Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Partida Statement On Old Fraud Conviction

20200707-partida-gloria-700x395Statement By Gloria Partida

There has been discussion on social media over the past week concerning whether I was truthful in answering a question that was asked by an audience member during a candidate forum sponsored by Yolo People Power on September 26, 2022. I was asked whether I had ever been arrested or convicted of a crime.

I responded by giving examples of police encounters I had had while driving. I also affirmed in my response that I had the experience of being arrested.

Have I ever been convicted of a crime? Yes. Do I currently have a conviction? No.

Answering this question in a way that doesn’t create misunderstanding, takes more than the brief response time allowed in the forum. Moreover, I have received legal advice that I am under no obligation to disclose this prior conviction, given that it was reduced to a misdemeanor and set aside.

QuoteThe events around this occurred in 1996, and resulted in charges being filed against me. The details of this incident involve my extended family and the circumstances are deeply personal and painful. The bottom line is that I followed all legally authorized processes to resolve the matter, including what was needed to obtain court orders to render the incident a misdemeanor for all purposes and obtain an expungement of my record. When I filed for a new term on the City Council and declared that I met the eligibility criteria, I did so in good faith and in accordance with the law. I have been assured by my legal counsel and the District Attorney’s office that my response was in full compliance with the law.

In response to Alan Pryor’s statements regarding my background, I do not have a criminal conviction. I did have a prior conviction from 22 years ago. That conviction was dismissed and set aside by the Yolo County Superior Court in 2005, based on my “continued law-abiding lifestyle, education and involvement in family and community.”  Simple fact: I do not currently have a conviction.

Seventeen years ago, my court case file should have been updated to correctly show a “dismissal” of the charges. I learned only recently that, due to a record-keeping error, the Court website was not properly updated to show this dismissal until I notified them several days ago that the court website contained incorrect information. Contrary to Mr. Pryor’s assertion that the court website was “scrubbed” the Court Clerk’s Office acknowledged that the website had not been properly updated.  The Court Clerk then sealed the record, as required by Senate Bill 731, which took effect on July 1 of this year. No scrubbing involved, just compliance with applicable legal requirements.

I did not have any legal obligation to disclose this when I filed my papers for candidacy.  At that point, I was asked if I had a felony conviction, and I did not have one. The prior conviction had by then been reduced to a misdemeanor and dismissed. You have a right to hold me to a high standard, and my sincere hope in sharing this information with you is that you will take into account my long history of commitment to our community. I sincerely hope that all of my work in the community will allow you to put this issue into the proper context.

—————–

link to Alan Pryor's previous article "Does Gloria Partida’s Conviction for a Felony in 2000 Disallow Her from Holding an Elected Public Office in California?"

 

link to answer Gloria's Answer at forum

Posted by

davisite

on

in

, ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

11 responses to “Partida Statement On Old Fraud Conviction”

  1. R Keller

    Ms. Partida stated that “I did not have any legal obligation to disclose this when I filed my papers for candidacy. At that point, I was asked if I had a felony conviction, and I did not have one.”
    However this seems to directly contradict the statement in Mr. Pryor’s article concerning expungement that:
    “California law states in Section 1203 (a) (1) of the Penal Code that such disclosures of prior convictions are mandatory regardless of if such expungements occur at a later date.
    “The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve them of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.”
    Ms. Partida’s statement seems to contradict this provision in State law described in Mr. Pryor’s article regarding the ban on public office for certain types of felonies:
    “The only action that could remove this penalty would be a pardon. Expungement after serving probation is not included. This is further clarified by provisions in Section 1203.4 (a) (3) of the Penal Code that states the following regarding expungement:
    “Dismissal of an accusation or information underlying a conviction pursuant to this section does not permit a person prohibited from holding public office as a result of that conviction to hold public office.”
    Ms. Partida states that “I have been assured by my legal counsel and the District Attorney’s office that my response was in full compliance with the law.”
    But it is unclear whether these specific provisions in State Law, among others, were addressed by that “assurance” and Ms. Partida avoided directly addressing them in her response.
    Release of those communications would seem warranted to provide transparency on this issue. Otherwise this has the appearance of someone saying the law does not apply to them, with no further explanation provided.

    Reply
  2. Sharla Cheney

    Gloria – I am so sorry that people in the community have chosen to attack you in this way. This is what our local political environment has come to. Alan may have used many more words, but it sure sounds like, “Lock her up! Lock her up!” to me. I am sorry that people in this community care so little about us that they will engage in this kind of mudslinging.

