Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Pittsburg man sentenced to almost 16 years for January 2021 shooting

By Leave a Comment

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney

Earlier this month, defendant Brandon Leo Hilliard of Pittsburg was sentenced to 15 years and eight months in state prison for the shooting of an unarmed man. In May of 2021, a Contra Costa County jury found Hilliard guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a semiautomatic firearm. Additionally, the jury found true the enhancements listed in the charges against Hilliard, including use of a firearm and causing great bodily injury. (See related article)

“The defendant in this case displayed extreme disregard for public safety and another human’s life when he brazenly shot the victim over a minor verbal argument. I want to thank the Pittsburg Police Department for their extensive investigation and locating information which tied the defendant to the scene in order to help make this prosecution successful,” Deputy District Attorney Natasha Mehta stated. DDA Mehta prosecuted the case on behalf of the People.

In the late morning of January 9, 2021, the victim and the defendant got into a verbal confrontation at Central Avenue and Birch Street in Pittsburg. As the argument progressed, the defendant pulled out a Glock 43 semi-automatic handgun. The defendant fired multiple shots at the victim. The shooting, which left the victim with three penetrating gunshot wounds in the legs, was captured on home surveillance. Hilliard immediately fled the scene.

Police officers used surrounding city surveillance cameras to locate a silver vehicle the defendant was seen driving away in from the scene of the shooting. Officers tracked Hilliard’s vehicle, which law enforcement determined to be a silver Toyota Avalon, using an automated license plate reader technology and Pittsburg Police Department determined the vehicle’s license plate number. On January 10, a San Pablo police officer located the defendant and arrested him. The arresting officer found images on Hilliard’s phone which showed the defendant tried to sell a semi-automatic handgun.

The defendant was on an ankle monitor for his pending attempted robbery case. Hilliard cut off his ankle monitor the day before this shooting, leading to an escape count filed against him as well. Hilliard pled to this count prior to the start of trial.

Case information: People v. Brandon Leo Hilliard, Docket Number 04-200980-1.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

 

Public Service Announcement: Tips to avoid rental scams

By Leave a Comment

Today, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office is sharing important tips for consumers to avoid rental scams.

What is a rental scam?

Scammers will list properties for rent online (i.e., Craigslist, Facebook Marketplace) even though they do not own them or have authority to rent them out. The scammer will attempt to have a prospective renter wire transfer or demand cash payment for the lease and or deposit, by claiming they can rent it but are not available to show it now.

Different kinds of rental scams

  • Knockoff listings: When searching for properties be on the lookout for listings that have been copied and pasted from a legitimate listing but then offered at a low price.
  • Illegal sublets: A scammer has obtained access to a listed property and begins to show the unit as if the unit is their own property or have authority to rent out.
  • Ghost rentals: Scammers will list properties that are not for rent or do not exist and try to lure a victim in with a promise of low rent and great amenities. Their goal is to get the victims money before they find out.

Identifying scams

  • Scammers will request a wire transfer for a first month’s rent, security deposit, application fees or vacation rental fees if applicable as a wire transfer. Please note, a wire transfer is equivalent to handing over cash.
  • The scammer will request funds prior to signing the lease or viewing the property with the excuse that the property is in high demand, adding an urgency to the transaction. The scammer will claim to have a list of other possible renters who are also interested in the property.
  • Scammer will claim they are out of the country by alleging they have an agent or lawyer working on their behalf.

Tips to avoid rental scams

  • Verify who owns the unit or building. To ensure that the person renting the unit is the legitimate owner or property manager, do an online search or visit the Contra Costa County Recorder’s office. The Contra Costa County Recorder’soffice is located at 555 Escobar St, Martinez CA 94553.
  • Conduct an Internet search using a search engine such as Google or Bing by entering in the listed address, agent or alleged homeowners name, email and phone number. Be suspicious of images that may be generated from Multiple Listing Service (MLS). MLS is a service realtor’s frequently use to list properties for prospective buyers. Scammers will crop and adjust these photos for their own use in fraudulent their ads.
  • Legitimate landlords will arrange a tour of the interior of the property without excuse or hesitation. Before any money is exchanged, the landlord will take in an application to do a background check.
  • Landlords will usually accept a personal check, a cashier’s check or money order for the first month’s rent and security deposit.
  • Never provide an advance payment, money is usually not exchanged until a legitimate lease is signed. Do not agree to pay anything in cash or via wire transfer.
  • Be wary of giving your personal information until you verify the leasing party before any personal information is given.
  • Ask detailed questions about the unit, application and move in dates/process. Scammers do not want to answer detailed questions because they are only after the initial deposit. In doing so they will end communication or ignore the questions or answers will contain strange grammar.
  • If a deal is too good to be true, it usually is!

