[bruss01]

Until recently I had zero interest in UOC cases and so I have not been following the umpteen thousand pages of threads on this case. Can someone give me the bare facts in a nutshell? By "bare facts" I mean separate out all the "I though" or "he intended" or "What they thought was the case" and just give me the facts, jack. Such as where this took place, who was present, what was said, what citation was made or charges levied, etc. It should be easy enough to put this into a paragraph or two, and then maybe the mods would like to sticky that response so latecomers to the party (like myself) can come up to speed without spending half a day researching the case. If there is already a post of this sort, please just point me there, but please not to something with 50 odd pages and details dribbled out in one post after another, so to get everything you basically end up reading 50 pages.

[troysland]

I sat with Theseus at a Tony Roma's before a Town Hall Meeting in Alhambra a while back. He pretty much explained he was at a laundromat while UOC. Someone called the cops, they arrived, he was questioned. He explained that there actually was a school in the area, but I don't recall if it was inside of 1000 ft. distance or just outside. If anyone recalls more details, please chime in.

[mej16489]

Theseus was UOC at a private property laundry-mat which is within a Gun Free School Zone (GFSZ)

Violation of the GFSZ is a prohibitive misdeameanor if convicted (loss of gun rughts for 10 years)

The operative aspects of violating the GFSZ:
1) Possesion of a handgun
2) Offender knew or should have reasonably known that he was within 1000 feet of a K-12 school

The operative exemptions:
1) The handgun is in a locked container
2) The offender is on or within private property which is not owned by the school.

------
Theseus was contacted by Law Enforcement outside the front door of the Laundry Mat (I think he went out to have a smoke)
The LEOs performed an 'E-Check' (PC 12031e) to determine if the OC handgun was loaded and found that it was not.
LEOs at some point obtained identification of Theseus - I'm vague on the circumstances, but I think I'm clear that Theseus didn't voluntarily identify himself.
LEOs were of the opinion that no crime occurred and left.

A few days later (duration?) Theseus received filed charges from the DAs office in the mail.

LEOs testified that they were unaware that the 'incident' occurred within a GFSZ.
Somehow the judge has mandated that, 'private property which is open to the public is not private property'
Guilty verdict by jury

[Fjold]

The powers to be can make a lot of mistakes, the people cannot make one.

[hoffmang]

Let me give you the bare facts as I understand them.

1. Theseus drove to a laundromat with an unloaded handgun registered to him in a locked container.

2. Theseus opened the locked container in the parking lot of said laundromat and holstered the unloaded firearm.

3. Theseus proceeded to do some laundry and also at times sat on a bench outside of the strip mall laundromat on the sidewalk next to the facility, but not on the "public" sidewalk. The sidewalk in front of the strip mall did abut the public sidewalk.

4. Theseus had done some due diligence about school zones and did not believe he was in a school zone. He also had assumed he was on private property so to the extent he was aware that he might be in a school zone, he thought the private property exemption applied.

5. Officers responded to a man with a gun call.

6. When the officers responded Theseus was sitting on the bench outside the laundromat but inside the parking lot area in an area marked "private property" by the little inset signs.

7. The officers did a 12031(e) check and demanded and received identification. Theseus was co-operative. The officers contacted dispatch to ask a bunch of questions of whether he was actually breaking any laws. The school zone issue came up but dispatch and the supervisor dispatch was talking to didn't think the school zone was an issue. The officer returned his firearm to him after about 20 minutes of questioning and left him there with his gun at the laundromat.

8. A couple of months later a DA sent a summons for a violating 626.9.

9. In pre-trial motions, the judge denied a motion that the lot was "private property" or that Theseus had no knowledge of a GFSZ.

Those are the facts as best I know them.

-Gene

[bodger]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Let me give you the bare facts as I understand them.

1. Theseus drove to a laundromat with an unloaded handgun registered to him in a locked container.

2. Theseus opened the locked container in the parking lot of said laundromat and holstered the unloaded firearm.

3. Theseus proceeded to do some laundry and also at times sat on a bench outside of the strip mall laundromat on the sidewalk next to the facility, but not on the "public" sidewalk. The sidewalk in front of the strip mall did abut the public sidewalk.

