did not appear for his court date a stern warning, was a compassionate thing to do with giving the defendant one more chance.

    In regards to the second DUI case and dropping charges because of a violation of the defendant’s due process, it was definitely the right decision.  A person’s legal rights should never be disregarded, and the judge in this case made sure the defendant’s rights were upheld by dropping the DUI charges in court.  A common factor in many cases with legal blunders, charges are often dropped against arrested individuals because of faulty paperwork by police.

    Source: https://fightduicharges.com/blog/review-how-to-get-a-dui-dropped-to-a-lesser-offense-or-reckless-driving/

    1. Keith Olson

      The judge seems to have ruled quite fair in both DUI cases.  Giving the DUI defendant who did not appear for his court date a stern warning, was a compassionate thing to do with giving the defendant one more chance.

      The defendant has a history of “continually failing to appear in court”.  I see the judge “set bail of $5,000 for each of the DUI charges, and $100 for the petty theft charge” which is a start and more than a stern warning.  These are the types of cases that can come back and slap judges in the face for being too lenient if the defendant were to get into a DUI related accident and hurt or kill someone.

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