¿Qué es una estafa de alquiler?

Un estafador enumera propiedades para alquiler en línea (Craigslist, Facebook Marketplace, etc.) aunque no sean dueños de la propiedad ni tengan autoridad para alquilarlas. El estafador intentará enganchar un posible inquilino en que realice una transferencia bancaria o exigir pago en efectivo para el arrendamiento o depósito, aportando que puede y tiene autoridad de alquilarlo, pero no está disponible para mostrarlo en este momento.

Diferentes tipos de estafas de alquiler

  • Listados de imitación: Cuando busque propiedades, esté atento a los listados que se hayan copiado y pegado de un listado legítimo, pero que luego se ofrezcan a un precio bajo.
  • Subarrendamientos ilegales:un estafador ha obtenido acceso a una propiedad que figura en la lista y comienza a mostrarla como si fuera su propia propiedad o tuviera autoridad para alquilarla.
  • Alquilares Inexistentes: el estafador listara listados de las propiedades que no están para alquiler o que no existen y tratará de atraer a la víctima con la promesa de un alquiler bajo y comodidades increibles. El objetivo es de estafar la victima antes de que se enteren que el trato es fraudulento.

Como identificar estafas

Los estafadores solicitarán una transferencia bancaria para el primer mes de el alquiler, depósito de seguridad y otros cobros relacionados con el alquiler. Tenga en cuenta que una transferencia bancaria equivale a entregar dinero en efectivo.

El estafador solicitará fondos antes de firmar el contrato de arrendamiento o antes de poder ver la propiedad con la excusa de que la propiedad tiene gran demanda, agregando una urgencia en la transacción. El estafador afirmará tener una lista de otros posibles inquilinos que también están interesados ​​en la propiedad.

El estafador afirmará que está fuera del país alegando que tiene un agente o abogado trabajando en su nombre.

Consejos para evitar estafas de alquiler

Verifique quién es el propietario de la unidad o el edificio. Para asegurarse de que la persona que alquila la unidad es el propietario legítimo o el administrador de la propiedad, realice una búsqueda en línea o visite las oficinas de registradores del condado. La oficina del registrador del condado de Contra Costa está ubicada en 555 Escobar St, Martinez CA 94553.

https://www.ccclerkrec.us/clerk/

Realice una búsqueda por internet utilizando búscador como Google o Bing ingresando la dirección, el correo electrónico, el número de teléfono y el supuesto agente o propietario de la casa que figuran en la lista. Sospeche de las imágenes que puedan generarse a partir de Multiple Listing Service (MLS). MLS es un servicio que agentes de bienes raíces utilizan con frecuencia para publicar propiedades para posibles compradores. Los estafadores recortan y ajustan estas fotos para su propio uso en sus anuncios fraudulentos.

Los propietarios legítimos organizara un recorrido por el interior de la propiedad sin excusa ni vacilación. Antes de que intercambie el dinero, un arrendador legitimo presentará una solicitud para realizar una verificación de antecedentes.

Los propietarios generalmente aceptarán un cheque personal, un cheque de caja o un giro postal por el primer meses de alquiler y depósito de seguridad.

Nunca proporcione un pago por adelantado, el dinero generalmente no se intercambia hasta que se firma un contrato de arrendamiento legítimo. No acepte pagar nada en efectivo o mediante transferencia bancaria.

Tenga cuidado de no dar su información personal a un estafador que pretende tener un contrato de arrendamiento legítimo, asegúrese de verificar la parte del arrendamiento antes de proporcionar cualquier información personal.

Haga preguntas detalladas sobre la unidad, la solicitud, las fechas de mudanza y el proceso de mudanza, etc. Los estafadores no quieren responder a preguntas detalladas porque están de tras del depósito inicial. Al hacerlo, terminarán la comunicación, ignorarán las preguntas o las respuestas contendrán gramática extraña.