4. Theseus had done some due diligence about school zones and did not believe he was in a school zone. He also had assumed he was on private property so to the extent he was aware that he might be in a school zone, he thought the private property exemption applied.

5. Officers responded to a man with a gun call.

6. When the officers responded Theseus was sitting on the bench outside the laundromat but inside the parking lot area in an area marked "private property" by the little inset signs.

7. The officers did a 12031(e) check and demanded and received identification. Theseus was co-operative. The officers contacted dispatch to ask a bunch of questions of whether he was actually breaking any laws. The school zone issue came up but dispatch and the supervisor dispatch was talking to didn't think the school zone was an issue. The officer returned his firearm to him after about 20 minutes of questioning and left him there with his gun at the laundromat.

8. A couple of months later a DA sent a summons for a violating 626.9.

9. In pre-trial motions, the judge denied a motion that the lot was "private property" or that Theseus had no knowledge of a GFSZ.

Those are the facts as best I know them.

-Gene

Makes me wonder what questioning took 20 minutes. That's a lot of questions.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by bodger

Makes me wonder what questioning took 20 minutes. That's a lot of questions.

Reading between the lines, it was the "waiting for dispatch" moments in the questioning.

Don't forget how long just getting a speeding ticket for 15 over takes...

-Gene

[MP301]

So, is he Convicted pending appeal at this point or no? And what do you think the outcome here will be Gene?

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by MP301

So, is he Convicted pending appeal at this point or no? And what do you think the outcome here will be Gene?

He's convicted. He has not yet been sentenced. I'm not yet at a place where I can share an opinion on the appeal.

-Gene

[CSDGuy]

Originally Posted by MP301

So, is he Convicted pending appeal at this point or no? And what do you think the outcome here will be Gene?

As things stand now, he's been convicted. He has not yet been sentenced. He is expected to appeal that conviction. All this is stuff I've learned from reading the one or two threads on this... I'm sure Gene probably and others have an opinion about appeals... but to me, it makes sense to hold off announcing anything firm on that end until it is time to file.

To Theseus: good luck!

[gordon freeman]

Was an actual distance from a school measured?

[Soldier415]

I had wondered about this myself. Interesting that no arrest, but received charges by mail. Overzealous DA with an anti-gun agenda?

[bodger]

Originally Posted by Soldier415

I had wondered about this myself. Interesting that no arrest, but received charges by mail. Overzealous DA with an anti-gun agenda?

The following quote from Theseus appeared in another thread:

As for the judge and DA, I believe that they both truly did what they believed to be their job. The judge made what I believe to be by him, proper legal decisions. It does no one any good to call them names or berate them personally.

"Believed to be their job" is what frightens me.

But I wasn't there, Theseus was, so it's not my place to second guess anyone.

[MindBuilder]

The distance to the school has been reportedly measured to be a bit over 500 feet.

[Theseus]

It is hard not to comment. . . .

When I can I will make public all the documents of the proceedings.

Until then I can't comment any further on the case.

[Shotgun Man]

Originally Posted by MP301

So, is he Convicted pending appeal at this point or no? And what do you think the outcome here will be Gene?

He's not convicted under CA law until he's sentenced, but that's just nit-picking.

[Theseus]

No. technically I am convicted the moment the clerk reads the jury's verdict of guilty.

Court finished about 4:30 PM. I still had firearms in the house. Had I come directly home I could be a prohibited person in possession. Fortunate for me I knew the law enough to make sure I was protected before coming home.

[pullnshoot25]

Originally Posted by bodger

Makes me wonder what questioning took 20 minutes. That's a lot of questions.

That is actually a "normal" length of time for a detention for UOC.

[bodger]

Originally Posted by pullnshoot25

That is actually a "normal" length of time for a detention for UOC.

Sounds like a cooling off period.

If all the cops are legally allowed to do is an (e) check and go about their business, they shouldn't be taking 20 minutes.

