Page 1
Victims’ Group Objects to Resentencing in Death Case
Advocacy Organization Decries Possible Modification of Sentence of ‘Bob’s Big Boy Killer’
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Coming before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Verastegui on Friday is an expected bid by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office for an order blocking the death penalty in the case of a man who in 1982 murdered four persons during a robbery at a La Cienega Boulevard Bob’s Big Boy restaurant, with a victims’ rights group asking to be heard in opposition to a resentencing.
Crime Survivors Inc., a nonprofit organization, is requesting leave to file an amicus curiae brief. Kathleen Cady, a former Los Angeles deputy district attorney, now in private practice with the Glendale-based Dordulian Law Group, filed the application.
It acknowledges that “there is no clear authority for permitting an amicus curiae brief in the trial court” but argues that “there is also no authority that precludes the court from allowing the filing of an amicus curiae brief if the court finds it helpful.”
Shelan Joseph—one of three former career employees of the Public Defender’s Office who was hired by District Attorney George Gascón shortly after he took office on Dec. 7, 2020—is in charge of the resentencing unit for the prosecutorial office.
According to a source within the District Attorney’s Office, Joseph is expected to agree to have the court drop the death sentence at the hearing and has indicated support for the proposition that the court has discretion to strike special circumstances findings.
Gascón’s term ends on Dec. 1 when he will be replaced by former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Nathan Hochman, who defeated the incumbent in the Nov. 5 election.
Sentencing Enhancements
Inmate Ricardo Sanders is seeking reconsideration of certain enhancements for prior convictions—which no longer exist—that were imposed and stayed pending execution of the sentence of death.
Given Sanders’s death sentence, the elimination of these one-year enhancements would be uncontroversial but for the unsettled state of case law governing whether a defendant who had prior prison enhancements imposed and stayed—as opposed to executed—is entitled to a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code §1172.75.
Sec. 1172.75 provides that, at a full resentencing hearing, a court shall “apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences” and encourages courts to use discretion “to eliminate disparity…and to promote uniformity of sentencing.”
The issue of whether a defendant subjected to stayed enhancements is entitled to full resentencing is currently pending before the California Supreme Court in the case of People v. Rhodius.
Amicus Curiae Brief
In the proposed brief, Cady noted that Article I of the California Constitution provides that victims of crime are to receive reasonable notice of all public proceedings, may be present in court at all times the prosecution and defense appear, and have the right to be heard at any sentencing hearing.
Cady wrote that the families of the murder victims—a customer and three restaurant employees—“have a right to be notified of, be present at and be heard at any Resentencing proceeding” and that seven surviving victims of the robbery and their families have a like right.
She continued:
“On behalf of the victims and the community, Crime Survivors, Inc. asks the court to not accept the invitation to resentence the defendant. If the court intends to accept the invitation to consider resentencing, we ask that the court continue the hearing so that all victims can be notified and given an opportunity to assert their Constitutional right to be present and be heard.”
Cady is representing Crime Survivors on a pro bono basis.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company