Si un trato es demasiado bueno para ser verdad, ¡por lo general lo es!

 

 

Former Contra Costa Clerk-Recorder Joe Canciamilla pleads guilty to 9 counts

By Leave a Comment

Will serve one year in county jail

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney

Joe Canciamilla

Martinez, Calif. – Yesterday, Monday, July 12, 2021, former Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Joe Canciamilla pled guilty to perjury and grand theft, totaling nine counts, for illegal activity tied to his multiple political campaign bank accounts. The District Attorney’s Office filed criminal charges against Canciamilla last year. Canciamilla resigned in 2019.

Canciamilla will serve 365 days in county jail per his guilty plea. Per the court, the Sheriff’s Office will determine how the custody time will be served. In addition, he was sentenced to two years formal probation by the Honorable Leslie G. Landu.  Due to his felony conviction, Canciamilla will not be able to act as an attorney and he will report his criminal conviction to the California State Bar. Further, he may no longer hold public office or any other elected office.

Canciamilla committed felony perjury for his misstatements on campaign disclosure statements (Form 460s). Canciamilla signed these campaign finance statements under the penalty of perjury. The illegal activity was conducted from 2010 to 2016. The grand theft counts against Canciamilla related to the use of campaign funds for his personal use.

The personal expenditures made by Canciamilla’s campaign committees for his own personal use were:

  • Personal vacation to Asia
  • Restaurants
  • Airfare via Southwest Airlines and American Airlines
  • Repayment of a Personal Loan
  • Transfers from his Campaign Bank Accounts to his Personal Accounts

In 2019, Canciamilla was fined $150,000 by the California Fair Political Practices Commission in a civil stipulation for his inaccurate campaign finance statements, which concealed the personal use of campaign funds for his own benefit.

The case was prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Steven Bolen. DDA Bolen is assigned to our Office’s Public Corruption Unit.

Case information: People v. Joseph Canciamilla, Docket Number 01-193934-7.

Human Trafficking Task Force announces results of two operations in Pittsburg and Richmond

By Leave a Comment

Multi-agency effort results in four arrests, one felony, 10 victims helped

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County

Earlier this month, two proactive enforcement operations convened by multiple law enforcement agencies working with Contra Costa County’s Human Trafficking Task Force resulted in multiple arrests of alleged traffickers in Pittsburg and Richmond. The focus of each operation was to stem traffickers from exploiting victims, provide services on the scene for victims and deter future criminal activity in West County and East County. The task force is a multi-disciplinary collaborative effort among local, state and federal law enforcement and community-based victim service providers to take a victim-centered and trauma-informed approach to the investigation and prosecution of all forms of trafficking and related criminal conduct in our community.

On June 4, the Pittsburg Police Department hosted a multi-agency human trafficking operation. As a result of the operation, four arrests were made, and one felony human trafficking case was filed by the DA’s Office involving two defendants. Pittsburg Police is a member of the task force. The operation included personnel from Pittsburg PD, Brentwood Police Department, Concord Police Department, Richmond Police Department, Contra Costa County Probation Department, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office. Victim Service partners were Community Violence Solutions and the DA’s Victim-Witness Assistance Program.

On June 11, Richmond Police hosted a human trafficking operation focused on the 23rd Street corridor. Criminal activity in the 23rd Street corridor impacts neighboring San Pablo, as well. Law enforcement personnel included Richmond officers from the Community Violence Reduction Team and patrol with support from the DA’s Human Trafficking Unit. Four arrests were made by task force members during this operation and investigations into trafficking and related criminal activity continue. Ten victims were put in contact with victim services, provided by Community Violence Solutions, Family Justice Center and the DA’s Office.

If you or someone you know has information regarding any acts or suspicions of human trafficking, please call the Contra Costa County Human Trafficking tip line maintained by the District Attorney’s Office: 925-957-8658.

To get help, call Community Violence Solutions 24-hour resources line (800-670-7273) and Contra Costa’s Family Justice Center (925-521-6366). To report suspected exploitation of youth, call the Children and Family Services/Child Abuse Hotline (1-877-881-1116).

Contra Costa County was awarded a federal grant in October 2018 to form a Human Trafficking Task Force. The DA’s Office shares management of the Task Force with the Contra Costa Alliance to End Abuse in order to hold offenders accountable while providing culturally competent services and support to survivors.