But if wishes were horses....

[MindBuilder]

No. technically I am convicted the moment the clerk reads the jury's verdict of guilty.

Court finished about 4:30 PM. I still had firearms in the house. Had I come directly home I could be a prohibited person in possession. Fortunate for me I knew the law enough to make sure I was protected before coming home.

I thought you weren't convicted until your appeals ended. I'm probably wrong as I don't even know where I heard that. But what makes you think you're convicted and prohibited immediately upon the reading of the verdict? I guess your lawyer told you but I'm still curious. A hasty Google search turned up a couple things that make me wonder about the convicted at verdict idea.

A judgment of conviction by the court must follow a plea of guilty just as a judgment of conviction must follow a jury verdict of guilty

Another quote reads:

When Defendant Files Untimely Notice of Appeal That is Later Dismissed, Conviction is Final Under 2255 When the Time for Appeal Expired

I think both of these cases were federal, so it could be different here in a California state court.

[Meplat]

I know we are discouraging UOC at this time and the foundation cannot support UOCers. But I seems to me that we need to support this appeal vigorously to avoid bad case law.

[bodger]

Originally Posted by Meplat

I know we are discouraging UOC at this time and the foundation cannot support UOCers. But I seems to me that we need to support this appeal vigorously to avoid bad case law.

I agree. I'm donating again this week.

As for case law, if Theseus wins his appeal, has this debacle helped or harmed the overall 2A movement in CA?

[Decoligny]

Originally Posted by MindBuilder

I thought you weren't convicted until your appeals ended. I'm probably wrong as I don't even know where I heard that. But what makes you think you're convicted and prohibited immediately upon the reading of the verdict? I guess your lawyer told you but I'm still curious. A hasty Google search turned up a couple things that make me wonder about the convicted at verdict idea.

Another quote reads:

I think both of these cases were federal, so it could be different here in a California state court.

If that were the case there would be a whole lot less people waiting 20 years on Death Row. They would be out in the community, "unconvicted" until their final appeal failed. Then they would be taken into custody and walked immediately to the execution chamber.

[jnojr]

Originally Posted by bodger

I agree. I'm donating again this week.

Donating to whom? Is CGF involved with this case? I was under the impression they were staying far, far away from UOC cases.

[GrizzlyGuy]

Originally Posted by jnojr

Donating to whom? Is CGF involved with this case? I was under the impression they were staying far, far away from UOC cases.

See here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=237835

Or direct to the donation page:

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ind...pen-carry-case

[Decoligny]

Originally Posted by jnojr

Donating to whom? Is CGF involved with this case? I was under the impression they were staying far, far away from UOC cases.

While not directly supporting the case, CGF has graciously set up a method for accepting donations from those who would like to financially support Theseus's case.

[MindBuilder]

Decoligny wrote:

Mindbuilder wrote:

If that were the case there would be a whole lot less people waiting 20 years on Death Row. They would be out in the community, "unconvicted" until their final appeal failed. Then they would be taken into custody and walked immediately to the execution chamber.

Defendants who are "innocent" until proven guilty are often held without bail even before the verdict. And defendants who are found guilty by the jury are often allowed to remain out on bail while their appeals are pending (as I'm guessing will happen here). Maybe the judge has the discretion to delay a judgment of conviction until after the appeals, depending on if he thinks the appeals are frivolous. So maybe it's not until your appeals have ended but rather when the judges think you've had enough appeals.

[Decoligny]

Originally Posted by MindBuilder

Decoligny wrote:

Defendants who are "innocent" until proven guilty are often held without bail even before the verdict. And defendants who are found guilty by the jury are often allowed to remain out on bail while their appeals are pending (as I'm guessing will happen here). Maybe the judge has the discretion to delay a judgment of conviction until after the appeals, depending on if he thinks the appeals are frivolous. So maybe it's not until your appeals have ended but rather when the judges think you've had enough appeals.

You are confusing "custody" with conviction.

