Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

An inmate at Theo Lacy Jail in Orange escaped on January 4, 2012 and was briefly at large. Scott Woodin, age 39, was discovered to be missing around 5:30 p.m., according to the Orange County Sheriff's Department. He had been assigned to a kitchen work detail, where he allegedly broke a small window to escape. A sheriff's department spokesperson said Woodin leaned a bench against the window to hide the broken pane. After dark, no one could see that the glass was broken.

A witness reported seeing a man dumping a jail jumpsuit at a Carl's Jr. restaurant across the street from the jail at 5:39 p.m., then running away. Police were not successful in tracking Woodin with bloodhounds that night. He remained on the run for about twenty-four hours, until sheriff's deputies arrested him in Lake Forest, about twenty miles from the jail, around 8:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 5.

Woodin had been serving a 314-day jail sentence. Police had arrested him on October 23, 2011 in Irvine for allegedly trying to steal a watch at a Nordstrom store. He was already on probation for theft and narcotics offenses. After the October arrest, he reportedly pleaded guilty to misdemeanor petty theft and other minor offenses. Because the arrest and guilty plea violated his probation from the earlier convictions, he would normally have been sent to state prison. A new California law, previously reported in this Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog, required authorities to send him to a county jail to serve his sentence. A court ruling, upheld by the United States Supreme Court, ordered the state to reduce the population of its state prisons by at least 30,000 inmates. The new law requires certain nonviolent offenders to go to county jail in order to meet this requirement.

Some counties are reportedly struggling to handle the influx of inmates. This is believed to be the first escape of an inmate transferred from state prison to county jail since the new law took effect on October 1, 2011. It is also apparently the first escape from Theo Lacy Jail in around twenty years. It is at least the second escape from an Orange County correctional facility in 2012, as we previously reported on the January 1 escape of Thomas Francis Kelley from the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility and his peaceful surrender two days later.

Continue reading "After Transfer of California State Prison Inmates to County Jails to Prevent Overcrowding, First Inmate Escapes in Orange County" »

A San Diego prison inmate working on the prison's fire fighting detail escaped from custody on New Year's Day by stealing a prison fire truck and driving away from the work site. The inmate, 51 year-old Thomas Frances Kelley, was reported to be a "model prisoner" until his escape. He must have had an exceptionally clean record in order to make it onto the fire fighting detail, which allowed inmates to work outside the prison's perimeter. A two-day manhunt ended with his peaceful surrender.

Kelley reportedly stole a yellow prison fire truck the evening of Sunday, January 1. A head count of inmates at about 9:30 p.m. that night came up one short. Sheriff's personnel reported seeing a fire truck driving haphazardly through the Spring Valley area. A caller also reported two men trying to park the truck, with some difficulty, outside of a convenience store in Spring Valley. Kelley had made it about twenty-five miles from the prison. Sheriff's deputies recovered the fire truck, but Kelley and his passenger had already fled the area.

Kelley had been incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility near San Diego since November 2010 as a result of a parole violation from a 2008 auto theft conviction. He was a minimum security inmate with a high level of privileges, given his work detail. Authorities conducted a manhunt in the area where they found the fire truck.

Sheriff's deputies spotted Kelley and a companion smoking a cigarette at a trolley depot in Lemon Grove late Tuesday morning. They identified him by a mug shot, and they approached him and asked him to identify himself. Although they said Kelley was "evasive" and offered a fake name and birthdate, he surrendered peacefully. Deputies delivered him to state parole officers. They also questioned and released his companion, who said he had just met him.

Kelley told authorities that he was trying to see his daughter. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department said they were not able to locate her. Kelley had apparently been living on the street since his escape.

Continue reading "Inmate Escapes from California Prison Work Detail in Fire Truck" »

Over sixty prisoners in Orange County's jail had to sleep on the floor recently while they waited for beds to become available. County jails around the state are reporting difficulties handling an influx of prisoners as the state shifts many detainees out of state prisons and makes them the counties' problem. Counties are now scrambling to find room, often releasing detainees early and looking for other methods of punishment for new offenses.

A new state law that took effect October 1 made counties responsible for people convicted of certain offenses that had previously been the state's burden. The new law covers about five hundred felony offenses deemed "nonviolent, nonsexual and non-serious." It sets aside money for counties to help them bear the additional burden. The law resulted from a May ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a lower court's order for the state of California to reduce its prison population by at least 30,000. California has one of the largest prison populations in the country, and the U.S. has one of the largest prison populations in the world. The ruling held, in part, that overcrowding in California prisons led to conditions that violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment."

Since October 1, state prisons have been transferring detainees to county jails. Many jails are now full or even overcrowded, but officials expect this to balance out over time. In an attempt to stem the inflow of detainees for new offenses, counties are looking into alternatives to incarceration. Fresno County, for example, has announced that it will no longer incarcerate people solely for parole violations. It will still put people in jail for new criminal offenses, but it is looking for alternative punishments wherever possible.