Pittsburg woman found guilty of felony hit-and-run, other counts for 2019 fatal crash

By 2 Comments

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County

On Monday, June 14, 2021 defendant Camille Edith Thompson, age 25 of Pittsburg (born February 3, 1996) was found guilty by a Contra Costa County jury of multiple counts, including felony hit and run, related to a vehicular crash that resulted in the death of a Pittsburg man. The defendant was also found guilty of misdemeanor counts of vehicular manslaughter and destroying evidence.

On March 20, 2019, the victim was walking home on the side of the road at W. Leland Road and Bailey Road and was hit by Thompson’s vehicle. After the impact of the collision, Thompson drove her vehicle back to where the victim’s body was and then she paused and left the scene of the crash. The vehicle suffered damage because of the crash and a piece of the vehicle’s fog lamp was left at the scene. (See related article)

Pittsburg Police Department officers began an extensive investigation to identify the driver who left the scene and determined the fog lamp came from a Mercedes vehicle. In turn, officers reviewed surveillance footage and determined the defendant’s vehicle was leaving the scene of the crash. A search warrant executed at Thompson’s residence found the vehicle in the back yard under a tarp. The vehicle in fact was missing a fog lamp and suffered extensive damage to the front passenger side.

The felony trial lasted one week before the Honorable Julia Campins in Department 10 in Pittsburg. Judge Campins will sentence the defendant on August 20, 2021. The defendant will face up to six years in state prison. Deputy District Attorney Sinead McCarron prosecuted the case of behalf of the People. DDA McCarron is assigned to our Delta Direct Team.

Case information: People v. Camille Edith Thompson, Docket Number 04-192420-8

Pittsburg man found guilty for January 2021 shooting faces up to 22 years in prison

By Leave a Comment

After removing ankle monitor being worn for attempted robbery case

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the Contra Costa County District Attorney

Last month, defendant Brandon Hilliard of Pittsburg (date of birth is October 19, 1996) was found guilty by a Contra Costa County jury for the assault with a semiautomatic firearm and attempted manslaughter of a Pittsburg man – both charges are felonies. The shooting occurred earlier this year in Pittsburg. The jury also found true the enhancements listed in the charges against Hilliard, including use of a firearm and causing great bodily injury.

The defendant was on an ankle monitor for his pending attempted robbery case. Hilliard cut off his ankle monitor the day before this shooting.

On January 9, 2021, the victim and the defendant got into a verbal argument at Central Avenue and Birch Street in Pittsburg. As the argument progressed, the defendant pulled out his handgun, a Glock 43. Ultimately, the defendant fired at least four times at the victim. The victim was hit three times in his legs by Hilliard and was taken to a hospital for treatment.

The shooting was captured on home surveillance and police officers used surrounding city surveillance cameras to locate a silver vehicle the defendant was seen driving away in from the scene of the shooting. The officers tracked the vehicle in Pittsburg and ascertained its license plate using the automated license plate reader system. The day after the shooting, a San Pablo police officer located the defendant and his vehicle, which had been listed as a felony vehicle, and successfully detained him.

The felony trial lasted four weeks before the honorable David Goldstein in Department 6 in Pittsburg. Judge Goldstein will sentence the defendant on July 23, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. The defendant will face up to 22 years and eight months in state prison. Deputy District Attorney Natasha Mehta prosecuted the case of behalf of the People. DDA Mehta is assigned to our felony trial team.

Case information: People v. Brandon Leo Hilliard, Docket Number 04-200980-1

Contra Costa, three other county DA’s to finalize $400,000 settlement with MoviePass affiliated executives for unlawful business practices

By Leave a Comment

Following 2018 complaint filed by Contra Costa County resident with California Attorney General’s Office.

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney

Martinez, Calif. – On May 20, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office, in conjunction with the District Attorneys’ Offices of Ventura, Sonoma, and San Joaquin Counties, entered into a negotiated settlement agreement with former MoviePass affiliated executives, Theodore Farnsworth and Mitchell Lowe, for engaging in numerous unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices, while overseeing the operations of the now defunct movie theater subscription service. CCCDA MoviePass Documents

In total, Farnsworth and Lowe will have to pay $400,000 in civil penalties and cy pres restitution, as part of the signed Stipulated Judgment approved by the Honorable Nancy Davis Stark. In addition to the monetary payments, Farnsworth and Lowe are enjoined from engaging in any of the alleged unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices committed during their tenure as MoviePass managers. The settlement gets divided by all the DA’s involved and some goes to the state. The DA’s then use the monies for consumer protection activities.