    Reply
  3. Bob Milbrodt

    Sharla
    Mudslinging means an unjust accusation. What Alan published is embarrassing, but where is it unjust? Gloria affirms the account to be true. Without further and documented explanation from Gloria, I don’t know what to make of this situation. Is she acting on incorrect information, or is she flying by the seat of her pants?

    Reply
  4. R Keller

    There appears to be a significant factual error in Partida’s statement: “The Court Clerk then sealed the record, as required by Senate Bill 731, which took effect on July 1 of this year. No scrubbing involved, just compliance with applicable legal requirements.”
    SB731 was actually just signed into law by Governor Newsom on 9/29/2022. And it doesn’t take effect until next year on July 1, 2023. See: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB731
    Also, there is nothing in SB731 that changes the obligations of potential candidates for public office to disclose certain prior felony convictions regardless of expungement status, nor the ban on seeking and holding office.
    This calls into question both the accuracy and thoroughness of the legal advice that Ms. Partida has been receiving, as well as the process by which the records were recently removed.

    Reply
  5. Alan Pryor

    To be clear, I do not question Ms. Partida’s character or values. I know she deeply cares about the poor, the disabled, the LGBT community , the homeless, and the disenfranchised and has worked tirelessly for many years on their behalf. My article had nothing to do with any of that and the issue of her character and values was not raised nor disparaged anywhere in any way in the article.
    My article was simply a factual representation of the law as it currently exists on the books and as it pertains to her ability to continue to serve on the City Council in light of that current law.
    The facts speak for themselves.

    Reply
  6. Ron Glick

    No Alan, its a set up and hit piece timed to perfectly coincide with the arrival of mail in ballots. Someone just happened to ask about this at a public forum. You are simply disclosing what you found just as ballots come out. So many coincidences so little time. Attacking her character is exactly what you are doing.
    As one of my students once said “I’m as innocent as O.J.”
    Apparently the Yolo DA sent this to the Sac DA who determined there is nothing there. If you bothered to read David’s critique you would stand down instead of doubling down but that is not the point. The point is to try to damage Partida and impugn her character before the voters.
    As I said above, sleazy. I doubled down too.
    Full disclosure, I sent $150 to Gloria’s campaign.

    Reply
  7. Ron Glick

    It’s a pity that so many non-lawyers are offering legal opinions that conflict with the legal opinion of the Sac D.A. who was asked to study this by the Yolo D.A. and found nothing. I’m yet to see one lawyer come forward and say Partida did something wrong but I’ve seen several who have said she did nothing wrong.

    Reply
  8. Colin Walsh

    Ron,
    if you have an actual statement from the Sac DA in your posesion please send it to me. Thus far I have only seen Greenwald’s second hand and partial reporting on it and well, he hasn’t always been a reliable witness in the past.

    Reply
  9. R Keller

    Ron Glick: where is this so-called “legal opinion” from the Sacramento DA? David Greenwald posted some selectively cherry-picked phrases from an email that apparently contained no formal legal analysis, no references to code/statue sections, and no reference to specific information that they obtained and reviewed.
    Greenwald neglected to say that the email included language stating
    “That being said, there are exceptions where one would have to disclose one was convicted of a felony (e.g., applying to be a peace officer), ” which is an apparent nod to California Penal Code Section 1203.4.(a) that would require disclosure when seeking public office. So, they apparently did not look any further into one of the key contentions in Mr. Pryor’s analysis.
    Greenwald is apparently quite willing to accept a vague statement by the Sacramento DA while at the same time omitting key details and caveats. So much for “investigative journalism” and being a “community watchdog”.
    It looks like he also accidentally revealed some troubling information about the Yolo County DA: they are apparently too conflicted with Ms. Partida to investigate the matter themselves: “it was sent to Sacramento due to perceived conflicts because of the working relationship between Partida and the Yolo DA”. That should certainly raise some red flags.

    Reply
  10. Doug Walter

    I think it is reasonable to ask to read the determination of the Sacramento District Attorney’s office that there’s no criminal behavior involved. Beyond that, I think a lot of the rhetoric here is overheated.
    Whatever contributed to the timing of Mr. Pryor’s article, he did present some facts that are salient. Ms. Partida has made a substantive response, even if there are some questions to pursue. This is – kind of – how this is supposed to work, and certainly has a higher quality (to date) of exchange than we’re seeing from national figures.
    I also note that comments have died down (here, at least) since Wednesday.

    Reply
  11. Roberta L. Millstein

    Lots of comments here, though:
    https://www.davisite.org/2022/10/does-gloria-partidas-conviction-for-a-felony-in-2000-disallow-her-from-holding-an-elected-public-off.html

    Reply

Leave a reply to R Keller Cancel reply