Two Sentenced to Jail for Sex With Inmate

A few days in jail for these outrageous crimes?
What is wrong with this judge? Isn't this the same moron who let Dr. Schlensky's drunken killer out early because she got pregnant in jail?

Yes, Ochoa is that judge. Pay attention to what he does; he lets all sorts of people off with a hand slap. He thinks society is rife with people who 'had a bad childhood' or were 'victims' of something else. I sure hope he isn't the judge on the case where the drunk driver killed the deputy DA. Johnigan had past abuse. As if that excuses murder...

Thugs with badges. Another thug on the bench.

hey becky - laura cleaves wasn't a deputy d.a. - she was an investigator - and her life isn't any more valuable because of it. by the way, these sleazebags obviously cut a deal with the prosecutor - also known as a plea bargain. if no agreement is made, the case goes to trial. so the judge probably just went along with the prosecution and defense attorneys and imposed the pre-arranged sentence. joyce dudley obviously doesn't care much about the woman who was victimized - duh - probably a felon and therefore can't vote in the election. so dudley disposed of this case as quick as possible to focus on more sympathetic victims and try to bolster her image as someone who is fit to be the new district attorney. in fact, joyce dudly doesn't care about the poor, downtrodden or or those who happen to be on the fringes of society. she cares only about the cases she thinks might advance her in her quest to be the rat with the most cheese.

This is outrageous! Those guys should be doing more than a couple hundred days in the slammer for sexually assaulting a prisoner in their care... WTF?!?

OUTRAGEOUS! These vile rapists should get YEARS in the slammer, not days. This is unacceptable. What scumbag pigs. I am shocked and horrifed. It is not SEX in prison, it is RAPE by men in charge. Despicable. May they Burn in Hell.

Hey people! Wake up! This was a plea bargain done by the D.A., Dudley. The judge did not have any part of this slap-on-wrist sentence. It was a back room deal done by Dudley. She must be trying to get the law enforcement endorsements for her bid to be D.A.! What other reason for going so easy on these inmate guards? Unless... she's too busy running for election to do a jury trial and put these felony rapists away like she should. Kinda sounds like her accusations against the D.A.! Too busy with other things to do her job. Dudley.... Tough on crime? I don't think so!

i'm disappointed that people waste breath on conjecture about joyce dudley's possible motives in handling these convictions. real criminals have admitted their crimes and they are clearly inexcusable, but i guess stayindy and nickilawyer (whomever you are) thought this a more appropriate time to make personal slurs against a woman who devotes her life to difficult work in defense of the public's safety... i understand that election season makes character assassination a favorite blood sport, but please keep your eye on the ball and spare us the vitriole. knowing joyce and her family, i would find these comments laughable if they weren't so hurtful.

This is outrageous! It probably was a plea bargain in exchange for the no contest plea. I know trials are expensive but this is just an outrage. Dudley probably isn't courting the police/correction officers here. Why would they want their work going to private contractors? This and all other law enforcement work should go to professionals, not low-paid contract workers. Just think of the message this is sending. If you are looking for sex, don't pick up a prostitute (it costs money and the sentence might be higher if you are caught), just get hired on by one of these contractors. Even assuming that you are caught and they believe the inmate over you, you will still just get less than a year for RAPE. The worst kind of crime because that woman had no hope of fighting him off or escaping. Disgusting.

Scumbags! Should have their peepees cut off :) henry

An utterly disgraceful performance on all sides - the Santa Barbara DA's office regularly accepts "no contest" pleas when most prosecutors would insist on guilty pleas (whether to fewer charges or some other "consideration"). The distinction is important and has nothing to do with saving time or judicial resources - the DA's conduct conveys a lack of conviction in their cases and of great weakness and can be damaging and corrosive to the public over time. The judge is hardly above criticism even if, as has been suggested, the sentences were part of a plea bargain - sentencing is a matter within his control and discretion and he could - and should - have refused to accept the plea agreement if these obscene sentences were part of the deal.

I'm with stayindy and nickilawyer. As I recall from reading ab out the story some time back, others who witnessed this event did not characterize it as anything forced. Those witnesses described the "victim" as being a willing participant! By the way, if any man forces a woman to perform oral sex on him, he risks getting bitten. Would these men really risk such a thing? I doubt it. Their behavior was certainly foolish but hardly what I would consider criminal!

Outrageous behavior, outrageous verdict!

We do not know enough about the case to make judgements. Including assuming the victim's ability to bite. A large and threatening man towering over a terrified,struggling and helpless woman is a powerful deterrent. The results of inflicting such an action could bring on a reflex of dangerous proportions. His hands could have been around her neck, threatening strangulation.

Remember this Judge ,,, I bet James O Mahoney, the surf rat does ,,so does That coin dealer friend of his. Look up that OLD story,,,, One set of laws for the rich and connected,,,another set for the rest of us!!!!!!!

Judge Ochoa presided efficiently and fairly over the Tacadena case.

