Bench Warrant from 2012 Recalled, Bellflower, Probation Ends

In 2013, our client went into the Lakewood Walmart located on Carson Avenue and shoplifted approximately $120 in women’s clothing.  Our client was 27 years old at the time.  The Lakewood Sheriff’s were called to the scene and our client was arrested and taken to jail.  She then spent the next fifteen days at the Lynnwood (Century West Regional) Jail for women.

Our client’s time at Lynnwood ended only because she agreed to a plea bargain for petty theft (Penal Code § 484(a)).  The terms of the plea bargain were rather unfair by today’s standards: the client was placed on three years of informal probation with credit for thirty days in custody and with an obligation to perform fifteen days of community labor.

After thirteen months on probation, in 2014, our client had not filed her proof of completion of community labor.  This was so because our client had not performed any community labor.  She was homeless and had picked up other shoplifting cases (see the prior bench warrant summary on this website).  She was just struggling to survive.

The clerk’s office at the Bellflower Courthouse notified the judge assigned to the case that our client’s progress on community labor was not met.  The judge then issued a bench warrant in the amount of $50,000.

As the reader of this summary may be aware, when a bench warrant is issued, it is very unusual for anyone at the courthouse to notify the defendant of the bench warrant having been issued.  In our client’s case, she was not notified of this event.

Ten years later, however, in 2024, our client’s employer advised the client that there was a $50,000 bench warrant for her out of the Bellflower Courthouse.  The employer told our client to take care of it ASAP or risk being terminated.

The client then called Greg Hill & Associates and explained her situation.  The client was not aware of why the bench warrant had been issued, so Greg went to court and retrieved the docket on her case, which stated the reason for the warrant.  

Greg first explained that a judge is not required to allow an attorney to appear on behalf of a defendant in a misdemeanor when recalling a bench warrant.  While most all judges do permit this as a professional courtesy, a few judges require the defendant himself or herself to appear.  Greg commented that this could happen for our client, particularly since the bail amount, $50,000, associated with the warrant was so high.

Greg also explained to the client that with the change in the law brought about by Assembly Bill (AB) 1950 as to probation periods being one year for most misdemeanors and two years for most felonies, with the law being retroactive, there was an argument that our client’s probation had ended one year after her plea and the judge’s issuance of the bench warrant was in error.  

Greg cautioned the client, however, that this exact argument had been made and rejected in a Contra Costa court case, People v. Kelley Kuhnel (1st App. Dist., 2022) 75 Cal. App. 5th 726, 290 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693 (link to article below, Article 1681) and the First Appellate District agreed.  However, Greg explained, Bellflower is in the Second Appellate District, so a published appellate court ruling in the First Appellate District is not binding.   In other words, Greg could make the same argument in good faith that the Contra Costa judge rejected.  It would then be up to the Bellflower judge and / or the prosecutor in Bellflower to cite to the First Appellate District case or make the same arguments that the prosecution made in Contra Costa and on appeal.

Greg then went to the Bellflower Courthouse, well aware of how such a request to recall the warrant and end probation could fail. 

 

However, the judge assigned to the matter and the district attorney in the courtroom were in a good mood.  The judge graciously recalled the bench warrant and then, when Greg pointed out that AB 1950 meant probation had ended before the bench warrant was even issued, the judge turned to the prosecutor and asked him if he agreed.  The young prosecutor, perhaps never having such a situation arise, said “sounds good to me” and the judge found that probation had indeed ended before the bench warrant was issued.  Greg carefully let out a silent sigh of relief.

The client was extremely happy with this result, mostly because she dreaded having to find time to perform 15 days or more of community labor if probation had been reinstated on the same terms or with additional community labor as punishment for her probation violation.