Judge Responds

Your San Diego section featured me in an article (Aug. 23) which clearly implies that I am a lenient sentencing judge, particularly toward child molesters. Those are extremely serious accusations. The case facts stated in the article are incomplete. I feel I must respond.

1. Your article cites a 1980 case in which I failed to give custody to a CHP officer convicted of molesting his daughter. “People v. William Todd,” CRV 6260. I told your reporter that it was a part of the district attorney’s plea-bargain that the defendant not receive custody. Philip Walden, head of the D.A.’s North County office, handled that sensitive case himself. The transcript of the sentencing hearing quotes him as saying, “I want the record to be perfectly clear that we are affirmatively recommending that this gentleman not do any additional time in custody.” I abided by the district attorney’s plea-bargain and his clearly expressed recommendation.

2. Your article states that I did not give a defendant in a vehicular manslaughter case any further custody even though the probation report recommended 365 days of custody. The case is “People v. Alfonso Granados,” CRN 22899. I told your reporter that the probation report recommended, after giving credit for 61 days of actual custody and 30 days credit under Penal Code Section 4019, for a total of 91 days, that the “remaining custody be stayed pending review.” Further, in the report the recommended review date is Feb. 12, 1993. The decedent was the defendant’s brother; both were intoxicated; the defendant “rolled” the vehicle.

3. Your article states that I gave only two weeks of custody in a child molest case involving a high school coach. The case is “People v. John Nelson, NC139721.” I told your reporter that the probation report stated that the victim requested that the defendant not receive any custody. I also told your reporter that my concerns were focused on the girl victim who had been ostracized at the high school by the students who blamed her for the coach’s predicament. I told the reporter that I wrote to the school principal advising him to initiate programs to re-educate the students’ social values and welcome the girl back to the school. I basically followed the victim’s request, but I felt the defendant should see what it was like to sit in jail, 24 hours a day, day by day, so I did make him sit in jail for two weeks.

4. This leaves us with only the “Edam” case to discuss. I tried to stress to your reporter that there is a vast factual difference between the crime of sexual battery, with which the defendant was originally charged and the misdemeanor child molest section to which he plead guilty. The dispute in facts in the “Edam” case were not resolved by the plea. It is inconsistent for the district attorney to reduce the charge to misdemeanor and then insist that the judge accept the factual basis for the felony as the basis upon which to inflict punishment.

The transcript demonstrates my concern that Mr. Edam could sue the county and the Probation Department if he lost his business because of their actions; it also expresses my extreme frustration that the Probation Department would act contrary to the plan of punishment it had imposed. I wanted Mr. Edam to work, and be confined when not working for 180 days. I have transcripts, letters and docket entries to verify everything I have stated in this letter. From this time forward, I must, and do, disqualify myself in all the above cases because I have discussed them outside of court.

JUDGE MICHAEL L. BURLEY, North County Municipal Court