"We do not know enough about the case to make judgements." Samuel

Wrong. We need know nothing more than that the woman was a prison inmate in the custody and care of these two men who were responsible for transporting her. The idea of "consent" under these circumstances - which you and buckwheat suggest - is as ridiculous as it is offensive. Common sense and the law recognize the power and authority people in the position of those men have over inmates and regard it as virtually dispositive in such cases. (It is similar to but even more clear cut than the reason many colleges have completely banned sex between professors and students, regardless of claims of consent). This was little more than rape and Ochoa's sentences of 75 and 275 days in jail are disgraceful.

Justice.

Please read the comments fully before you reply. There was nothing in my comments that inferred " consent". I have no idea how you can deduce this. And I find it offensive that you would comment so. Furthermore, If one is not in court, on the jury or privy to the details of the trial one has no business assuming the type of crime committed, or criticising facts that led to the decision of Jury and Judge. That's why we have courts of Law and not rope carrying vigilantes running amok, searching for the nearest tree.

Samuel is a MORON,,, the system did not work to protect its citizens. THAT is the first and only priority. Would you like these two living next to your family when they get out? People in authority who abuse someone sexually should get a stiff prison term. The details do not matter, they just inflame society because of the injustice.

Samuel - you seem to have overlooked the fact there was no trial. That does not mean that the public must accept this travesty of justice and remain mute about this case or the sentences imposed. Frankly, I don't really understand what your point is other than to claim we don't have enough information to criticize or question the sentences imposed, a point of view with which I completely disagree. (I apologize if I have mistakenly lumped you with buckwheat who clearly does suggest this was consensual sex). I believe that from a legal standpoint there is sufficient information to draw certain conclusions and, more importantly, to justifiably raise questions about handling of this case by the DAs office and the judge. The fact the woman was a prison inmate in the legal custody of those two defendants is enough to establish that there was no legal consent to these sexual assaults which is probably why these two animals elected not to go to trial. The question in my mind is whether the DA's office let them plead "no contest" as part of some shameful deal or whether the judge, in an incredibly poor exercise of judicial discretion, chose to impose sentences of 75 and 275 days in jail for crimes which were tantamount to rape.

JUSTICE

I understand where you are coming from and thank you for explaining your points in a civil fashion. My point is we cannot take the Law into our own hands. "To draw certain conclusions" is not enough. However, registering as a sex offender is a powerful restraint and punishment,and this man will be hard put to make it in this world. He will have to reveal he is a sex offender to every would be employer and landlord, and one knows how neighbourhoods react to sex offenders moving into their space.

OLDTIMER

Moron or not, I hope if someone decides to accuse you of a criminal act without evidence there will not be a group of people like yourself screaming for blood.

In spite of your thoughts the Law of this land was created for the people, and if one feels strongly about a decision one can start a petition and demand a re-hearing.

And reverting to name calling in an exchange of opinions online, ( and these are after all only opinions) to stress your point to an invisible entity of whom you know nothing,is simply pointless.

I know one thing. The citizens got a bad deal in this matter!

samuel,
It's obvious that you know nothing about this Law of the Land that you keep mentioning in such lofty terms. We can no more sign a petition and demand a re-hearing in a criminal case than we can go back in time and prevent the rape from happening. And as far as registering as a sex offender is concerned, the poor baby! I feel so bad for the rapist!

DANA33

For heaven's sake. Read. These men were not sentenced in a criminal case for rape. That's the whole point of contention in these arguments.

Shocked? No.
Sickened? Definitely.
I would like more information on why Ms. Dudley proceeded as she did. I realize that it is probably a sealed matter at this juncture. I regard her highly for her pursuit of scum such as these two rapists. This sort of thing over and over can lead to vigilantism in some form. May be tempting to 'feel' that short-term, but we are better than that.

Samuel, what planet are you from. Whatever school you went to,,,,,,go ask for your tuition back!!! You do not have a clue. Petition and a re-hearing,,,what a joke!!!!

Hey Samuel ,, Perhaps you could be a judge like OOOOOOOOOOO choa,,,,, you seem to have about the same IIIIIIIIQQQQQQQ!!!!

the case file is a matter of public record and is available to anyone who wants to read it. the easiest way to get it is to go to the 1st floor of the figueroa division - downstairs from the street level - and look up the defendants' names in the computer under the criminal index. then you give the case number(s) for the instant charge to the clerk and he/she pulls the case file for you to review. it usually takes a day or two to get the file. you can even have the clerk make copies of documents in the case file if you want to pay for them (they are cheap).
if the defendant has a record, there will be a list showing all of his or her cases, so make sure you get the right case - in this matter it will most likely be the last case since they are listed chronologically.

"These men were not sentenced in a criminal case for rape."

And therein lays the problem unless you actually believe that the rapist fell asleep and woke to find the victim on him (no doubt because he was just so irresistable). I understand that the Prosecutor might not have believed that she had the evidence to proceed with the sexual assault charges but hell, why not try if the judge that has the case is an idiot?!

Chris,
What do you mean when you write that the victim asked for 16 months in jail for Yglesias and 75 days for Ochoa? The victim asked for lesser sentences for the suspects than the prosecutor?