MoviePass, Inc. (MoviePass) was an American subscription-based movie ticket service headquarter in New York City. Founded in 2011, the service initially allowed subscribers to purchase up to three movie tickets per month for a discounted monthly fee. The service utilized a mobile phone app where users checked into a theater and chose a movie and showtime, which resulted in the cost of the ticket being loaded by MoviePass to a prepaid MoviePass debit card, which was then used to purchase the ticket from the movie theater.

In 2017, Helios and Matheson Analytics purchased MoviePass. Around the time of the purchase, the business model for MoviePass, shifted from a three movie per month subscription to offering, among other things, an “unlimited” subscription plan at $9.95 a month and an “unlimited” fixed rate annual subscription. However, over the course of the next two years, the business model and terms of service changed multiple times to the detriment of the consumers.

After the acquisition of MoviePass by Helios and Matheson Analytics, the Defendants engaged in numerous unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts and practices. These acts and practices include, but are not limited to:

• Falsely advertising that MoviePass subscriptions offer “unlimited” movie watching. Specifically, “any movie”, “any day”, at “any theater”, when in reality MoviePass continually added limitations to customers’ subscriptions.
• Unconscionably changing terms of service during a subscription period.
• Converting all prepaid “unlimited” plans to three movies per month.
• Shutting down the availability of movies when a certain dollar amount is reached. (Trip wire).
• Failing to notify autorenewal customers of material changes to their subscriptions.
• Continuously charging customers’ debit or credit cards after receiving notice of cancellation from customers.

In addition to the above acts and practices, in 2019, MoviePass suffered a data breach. The data breach was the result of a MoviePass engineer creating an unsecured and unencrypted server as a debugging tool. This server had more than 161 million pieces of personal identifying information, including names, MoviePass card numbers, credit card numbers, billing information, email addresses and login information, belonging to at least 58,000 consumers. Despite being notified by private individuals, MoviePass allowed this server to operate for three months before it was taken down. MoviePass failed to advise the California Attorney General’s Office of the data breach, as required by law

MoviePass shut down its operations in September of 2019. Both MoviePass and its parent company, Helios and Matheson Analytics, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January of 2020.

In 2018 a local Contra Costa County resident filed a complaint against MoviePass with the California Attorney General’s Office. The complaint alleged that MoviePass was in violation of the Terms of Service as the company was not showing available tickets in the mobile app and limited the number of movies to the consumer even though they paid in advance for a year of “unlimited” service. In turn, the complaint was forwarded to our office for further investigation.

We welcome residents to file consumer complaints with our office via our website, www.contracostada.org. Case information: People v. Theodore Farnsworth and Mitchell Lowe, Docket C21-01045, Contra Costa County Superior Court.

DA OIS report: Walnut Creek police shooting death of Miles Hall deemed legal

By 1 Comment

No criminal prosecution of two officers involved in June 2019 incident

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Office, Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney

The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office concludes there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution of Officer KC Hsiao and Officer Melissa Murphy in the 2019 fatal shooting of Miles Anthony Hall. The DA’s Office released a public report about the shooting today. No charges will be filed against any officer involved in this shooting. (See related article)

On June 2, 2019, at 4:40 p.m., an emergency call was received by the California Highway Patrol about a disturbance at a home on Sandra Court in Walnut Creek where Mr. Hall resided. The individual that made the emergency call was a family member of Mr. Hall. At approximately the same time, a neighbor also called 911 about a disturbance at the same residence. The neighbor saw Mr. Hall running outside the residence. A third neighbor called 911 and reported that Mr. Hall had just pounded on their front door and was carrying a black steel digging tool. The tool was measured to be 4 feet 11 inches long and weighed 15 pounds. Another witness also called 911 and reported that Mr. Hall chased their vehicle on foot as they drove through the neighborhood.