Some prosecutors and other critics of the new law allege that the sudden rise in the jail population results in part from an effort by criminal defense attorneys to delay their clients' sentencings until after October 1, to minimize the possibility of a term in state prison. The Los Angeles County district attorney has stated that he will train his prosecutors in ways that allow them to continue to charge alleged offenders with offenses allowing a state prison sentence, by digging through their criminal histories and searching for other factors that could lead to enhanced charges. Others may lobby the Legislature to pass new laws expanding the scope of state prison sentences.

Continue reading "California Jails Deal With Shift of Inmates from State Prisons" »

One of Orange County's most notorious murder cases was back in the news last month, when Omaima Nelson, convicted of murdering her husband and then dismembering his body and eating parts of it, came up for parole. This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the grisly murder, which led prosecutors at the time to compare her to the movie villain Hannibal Lecter. After a lengthy hearing in early October of this year, the parole board denied parole.

The Egyptian-born Nelson reportedly endured abuse as a child that she described as "unimaginable." She met William Nelson in 1991 and married him within weeks. After only three weeks of marriage, William Nelson died. The prosecutor from the original trial, Randolph J. Pawloski, recounted the crime scene, where police found plastic bags and suitcases soaked with blood, body parts in a fry cooker, and Mr. Nelson's head in the refrigerator. In addition to a charge of murder, prosecutors accused Nelson of eating parts of her husband's body.

Nelson claimed at her trial that her husband revealed a violent side after their wedding, and that she killed him in self-defense when he tried to strangle her after violently abusing and raping her. The prosecution disputed this, claiming that Nelson had a pattern of trading on her sexuality to obtain favors and support from numerous men. They further argued that her "con games" had grown more and more violent. A psychiatrist who testified at Nelson's trial said that she admitted to cooking and eating her husband after spending hours chopping up the body.

After six days of deliberations, the jury rejected Nelson's claim that she acted in self-defense after weeks of constant abuse. They convicted her of second-degree murder and sentenced her to 27 years to life in prison. An appellate court upheld her conviction in 2000. She has served her sentence at California Central Women's Prison.

Nelson had previously requested early release from prison in 2006, claiming she had become a born-again Christian and had remarried. Commissioners denied her request, saying they found her "unpredictable" and a continued threat to the public. Nelson requested early release again this year, which led to last month's hearing. She told parole officials that she was a "changed woman," and vehemently denied committing any acts of cannibalism. She expressed remorse over Mr. Nelson's death but maintained that she acted in self-defense, and said that she would return to Egypt to live with her family if released. Pawloski took the rare step of attending the hearing in person and offering testimony in opposition to her early release. Mr. Nelson's daughter also attended and testified against Nelson's parole. The two-person board again denied the request for early release.

Continue reading "Parole Denied Twenty Years after Gruesome Orange County Murder Case" »

The State of Texas may begin deporting foreign citizens serving time in Texas prisons. After having received assurances from federal officials that foreign citizens will actually be sent back to their home countries and not released back onto Texas streets, parole officials took the first steps to deport some of the 11,000 foreign nationals.

Under a recent law, the Parole Board can now approve parole for foreign nationals on the condition they are sent back to their country of origin. A snag in the past has been, sometimes, federal authorities released prison inmates onto Texas streets without the State of Texas knowing. This has been solved, however, by assurances that if an inmate is not deported, he/she will be handed back over to prison authorities.

One of the reasons for this type of action is the savings in tax dollars. A paper, circulated by State Senator Eddie Lucio, indicated the State could save nearly $100 million annually if 5,000 foreign-born citizens are deported.

The country of destination for most of these criminals would be Mexico. Of the 11,000 foreigners in prison, 8,500 are from Mexico.

Many different ideas have been put forward in order to solve the rising alien population in American prisons. Ideas have ranged from private prisons in Mexico to islands in the Caribbean. One problem is some countries will not take back their citizens.

A problem which could surface in this new scheme is the parolees simply return to Texas once they are released and deported. No doubt many of the 8,500 Mexican nationals crossed the Texas U.S. Border more than once. If a person is released early to Mexico, what is to stop them from re-crossing the border? Further, once they are discovered in this country, they will just be jailed again.

Rather than focus on low-risk offenders, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on violent or dangerous long-term prisoners? We could enter into negotiations with Mexico to allow Mexican nationals to serve their time in Mexico. It would be much cheaper, plus there may be some deterrence as well. Although some funds may be saved by decreasing parole costs for low-risk offenders, more money can be saved by reducing the cost of incarcerating long-term, high-risk offenders.

A senior federal judge and a professor of law have conducted a study regarding the cost of the death penalty. By reviewing all expenditures, state and federal, U.S. 9th Circuit Court Judge Alarcon and Professor Mitchell have concluded more than $4 billion has been spent since 1978 on capital punishment prosecutions in the State of California. This is more than $150 million a year. In addition, the study forecasts a death row population of 1000 by 2030.

In their report, "Executing the Will of the Voters: A Roadmap to Mend or End the California Legislature's Multi-Billion Dollar Death Penalty Debacle", the authors set forth a number of options to cure the problem. Each of the options has a financial price tag.

The first option is to continue on with the present system. This will cost an extra $85 million per year.

