By Daniella Dueñas
WOODLAND, CA – Earlier this year, the accused was charged with grand theft, burglary, conspiracy to commit a felony, organized retail theft, hit and run property damage—a total of three felonies and two misdemeanors.
This week in Yolo County Superior Court, she was sentenced to 90 days in jail, despite her attorney claiming she had four children and should get a lighter sentence.
The accused was not alone in her crime spree. According to the information discussed in court, the accused was in the car waiting for her husband as he committed theft inside a store. She was the one who was the getaway driver and had allegedly also taken part in selling the stolen items on Facebook, allegedly.
Defense Attorney Robert Gorman made the case for his client that she did not really have much to do with the crimes and was in fact very influenced by her husband. He argued the husband was the mastermind, and she was put into a position where she was almost coerced into becoming an accomplice.
Gorman noted a video presented at a previous hearing, showing the accused was not a “good” getaway driver and causing some light laughter in the court. He added, as a single mother now of a total of four kids, all under the age of eight years old, “She shouldn’t get too much jail time because of this.”
The prosecution strongly disagreed with the view of the defense.
Deputy District Attorney David Wilson said could not believe “how little she was thinking about her children” when these crimes were committed.
Wilson was bewildered, recalling how the accused seemed to think that it was funny she had children. He affirmed his argument, stating that she and her husband had caused damage to someone’s property and that she was equally responsible for the incident.
According to Wilson, 90 days in the county jail was a very fair sentence, even “light,” since as he pointed out this was not the first time she had committed a crime.
“The time for her to be a responsible adult has passed, she should’ve thought of that before she committed the crime,” Wilson countered, referring to the argument Defense Attorney Gorman made about how the accused needed to be there for her children.
His final remark was that she needed to serve some jail time since she had not previously, so that she could take responsibility for her actions and deeply reflect.
“May I have just two brief comments?” asked Gorman. This request was turned down by Judge David Rosenberg, who said the accused would soon be completing a program and was due to graduate in a few days.
“There was a time in the history of California where a woman could be absolved or crimes could be reduced simply because her husband told her to do certain things,” Judge Rosenberg stated after a moment’s pause, adding, “That time is long past. You are responsible for your own actions. And you’ve got to accept that responsibility. So that’s where we’re going.”
Judge Rosenberg agreed with the prosecution’s view that 90 days was not an inappropriate sentence for the crime she had helped commit, and found she could have 30 days of the 90 she was sentenced to suspended, pending the accused’s successful completion of probation. He also mandated a grant of probation for two years.