O.J. Simpson was convicted in Las Vegas. He is currently in custody serving his sentence. He requested that he be allowed to remain out of custody on his own recognizance while awaiting his appeal. If they had allowed him to remain out of jail, he would still be a convicted criminal until his case was either overturned or the appeal court upholds the original verdict and he would then be returned to custody.

Ex-Sheriff Mike Corona is currently a convicted criminal, he was convicted of witness tampering on Jan 16, 2009. He was sentenced to 66 months in State Prison in Apr 27, 2009. Three months and 11 days after his conviction. He is currently free awaiting appeal. He is not in custody, but is still a convicted criminal.

[B.D.Dubloon]

In cases where someone owns guns but is convicted of something which prohibits them from having them, what must be done with their guns? Can they just store them at a location they don't have access to (locked in a family/friend's house), or do they need to be sold? Could the guns remain registered in the convict's name? Especially in a case like this where in 10 years he could reposes them.

[cmth]

One detail everyone is missing is that his identification was unlawfully obtained from him. He declined to provide identification, which is his right in California, and without permission the officer seized his wallet from his pants pocket and unlawfully searched his wallet and retrieved his driver license. This information was barred from the criminal trial and the jury never knew it. This alone will assure his conviction is overturned.

Had he not been identified there never would have been a charge or a trial. This is why it is of the utmost importance that anyone UOCing not carry any form of identification on themselves. You have absolutely nothing to gain by identifying yourself (either by choice or by force) and potentially a lot to lose if you do. Don't even give them your first name. By "cooperating" you could be signing your own death warrant, so to speak.

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by bodger

I agree. I'm donating again this week.

As for case law, if Theseus wins his appeal, has this debacle helped or harmed the overall 2A movement in CA?

My winning on appeal will not necessarily improve the 2A movement in CA, but it certainly won't harm it. The real risk of harm is in my losing the appeal. If I lose it has the potential to make bad case law. It would practically make open carry illegal in urban areas.

Rest assured though, if there were much a risk of that I would not be appealing. The appeals court would have to not just change the law, but ignore decades of jurisprudence to not overturn my case.

On the other hand, when I win my appeal, we will have proven case law that enforces the protection of private property. That can go a long way in advancing UOC cause.

[Glock22Fan]

Theseus, Any idea how long it will be before the standard reply of "two weeks" has any real significance??

[Theseus]

It is my understanding that I will not be fully vindicated for about 1 year.

[bigcalidave]

Stay tough!!! Don't let them beat you down.

How's it feel to be a prohibited person??

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by bigcalidave

Stay tough!!! Don't let them beat you down.

How's it feel to be a prohibited person??

It's like getting divorced and losing custody of your children with no visitation.

[MindBuilder]

Has a judgement of conviction been entered against you? Not a jury verdict of guilty, but a "judgement of conviction" issued by the judge.

[mmartin]

Originally Posted by Theseus

It's like getting divorced and losing custody of your children with no visitation.

ouch.

[Meplat]

The wife should not be a prohibited person. Is there any practical way to exploit that fact. Not to encourage any fudging on the letter of the law but she could be the family 'protector' for a year. Sometimes a mom has to step up.

Originally Posted by Theseus

It's like getting divorced and losing custody of your children with no visitation.

[KylaGWolf]

Originally Posted by Meplat

The wife should not be a prohibited person. Is there any practical way to exploit that fact. Not to encourage any fudging on the letter of the law but she could be the family 'protector' for a year. Sometimes a mom has to step up.

Nope if he lives in the house the guns can't be in the same house. Reason I know that family friend hubby was a felon and he had a gun before he went to prison before he was allowed back home gun had to be gone and proven to be gone.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by KylaGWolf

Nope if he lives in the house the guns can't be in the same house. Reason I know that family friend hubby was a felon and he had a gun before he went to prison before he was allowed back home gun had to be gone and proven to be gone.

This rule has changed after Heller. If his wife is the only person with the combo to the safe and promises to not give him access, she can not be denied the fundamental right of self defense.

Not all DA's understand this issue yet, but the judges - even in hostile California- seem to.

-Gene