A Simi Valley man accused of fighting with police officers who responded to a domestic violence call nearly eight years ago could yet escape criminal charges over the incident, after the California Supreme Court said a controversial, now-retired Ventura County judge and prosecutors mishandled his seven-years-long prosecution badly enough to potentially warrant dismissal.
In the ruling, the justices agreed Ventura County Superior Court Judge David R. Worley overstepped his authority under the law when he unilaterally moved to reduce criminal charges against the man identified as Richard Allen Mitchell from a felony to misdemeanors.
However, the high court justices also said Worley and Ventura County District Attorney Erik Nasarenko further erred when they resumed Mitchell's prosecution despite no clear direction from a state appellate court to do so.
The case centered on the prosecution of Mitchell stemming from an altercation between Mitchell and police officers in 2016.
According to court documents, police officers were called to a home in Simi Valley at that time in response to a call for assistance in a domestic violence incident. Police reportedly were told a woman had called for help and said a man was "going to kill" her.
Upon arrival, police reportedly found a woman who had a red mark over her eye and accused Mitchell of punching her. Police reportedly then found Mitchell in an adjacent side yard and told him they wanted to talk with him.
However, Mitchell reportedly "assumed a fighting stance," prompting police to move to subdue him, as they reportedly knew from previous encounters that Mitchell was known to carry a knife.
Mitchell reportedly resisted and fought with officers, including kicking at least one of them.
Police reportedly recovered a knife and crystal methamphetamine from Mitchell's pockets.
Ventura County prosecutors, then under former District Attorney Greg Totten, charged Mitchell with a felony for resisting police and a misdemeanor for possession of meth.
Nasarenko replaced Totten in 2021, upon Totten's retirement.
More than four years then passed before Mitchell's trial was scheduled to start.
However, just before Mitchell's trial would begin, Judge Worley acted on his own motion to reduce Mitchell's felony charge to a misdemeanor. The judge said he believed the reduction in charges was proper because Mitchell had not reoffended in the four years between the incident with police and the scheduled start of his trial.
Prosecutors objected to the judge's move and appealed.
A state appeals court sided with Nasarenko in 2023, agreeing Worley had overreached in reducing Mitchell's charges before trial could take place, and over the objections of prosecutors, who had also rejected a deal proposed by the defense that would have allowed Mitchell to avoid a felony conviction.
The appeals court ordered the felony charge to be reinstated.
However, at the beginning of the appeals process, the appellate court had also paused any further proceedings in Mitchell's case while the appellate courts handled the legal questions surrounding Worley's action.
The case was then taken to the California Supreme Court.
However, before the state Supreme Court could weigh in, prosecutors resumed the case against Mitchell before Judge Worley. They ultimately agreed to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor, as Worley had initially directed. Mitchell was then ordered to pay a "modest fine" and was released with time served.
At the state Supreme Court, the justices also agreed the appellate court was correct and Worley was wrong to initially reduce Mitchell's charges.
"The trial court had no authority to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor before it was called upon to exercise its discretion at sentencing," wrote Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero in the opinion she authored for the unanimous court.
Guerrero, however, said the ruling was complicated by the handling of the case by both Nasarenko's office and Judge Worley.
Particularly, they faulted the prosecutors and judge for moving ahead with the prosecution, despite receiving no order from the appellate court specifically lifting the pause they had ordered, which is legally known as a stay of proceedings.
"Because the Court of Appeal’s opinion was never final, its temporary stay never expired. The trial court therefore violated the stay when it acceded to the prosecution’s request to resume the criminal proceedings against Mitchell. We therefore agree with the parties that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed, and its subsequent actions are null and void," Guerrero wrote.
However, noting Mitchell had already been subjected to an apparent, though improper resolution in the case, which had dragged on for more than seven years, the state high court recommended the lower court consider dropping the charges against Mitchell altogether.
Worley gained nationwide notoriety earlier this year when he declined to give prison time to a woman accused of killing a boyfriend while stabbing him 108 times while high on drugs.
In that sentencing, Worley said he believed the woman, Bryn Spechjer, should not be sent to prison for the killing because she was allegedly not in control of her actions at the time she killed Chad O'Melia, who allegedly had encouraged her to take the final hit from the bong before she took up the knife.
He further said he had taken into consideration Spechjer's lack of a prior criminal record.
Mitchell has been represented by attorneys from the office of Ventura County Public Defender Claudia Y. Bautista.