At 4:51 p.m., the initial two officers arrived on the scene to respond. As additional officers arrived, a staging area near Orchard Lane and Lancaster Road was set up. The four officers discussed how they would respond once they encountered Mr. Hall. All four officers were aware of a previous incident where Mr. Hall had brandished a knife at Walnut Creek police officers, and they used less than lethal force to take him into custody for a mental health hold. Additionally, paramedics from Contra Costa County Fire Protection District were called to the scene.

Mr. Hall was near 140 Arlene Lane when four officers attempted to contact him. They gave him commands to stop running and to drop the digging tool. Mr. Hall did not respond to those commands and began running in the general direction of the officers with the digging tool in his hand.

Officer Matt Smith, armed with the less than lethal beanbag shogun, fired four rounds at Mr. Hall in an attempt to stop him. Mr. Hall continued to run in the officer’s direction despite being hit with less than lethal force. At this point, Officers Hsiao and Murphy discharged their department issued handguns at Mr. Hall. Ultimately, Mr. Hall was struck by four rounds and fell to the ground. Mr. Hall was restrained in handcuffs and the officers began performing life saving measures until the paramedics arrived. Mr. Hall was taken to John Muir Hospital and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.

The DA’s Office and every law enforcement agency in Contra Costa County has adopted the Law Enforcement Involved Fatal Incidents Protocol (“the Protocol”) to investigate incidents when officers or civilians are shot or die during an encounter with law enforcement. Under the Protocol, the DA’s Office investigates all officer-involved shootings in Contra Costa County for the purpose of making an independent determination of criminal liability. The sole purpose of the District Attorney investigation is to determine if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed during a fatal encounter with law enforcement.

In December 2019, a Contra Costa Coroner’s Inquest Jury found that Hall had died “at the hands of another person, other than by accident”. (See related article)

The OIS public report is available here.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

 

Inmate gets sentence reduced by 10 years, released by Contra Costa DA under new law

By Leave a Comment

First resentencing in county under AB 2942, for 2004 Orinda robbery conviction

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney

Last month, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office petitioned the court in support of Derric Lewis to be resentenced under Assembly Bill 2942 for his 2004 residential burglary. Honorable Judge Nancy Davis Stark ameliorated his original sentence of 27 years to 17 years with credit for time served. Lewis, who is now 61 years old, was released on a two-year grant of parole and will be supported with wrap-around services to ensure his re-entry is successful.

Lewis is the first individual in Contra Costa County resentenced under this change in the law. AB 2942 allows for a district attorney to review old sentences and determine if the sentence still serves the interest of justice and the community. Individuals eligible for relief under AB 2942 must demonstrate their ability to re-enter society successfully, including our office’s thorough evaluation of their rehabilitative efforts and disciplinary record while in custody.

The DA’s Office worked in collaboration with the California Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, the non-profit For the People, and the Public Defender’s Office on this petition for resentencing. Importantly, those impacted by Lewis’ burglary joined in consideration of the petition and agreed that with demonstrated change after 17 years of incarceration, Lewis had had earned the opportunity to be resentenced.

In October 2004, Lewis arrived in Orinda on a Bay Area Rapid Transit train. He then walked through a nearby neighborhood and entered a home, stealing a purse valued at $125. Two victims were inside the home when Lewis entered. Additionally, Lewis took a specialized bicycle, valued at $300, from a second victim’s shed located in the backyard of their home.

Lewis was on probation at the time he was arrested for this offense and had multiple felony convictions. These factors contributed to the judge sentencing Lewis to 27 years in state prison. This offense was his third serious felony.

District Attorney Diana Becton was in support of AB 2942 during the legislature’s 2019 consideration of the bill. The DA’s Office is one of a first offices working with For the People on eligible cases for potential resentencing where the original punishment is excessive. Santa Clara, Yolo and San Diego district attorneys have also resentenced an individual under AB 2942.

“We now have the option to seek redress for excessive sentences. I will use my authority under this important law to ensure those in state prison are there for the appropriate reasons. Sentencing a man for 27 years for such an offense undermines our ability to hold the most violent accountable for crimes in our community. The strain on the state prison and criminal justice system is immense from these failed policies of our past. To truly move forward, we must be open to correcting the wrongs of the past,” stated DA Diana Becton.

