Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Another plea deal

Arcata assault defendant accepts plea

Bradley Harold Mallett was sentenced on a plea agreement stemming from a 2006 assault that left a then-transient man severely injured.

Mallett, 25, of Manila, was sentenced Wednesday to a total of six years in state prison — a stipulated term per the plea agreement he accepted Tuesday: assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury with a special allegation that he did produce great bodily injury, said Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Arnie Klein.

Mallett’s case stems a Feb. 19, 2006, incident after which Kirk M. Celis, then 48, was found severely beaten behind the Valley West shopping center in Arcata, suffering significant head trauma and injuries to his upper torso that resulted in a punctured lung...

...As part of Mallett’s plea agreement, McCrone said, the DA’s Office dismissed the attempted murder and second-degree robbery counts Mallett was initially charged with.

Also dismissed as part of the plea agreement was another special allegation pertaining to the assault charge — that Mallett inflicted great bodily injury to Celis that caused Celis to become comatose due to brain injury, or to suffer paralysis.



Why?

More:
Arcata Eye - Mallett gets six years in state prison

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

So the DA's office says "“... We felt it was the best result we were going to get out of the case given the state of the evidence.”

Then why the hell did they charge attempted murder?

This really is a load of c#$%. And they even gave the farm away in the plea bargain as the guy got so little time.

Read what I found:

245(1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.


12022.7(a) Any person who personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice in the commission of a felony or attempted felony shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for three years.

BUT

(b) Any person who personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice in the commission of a felony or attempted felony which causes the victim to become comatose due to brain injury or to suffer paralysis of a permanent nature, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years. As used in this subdivision, "paralysis" means a major or complete loss of motor function resulting from injury to the nervous system or to a muscular mechanism.

Looks like the guy got a sweet deal from the DA. by my count he should have gotten 8 to 9 years and not 6, but....keep that revolving door swinging Paul!

Anonymous said...

I think you posted this in the wrong section. Oh well, your point is taken and is right for anything this DA does.

Rose said...

Six years - meaning three actually? At 50% or 85%?

Right section - this was an assault - Bradley Harold Mallett was sentenced on a plea agreement stemming from a 2006 assault that left a then-transient man severely injured.

Mallett, 25, of Manila, was sentenced Wednesday to a total of six years in state prison — a stipulated term per the plea agreement he accepted Tuesday: assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury with a special allegation that he did produce great bodily injury, said Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Arnie Klein.

Mallett’s case stems a Feb. 19, 2006, incident after which Kirk M. Celis, then 48, was found severely beaten behind the Valley West shopping center in Arcata, suffering significant head trauma and injuries to his upper torso that resulted in a punctured lung.

Mallett was identified as a suspect in early October and, on Oct. 18, a felony warrant was issued for his arrest, past reports indicate...

...Also dismissed as part of the plea agreement was another special allegation pertaining to the assault charge — that Mallett inflicted great bodily injury to Celis that caused Celis to become comatose due to brain injury, or to suffer paralysis.


I'll add it to the post.

Anonymous said...

with actual infliction of gbi it's a violent strike. see 667.5(c)(8)

so he gets 85% of his time

Anonymous said...

This may be off point, but I would like to know why the California State Bar has not stepped in and charged Gallegos with misconduct in office worthy of disbarment. His power is great and he abuses it on a daily basis. Getting more bold all of the time. At least North Carolina's State Bar has it right. They are going after Mike Nifong (AS THEY SHOULD) and it won't be long before his power hungry misconduct will be disbarred!
D.

Rose said...

You're not off point. you're right on point. It is a very very good question. Unfortunately it will probably get a bit worse first.

Anonymous said...

has anyone ever reported him to the State Bar Associtation?

Anonymous said...

The state bar might be a good choice. I would think you would have to have specifics. lots of specifics. It would probably be best to focus on one incident. I have heard that if a complaint is made the lawyer has to make a written response to the bar association.

But I'm not sure if arrogance, stupidity, incompetence, and a receeding hair line is a real violation of state bar rules.

The state bar is lawyers and lawyers tend to stick up for, and defend, other lawyers.

Don't forget Jeff Swartz either.

Anonymous said...

Not that I would EVER defend the moron called the DA, but, the only one that was at the scene of the assault, besides Mallett of course, was Kirk Celis. No way he can testify, and there is no physical evidence to tie him to it. So..

Anonymous said...

Yes, lawyers stick up for other lawyers. But what about that freak show Greg Allen. He's a lawyer. Isn't he the one calling for police review because people doing the same job can't investigate themselves? Hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

But the police are reviewed, by the DA, by the Judge, and sometimes by a jury. The police review crowd really want police "control", to keep the police from affecting something in their lives, like criminal activity, political agenda, or whatever. The police review crowd hate cops, intil they are a victim of an wrong or preceived wrong.

Rose said...

The police review crowd have been remarkably silent about the DA setting himself up with an assault team.

Until they come out against that - they have lost all credibility.