General Position Information

By Todd A. Hornik, Esq.

A short summary of various positions relevant to the Superior Court Election

To answer this question you need to understand the position. The Monterey County Superior Court bench is split 2/3's criminal and 1/3 civil (approximately) and the Monterey County Superior Court needs an experienced attorney to handle the high volumes of criminal proceedings that will surely be assigned to the new Judge. As a Deputy District Attorney, for four years I handled he felony arcotics division (primarily alone). The reason I feel that this is important is that during that time, 2003-2006, that division was responsible for just under 1/3 of all felony criminal cases filed in the county. I handled them all. Over a thousand cases each and every year. Arraignments, pre-trials, preliminary hearings, motion hearings and court trials and jury trials. I did it all, and I did it successfully and with the respect of opposing counsel. I had a fantastic secretary, Carol Blagg, who was of immeasurable assistance to me, but it was me in court. Four days a week, every week. In turn, I was assigned to a special narcotics unit in 2007 with a smaller caseload but higher profile cases. Since August of last year I have been assigned to handle major and general felonies (over 150 since coming into the assignment). I have over 60 active felony cases, several of which are scheduled for trial during this campaign. I am a working, courtroom attorney. I have the litigation skills to run an efficient and just court and I have earned the respect of my colleagues and opposing counsel.

For me, the bottom line is courtroom experience, right here in Monterey County. I have been acknowledged as an expert in the field by the California District Attorneys Association who have asked me to lecture to experienced prosecutors and law enforcement officials four times in the past year. I have also taught the law at various law enforcement academies over the years and still teach for the California Department of Parks and Recreation in Asilomar, as I have done since 2000.

I have spent the vast majority of my legal career right here in the courtrooms and hallways of the Monterey County Courts. I have dedicated myself to the service of the community where I reside and raise my family. I have the youth, enthusiasm and strength to continue to serve Monterey County for decades to come.

The big problems facing the county and the courts:

Without a doubt the two most pressing crime problems are gangs and narcotics. Interestingly enough they are each pressing for completely different reasons. The gang problem is the more obvious and knowable. Violence in our community, particularly in Salinas and the Salinas Valley is and has been out of control for too long. The impact of fear on our citizens has repercussions in depressed commercial activity, underperforming schools and, of course, physical injury and even death to those caught up in the gang lifestyle and,all too often, innocent bystanders. I raised the question directly to Brian Contreras of Second Chance (a gang outreach program) at the recent Salinas forum on Ethics and Violence held at Hartnell College on April 9th. I asked him about options for convicted gang offenders. I limited the class to those who did not directly and personally inflict injury (because I felt it rather obvious what needed to be done in that situation commit those individuals to lengthy prison terms) and asked him directly, during the open mic portion of the forum, how should a judge handle such a sentencing? His answer included the usual request for education and a referral to a gang intervention program like his own. After the forum ended, I spoke again to Mr. Contreras. This time we fleshed out some real life parameters to his answer. (And this is where my experience in the narcotics unit served me well) We asked ourselves why and how the Sate and the Courts were able to devote such huge sums of money to narcotic rehabilitation, classes, drug testing, probation monitoring, frequent court appearances to monitor individual, non-violent drug offenders but had no parallel systems in place for gangs. I'm not suggesting for a moment that violent criminals be given classes and programs, but I am wondering why we channel so much effort at those people who, by definition, haven't hurt anyone but themselves and almost none by comparison to redirecting those who may have a potential, or have even begun down a path of violence, but may still be rehabilitated if there was a concerted effort. I mean to say that if we have the resources to bring an addict to court every week to check on their progress and efforts, then why should we do the same for low level, first timer gang offenders? Bring them in every week. Check on their job hunt status, or their enrollment in classes or payment of restitution and court fines. Let them know that we're watching, but that they can have the assistance of the courts to get them through their struggle. If they succeed, we have all benefited. And if they fail, we'll know that much sooner that they have chosen a lifestyle out of the norm that threatens the safety and security of others. And I for one would rather know that sooner than later.

The narcotic problem is of a whole different caliber. Felony narcotics cases comprise practically 1/3 of all criminal cases filed in Monterey County. The sheer volume is mind boggling. The State, County, Court and community resources dedicated to this scourge could be better spent on schools, parks, tax rebates or whatever other government programs you can imagine. Instead, millions and millions of dollars go out the door chasing elusive rehabilitation efforts. In Monterey County we have three separate and distinct drug rehab programs operating full-time in 2 courtrooms. While I know and have been personally moved by the stories of lives regained that fact of the matter is that there has been absolutely no reduction in the level of criminal narcotics filings for the past five or six years that I have been intimately involved in this area. That speaks volumes. We're never going to defeat narcotics in the criminal courts. No one ever has, and no one ever will. Narcotics are a social disease and if we are ever going to make significant headway in this area it will be on the social front. Like demonizing cigarettes, we have to have a cultural shift on this issue. Please don't misread this and think I favor legalization of narcotics because I don't. I want simple and understandable laws that people can follow, without loopholes and shenanigans like Proposition 215. But I also think we need to put the problem in context. If the State has "X" amount of prison beds, do we want to fill half of them, or a third, or a quarter, with non-violent drug possessors? Or should we save the space for those who would harm us, rob us, steal from us and endanger our ability to live our lives freely?

3 Strikes:

3 Strikes is one of the toughest recidivist laws in the country. So be it. If someone commits a serious/violent felony, twice, then commits another felony there should be significant and severe consequences for those actions. Many people though, simply don't understand the way 3 Strikes works. As a prosecutor, here in Monterey County, I have handled over one hundred 'strike' cases and have developed an understanding of the complexity of this sentencing structure borne of courtroom litigation. The term `strike' applies to a limited number of felony offenses, not any felony. And although the third felony doesn't have to be on the serious/violent felony list, the two prior convictions must have been serious and/or violent. The other part most people don't know is that a judge has the power, under decisional law interpreting the statute, to remove strike priors from a particular sentence handed down. Based on a number of factors, including the nature and age of the priors, the nature of the current crime, social factors particular to the defendant and a whole host of other reasons, a judge can decide to remove a particular defendant, partially or wholly, from the otherwise increased sentence that could be imposed. I think that those individuals who have demonstrated a lack of concern for the impact of their criminal conduct on community at large, repeatedly and violently, should not be given more opportunities to prey on innocent victims. Those were the people targeted by the 3 strikes law when the voters passed it and I believe, rightfully so.

Governor's plan on prison overcrowding:

There are a number of aspects of the "Strategic Growth Plan" that I can support, and some that I feel should not be pursued. There needs to be additional bed space/housing units to house the current and foreseeable future prison population. That said we can't afford to build our way out of this problem. In this light, the need for additional re-entry and transitional housing needs to be a priority. The revolving door needs to be closed and efforts need to be made on the outside to assure that once a `debt to society' has been paid, an individual who desires to do so can have an opportunity to live a law-abiding life. The Governor has also proposed additional funding for medical and mental health services and additional capacity at the local level for juvenile facilities and adult jail capacity. He has included ideas for anti-recidivism programs targeted at the 18-25 year old population with regard to job training and drug treatment. The fact of the matter is that the population of California keeps increasing, but prison capacity has stalled, with no new prisons having been built since 1994. Early release of inmates won't accomplish much if we don't take a serious look at the way criminal punishments are organized. And any such release could seriously impact the safety of our communities and lead to higher crime rates. I support the call for the creation of a Sentencing Commission but only if it done in a way that allows for a dominant role to be played by elected District Attorneys, Judges and others from the community, not just politicians and legislators.