WatchSonoma Watch

Supervisor Efren Carrillo’s trial date pushed back to April


Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo’s trial on misdemeanor peeking charges was pushed back by more than a month Friday after the two sides were unable to meet with the judge to discuss a settlement.

Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo, center, talks briefly with his parents, Margarita and Efren Carrillo, Sr., after being arraigned on a misdemeanor charge in Sonoma County Superior Court in Santa Rosa on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013.  (CHRISTOPHER CHUNG / PD)

Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo, center, talks briefly with his parents, Margarita and Efren Carrillo, Sr., after being arraigned on a misdemeanor charge in Sonoma County Superior Court in Santa Rosa on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013. (CHRISTOPHER CHUNG / PD)

Judge Andria Richey agreed to postpone a scheduled March 7 trial to April 18 because her crowded court docket prevented an in-chambers discussion. She had been expected to indicate a maximum sentence if Carrillo admitted the allegations before trial.

Now, Carrillo’s lawyer and the prosecutor will return Thursday to attempt a closed-door discussion with another judge, Arnold Rosenfield, who will take over for Richey.

Rosenfield could sentence Carrillo to anything from probation to six months in jail upon conviction.

“We haven’t been able to talk to the judge yet,” prosecutor Cody Hunt said outside court. “We’re bumping up against that.”

A partially clad Carrillo, 32, was arrested in the wee hours of July 13 after a Santa Rosa woman called police to report someone outside her bedroom window. In a second 911 call she said someone identifying himself as her neighbor knocked on her door and ran away.

Police arrived to find Carrillo dressed in just his socks and underwear and carrying a cellphone. He was arrested when he couldn’t provide a clear explanation for his behavior.

Officers said they believed Carrillo was attempting a sexual assault. Three months later, prosecutors filed a single misdemeanor charge, saying it was all that was supported by evidence.

A felony conviction would have led to removal from office.

Interim police Chief Hank Schreeder declined a renewed request Friday to release the 911 tapes, citing the ongoing prosecution. He would not say if he’d release the tapes once the case is resolved.

Both sides have since met to discuss a pre-trial settlement for Carrillo, who once was seen as a promising, young Democrat with designs on state office.

The nature of the talks has not been disclosed but they are expected to involve a potential punishment. Carrillo is not likely to get jail because he has no criminal conviction record.

His arrest was the second in a year for the 5th District Supervisor, who was re-elected in 2012 to a second four-year-term. Carrillo was picked up in connection with a fight outside a San Diego nightclub on Labor Day weekend of that year but charges were never filed.

Critics called for him to resign in the aftermath of his Santa Rosa arrest, which Carrillo has suggested was connected to a longtime drinking problem. He checked in to a treatment center after his arrest.

Carrillo has said he has no intention of stepping down.

(You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 568-5312 or paul.payne@presdemocrat.com.)

11 Responses to “Supervisor Efren Carrillo’s trial date pushed back to April”

  1. Elephant says:

    There’s a new article up today about “negotiations” between the prosecutors and Carrillo’s mouthpieces. My only question is whatever happened to the DA deciding what to charge someone with and then going to trial? That’s what would happen to the average person. Carrillo is getting extraordinarily special treatment here.

  2. earthsleaves says:

    not sure FB and others what the “hillary” connection is BUT why have you as the citizens who voted him into this position not DEMANDED his removal What an oxymoron. A criminal,a pedophile, a rapist(almost); and he still collects a salary your taxes pay for and gets handed ANOTHER position. Incredible!

  3. R.B. Fish says:

    The Carrillo case is just symbolic of what is happening in America today. We no longer have representation in public office to protect and defend us as provided by the Constitution and applicable state laws. In SoCo as in Washington and Sacramento we exist in a political state void of justice for the average citizen. SoCo DA should consider no plea agreements and take this case to trial. No such luck. SoCO power brokers only think about big money and control and they need dedicated soldiers to carry out the mission. They have to protect Carrillo to show other prospective candidates that not only will we get you elected but if you screw up we have the power to protect you. And, PS there’s good money in it for you. Unfortunately, as presented by poster Robert James, we live in a society of enablers just look at Hillary Clinton.