The second option would be to reduce the number of death penalty eligible offenses. This could save taxpayers over $50 million a year.

The final option is the complete abolition of the death penalty in California. This final option could save $200 million per year.

Although there are over 700 inmates on death row, only 13 have been executed since 1978. The delay between conviction and execution is now over 20 years. The death penalty is a sensitive topic in California. There are some individuals who, because of the heinous nature of their crimes, deserve the death penalty. Everyone knows who these types of criminals are. However, is it worth the cost to expand the number of special circumstances to 39 in order to widen the net being cast? Do we really need the death penalty for gang-on-gang shootings?

The problem with the death penalty is it no longer serves the function for which it was designed. How does anyone fear the death penalty when only 13 have been executed in 33 years? The average person in this state probably isn't even aware of all the crimes which are eligible for the death penalty.

A person on death row also has a few things which a person serving life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) does not. For one, he/she has his/her own cell. In many ways, death row is more comfortable than general population.

The big problem for many people is the belief that without the death penalty, these people would be back on the streets in 7 years. This is patently untrue. Life without parole means life without parole. Finally, the cost must be taken into consideration. This state is constantly in dire financial straits. Wouldn't this money be better spent on schools or roads?

The real problem with the death penalty issue is it is not going to change. Coupled with the above problems is the fact that we have a dysfunctional government in California. Also, no one wants to appear to be soft on crime. Hopefully, this report will begin a dialog. It is a small step in the right direction.

The United States Supreme Court affirmed an order last month requiring the State of California to reduce the inmate population to 137% of capacity. This will require the reduction of thousands of prisoners.

With a current prison population of over 140 thousand people, it is clear to see the "tough on crime" attitude taken across the state may be backfiring. Given the average cost of housing an inmate is over $45,000 per inmate per year, there are simply not limitless resources to throw at state prison incarceration for drug and nonviolent offenses.

A plan by Governor Jerry Brown to transfer many low-risk offenders to county jails appears to be a step in the right direction. However, why are they in prison in the first place?

Perhaps it is time to take a close look at the "one penalty fits all" mindset prevalent throughout the State of California. Considering the economic disaster facing California, a person can make an economic argument that warehousing tens of thousands of nonviolent offenders does not make sense.

The concept that needs to change is the belief incarceration is the answer to a wide variety of crimes. Perhaps it would be possible to allow individuals who have committed nonviolent offenses to pay back their debt to society by doing community work. By allowing community work as punishment, the People of the State of California win in numerous ways. First, a savings of $50,000 per year can be spent on more pressing matters, such as education. Second, society benefits by having work done which no one else wants to do. Finally, the state saves money by not having to pay for this work.

There must be alternatives to incarceration. We are only limited by our inability to see them.

Betty Burden, a Mount Prospect school bus driver, escaped a prison term when she pled guilty to delivering 45 students to their homes while she had a blood alcohol level of .22. She, instead, was sentenced to 2 ½ years probation and 480 hours of community service. On the defendant's side was her exemplary driving record and job performance. Mrs. Burden was, however, fired from her job of 11 years.

Cook County Judge John Scotillo said "I need to be sure that the punishment fits the crime." A mother of one of the children testified on Mrs. Burden's behalf. "She has suffered enough" said Mary McMahon. At her sentencing, Mrs. Burden was tearful and apologetic.

Judge Scotillo showed considerable judicial courage in sentencing Mrs. Burden. The pretrial publicity in this case must have been substantial. Many people must have been howling for Mrs. Burden's head. It is, however, important to understand that Mrs. Burden is a human being. She made a terrible mistake. Although no one would deny the seriousness of her crime, no one was injured. She has lost her job and lost her clean record. She will, undoubtedly, never drive a bus again. At some point, we must realize that incarceration is not the answer to these types of crimes. Treatment and community service is. Here in California, our prisons are full and the government is broke. We must look for a new and more compassionate way to treat people like Mrs. Burden, both for their good and our own.

One issue currently before The United States Supreme Court involves California's chronic prison overcrowding. A lower federal court has ordered California to reduce its prison population by approximately 40,000 inmates. The Court will have to conduct a delicate balancing act wherein one side is arguing prison overcrowding may raise constitutional issues while the other side contends releasing thousands of prisoners early will imperil public safety.

Conditions in California prisons are well-documented, however, the court's ruling could be that California is incapable of fixing the problem and this would require the federal government to step in. Chief Justice Roberts, in fact, questions whether the court is intruding in an issue which should be handled by the State legislature.

California has made some effort to alleviate overcrowding by sending some prisoners out of state and more are expected to go in the next few years. The present case, however, stems from federal lawsuits filed nearly 20 years ago. The charges are that because the prison population so exceeded available medical and mental health resources, the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution barring cruel and unusual punishment is being violated and, although over the years there have been numerous efforts to curb prison overcrowding, enough has not been done.

Over the last 25 years, Californians have been in favor of longer and longer prison sentences. While this may or may not reduce crime, it definitely fills prisons. So, in the end, California will have to face the reality: If you want more prisoners, you will have to have more prisons.