“Having spent countless hours working to understand Mr. Lewis’ case, we witnessed his work towards rehabilitation,” said Hillary Blout, Founder and Executive Director of For The People. “Focusing on education helped set Mr. Lewis on a new path, and he has now obtained his GED, tutored others in prison, and completed a dozen college-level courses. With a strong education and family ties, Mr. Lewis returns home to his loving sister and son. But Mr. Lewis is just one of the many people in our prison who should be released. Hopefully other incarcerated people and their families will see this second chance on the horizon through the advent of prosecutor-initiated resentencing and AB 2942.”

“We are pleased to see that Mr. Lewis was successfully resentenced and reunited with his family. Mr. Lewis, who is 61 years old, spent the last 17 years of his life in prison. He earned his high school diploma, enrolled in college courses, and demonstrated exemplary behavior during his incarceration. Mr. Lewis’s resentencing illustrates that focusing on reintegrating people back into our community with substantial reentry resources is a more just approach than handing down excessive prison sentences,” said Robin Lipetzky, Contra Costa County Public Defender.

Case information: People v. Derric Craig Lewis, Docket 05-050238-5

Contra Costa DA’s office charges Danville Police Officer with multiple felonies for 2018 shooting death of Newark man

By 1 Comment

Danville Police Officer Andrew Hall shoots Laudemer Arboleda on November 3, 2018. Screenshot of critical incident video.

“the suspect attempted to run over the officer, who fired his weapon at the vehicle” – Danville Police

Officer Andrew Hall could face 22 years in state prison; same officer who fatally shot suspect with knife on March 11, 2021

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney

Martinez, Calif. – Today, Wed., April 21, 2021, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton announces felony charges have been filed against Danville Police Officer Andrew Hall for causing the 2018 death of Newark resident Laudemer Arboleda without lawful excuse or justification. Officer Hall shot at Mr. Arboleda and hit him nine times during a slow-moving vehicle pursuit in downtown Danville. Nine shots hit Mr. Arboleda. (See related articles here, here and here)

According to the police press release of the incident, the suspect attempted to run over the officer, who fired his weapon at the vehicle. A critical incident video was released by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office at that time.

Officer Hall is charged with felony voluntary manslaughter and felony assault with a semi-automatic firearm for the alleged unlawful activity and unreasonable force used during the shooting. Each felony count also contains an enhancement concerning Officer Hall’s discharge of his firearm, a Sig 226, 40 caliber semi-automatic pistol. The second felony count also contains an enhancement for Hall’s unlawful activity causing great bodily injury against Mr. Arboleda.

An arrest warrant was signed by the Honorable Nancy Davis Stark for Hall’s arrest. His bail for the alleged offenses is $220,000.

“Officer Hall used unreasonable and unnecessary force when he responded to the in-progress traffic pursuit involving Laudemer Arboleda, endangering not only Mr. Arboleda’s life but the lives of his fellow officers and citizens in the immediate area. We in law enforcement must conduct ourselves in a professional and lawful manner when interacting with the public. Officer Hall’s actions underscore the need for a continued focus on de-escalation training and improved coordinated responses to individuals suffering from mental illness,” said DA Becton.

On November 3, 2018, at 11:03 a.m., Danville Police Department officers responded to a call reporting that Laudemer Arboleda rang the doorbell of a resident on Cottage Place and was lingering in the area. Mr. Arboleda subsequently drove away from the neighborhood in a 2014 silver Honda. Officers initiated a traffic stop of Mr. Arboleda’s vehicle. When the officers exited their patrol car to approach him, Mr. Arboleda drove away from the officers.

Additional patrol cars joined the traffic pursuit, which lasted for a total of nine minutes and reached maximum speeds of up to 50 miles per hour. Mr. Arboleda continued to drive towards Front Street in Danville. Officer Hall, who was not involved in the initial pursuit, stopped his vehicle in front of the approaching pursuit. As Mr. Arboleda began to slowly maneuver between Officer Hall’s vehicle and another police vehicle involved in the pursuit, Officer Hall ran around the rear of his vehicle and fired his semi-automatic pistol at Mr. Arboleda.

As Officer Hall fired, Mr. Arboleda’s vehicle continued into the intersection of Front Street and Diablo Road and struck a 2006 silver Jeep occupied by an adult. Officers responded and found Mr. Arboleda in his car unresponsive with his foot on the gas pedal. He was taken to San Ramon Valley Medical Center and pronounced dead at 11:44 a.m.

The case will be prosecuted by Assistant District Attorney Christopher Walpole and Deputy District Attorney Colleen Gleason.