  4. Robert James says:

    The people who charged him for peeping instead of the crime he did which was rip off the screen to her bedroom window to get in should be charged as enabler’s in that allowed him to be walking the street’s so he could let the lady he can do as he pleases.

  5. Francis says:

    Justice delayed is justice denied. Carrillo will be termed out and in Washington on the Clinton staff or in an elected office by the time this case sees the light of day.

    How can the common folk get this kind of treatment from the judicial system in Sonoma County?

  6. Jim says:

    Push it out, push it out…eventually the sheeple will forget what he did and there will some sort of probation or community service.

    Hey, at least he got an automatic raise. He’s quite deserving of his job and more money.

  7. Indeed, the implication that Judge Richey was “going to throw the book at Carrillo” certainly gives me hope, and I’m sure other Sonoma County citizens as well. While it certainly is welcome news, we can only hope that now that the case is going to be handled by yet a different judge, that this judge is of at least a similar mindset and will recommend that “Captain Underpants” do some jail time as punishment for his unacceptable nocturnal transgression which he committed back on July 13, 2013, at 3:40 a.m. which resulted in an innocent, frightened woman to call 9-1-1 not once, but TWICE! If that had been me, my friends or members of my family, we would have been sentenced summarily to mandatory incarceration in state prison.

    I will reiterate that I stand with the victim in this matter. The fact that she had to endure what amounts to nothing less than a “night of terror” should be cause for alarm to all law-abiding Sonoma County citizens who value having a sense of safety and security in their own homes. I ask you: Can you imagine what this woman must have felt when the sexual-assault team showed up to her home in the wee hours of the morning because of the conduct of our “supervisor”? I shudder to think how she must have felt.

    Accordingly, it is my sincere hope that she will seek out a civil attorney with a specialty in sexual harassment and will file a lawsuit for damages in civil court.

    If any case cries out for justice, this one surely does, as lady justice seems to have so far turned her back on this poor, unfortunate victim who did absolutely nothing to contribute to the happening of this incident.

  8. Steveguy says:

    Switch judges because of what ? Who gets to switch judges ?

    So busy she couldn’t do it during a break ? Or they don’t want a WOMAN judge so they are trying another judge, who may or may not be bought but is a MAN.

    Where are the feminists ? Hiding from underwear peepers ?

  9. Papa ESoCo says:

    Yawn, oh, another delay in “Captain Underpants” wrist slap? Gee, could not see that coming, LOL! Guess I won’t bring up the “tar and feathers” option again, though probably the last resort for true “Justice” here. Will bring up, yet again: where is the Justice/relief for the Lady victim in this sordid episode? “There’s no need to fear, Captain Underpants is here”; still free to roam the neighborhood and keep it safe at 3:40 AM.

  10. ZERO Representaton says:

    They can extend this case until next year… but guess what? The people aren’t going to forget. Mr. Carrillo needs to pay for his actions one way or the other. If it’s not being removed from his BOS position and going to jail it should be with a HUGE settlement. Personally I believe he deserves both and he can afford it with his positions on both the BOS and the new Sonoma County Power Board position that was handed to him.

  11. Elephant says:

    Wow! Do I detect a change of tone in this article? For once, it states most of the pertinent facts in Carrillo’s case, including the San Diego incident, pretty clearly. Most but not all. The article does not follow up on the last article’s statement that Carrillo’s lawyer’s counter-offer had been sent to the State AG’s office. What happened with that? Still the implication that Judge Richey was going to throw the book at Carrillo as hard as she could is a very good sign. We can only hope that Judge Rosenfield is of the same mindset and realizes that this is a pattern of disregard for the law by Carrillo.

    To me, the most important part about the whole “Captain Underpants” (thank you to whoever first though up that moniker) episode is that the arresting officers did not observe Carrillo as being under the influence of alcohol and there is no proof to refute that claim. Something that has been said before here many times by many people: if your average person had done what Carrillo did, they would be months into a 5-10 year sentence.