This case was investigated by the DA’s Office under the county protocol concerning law enforcement involved fatalities. The protocol investigation is conducted by the DA’s Office when there is a use of force injury or death involving an officer.

Case information: People v. Andrew Hall, Docket 01-195930-3

Hall is the same officer who shot and killed a man with a knife on March 11, 2021. (See related articles here, here and here)

See video of DA Becton’s press conference on KRON4.

Prepared Statement by DA Becton for April 21, 2021 Press Conference

“Earlier today, my Office filed criminal charges against Danville Police Officer Andrew Hall related to a fatal shooting on November 3, 2018. Officer Hall is a Deputy Sheriff with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office and was assigned to Danville at the time of the shooting.

Officer Hall is charged for causing the death of Laudemer Arboleda. Mr. Arboleda was shot 9 times by Officer Hall on November 3, 2018 in Danville.

Our office, for the first time in recent history, has filed criminal charges against a police officer for their actions during a shooting. Officer Hall is charged with voluntary manslaughter and assault with a semi-automatic firearm.

These charges are felonies and due to Officer Hall’s unreasonable force used during the 2018 fatal shooting of Mr. Arboleda, the charges also include enhancements, personal use of a firearm. The second felony count, an assault charge, also has an enhancement for Officer Hall’s unlawful activity causing great bodily injury against Mr. Arboleda.

Overall, Officer Hall could face 22 years in state prison, and he would be prohibited from being a peace officer if convicted.

I should underscore Officer Hall is presumed innocent under the law and these criminal charges are allegations. Ultimately, I am confident a jury of Officer Hall’s peers will review this case with great care and consideration and ultimately hold Officer Hall accountable.

The unnecessary death of Mr. Arboleda underscores the need for law enforcement personnel to better understand those suffering from mental illness.

To review some of the timeline of events leading up to the shooting on November 3, 2018:

On November 3, 2018, at 11:03 a.m., Danville Police Department officers responded to a call reporting that Laudemer Arboleda rang the doorbell of a resident on Cottage Place and was lingering in the area.

Mr. Arboleda subsequently drove away from the neighborhood in a 2014 silver Honda. Officers initiated a traffic stop of Mr. Arboleda’s vehicle. When the officers exited their patrol car to approach him, Mr. Arboleda drove away from the officers.

Additional patrol cars joined the traffic pursuit, which lasted for a total of nine minutes and reached maximum speeds of up to 50 miles per hour. Mr. Arboleda continued to drive towards Front Street in Danville. Officer Hall, who was not involved in the initial pursuit, stopped his vehicle in front of the approaching pursuit.

As Mr. Arboleda began to slowly maneuver between Officer Hall’s vehicle and another police vehicle involved in the pursuit, Officer Hall ran around the rear of his vehicle and fired his semi-automatic pistol at Mr. Arboleda.

As Officer Hall fired, Mr. Arboleda’s vehicle continued into the intersection of Front Street and Diablo Road and struck a 2006 silver Jeep occupied by an adult.

Officers responded and found Mr. Arboleda in his car unresponsive with his foot on the gas pedal. He was taken to San Ramon Valley Medical Center and pronounced dead at 11:44 a.m.

The filing of this case took time due to a backlog of prior law enforcement involved fatal incidents my office is investigating. I am doing everything I can do end this backlog and ensure our independent investigations conclude in an expeditious manner.

 

Last year, I completely re-tooled my office’s approach to investigating these complex and sensitive incidents. I have instilled a team approach to these investigations to ensure we are independent and thorough.

I am committed to publicizing the results of our investigations. Further, if we do not file charges, we will release a full public report.

Officer Hall used unreasonable and unnecessary force when he responded to the in-progress traffic pursuit involving Laudemer Arboleda, endangering not only Mr. Arboleda’s life but the lives of his fellow officers and citizens in the immediate area.

We in law enforcement must conduct ourselves in a professional and lawful manner when interacting with the public.

Officer Hall’s actions underscore the need for a continued focus on de-escalation training and improved coordinated responses to individuals suffering from mental illness.

In terms of next steps, Officer Hall will be arraigned before a judge. We do not have a timeframe yet on when that will happen.

Thank you for coming today. I am here to answer your questions.”

Allen Payton contributed to this report.