On December 4, 2023, I published an article titled, “Is Judge Begert Using Mental Health Diversion as a Substitute for Holding Criminals Accountable?” My article discussed how Sebastian Mendez was caught by SFPD breaking into a car. When SFPD tried to detain him, Mendez struck an SFPD officer with a medal chain. Mendez’ actions were captured on video.
On August 17, 2023, Judge Rochelle East released Mendez to diversion and ordered him to wear an ankle monitor. Within a month, a warrant was issued for Mendez because he did not show up to diversion and/or cut off his ankle monitor. The day after the warrant was issued, Northern Station Officer O’Keefe arrested Mendez for breaking into a vehicle (again).
In my December 4th article, I wrote that Judge Michael Begert was having a December 12th hearing, whereby he was going to allow Mendez to attend diversion (again) pending the availability of a bed. Begert was also suspending the criminal proceedings against Mendez’ for his aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against the SFPD police officer.
Subsequently, and more likely in reaction to my December 4th article, on December 12, 2023, Judge Begert issued a “minute order,[1]” which rescinded Mendez’ diversion and reinstated the criminal proceedings against Mendez, “without prejudice.”
On December 21, 2023, Ann E. Dolan from the Superior Court Media Communications Office requested a correction to my article for Begert’s actions subsequent to my article.
Dolan’s request is consistent with what a person that knows both Begert and I stated. Begert said my article was factually incorrect.
1) Analogy: If on April 1, I wrote that President Larry Baer needed to add a left-handed power hitter to the Giants’ lineup, and on April 5th, Baer added a left-handed power hitter, and the Giants went on to win the pennant; do I owe Baer a “correction” or does he owe me a thank you? How is Ann Dolan’s request for a correction for Begert’s actions taken after my article was published, and per my recommendation, any different?
2) The term “without prejudice” is of paramount importance. In legalese, it means after the March 5, 2024 election, Begert can reverse his December 12, 2024 decision and drop Mendez’ criminal charges and again allow him back into diversion.
The same day I received Dolan’s request for a correction, I responded with eleven questions for Judge Begert.[2] And while I recognize that Section 5:31 of the California Judicial Conduct Handbook limits what Judge Begert can say,[3] the fact that his office is asking for a correction, and after more than 50 days, still cannot provide me with the court transcripts, is curious.
No correction to my article is warranted. Judge Begert’s 180-degree turn on Mendez, his office’s reluctance to provide transcripts, and his “without prejudice” decision are all indications he is temporarily tailoring his decisions to affect the outcome of the March 5, 2024 election. If he retains his seat, expect he’ll again remove accountability from his toolbox.
And in the candidates’ panel discussions, Judge Begert stated that court decisions are never based on politics. Pleeeeaase!
Dec 21, 2023, 4:53 PM
Dear Ms. Dolan,
Thank you for your email and the copy of the minute order. I note that the reference line in your email is entitled “Request for correction,” but in your email itself, you’re only asking for an update. Are you saying that there are factual matters in my original article that are incorrect? If so, can you specifically identify the facts that you believe are incorrect and provide supporting evidence that I can review.
If you’re just asking for a supplement, I’d like some additional information so that I can better explain what’s going on to my readers and assess whether such a supplement would add something useful to the original story. The minute order, as it’s written, is unclear.
1. Can you provide me with a complete transcript of the hearings on both November 16th, and December 12th for Mr. Mendez’s matter.
2. Can you confirm that Mr. Mendez was out of custody on his own recognizance after the November 16th hearing, and that he was directed to go somewhere for his mental health diversion? Is he out of custody now? Is he wearing an ankle monitor?
3. Can you describe what exactly Mr. Mendez was supposed to do between November 16th and December 12th to complete his mental health diversion?
4. Can you tell me in detail what actually happened in terms of Mr. Mendez meeting the requirements of the Judge’s referral order?
5. Did he fail to attend required meetings?
6. Did he refuse to cooperate with treatment providers? Were there any incidents of violence or mistreatment of people involved in the diversion program?
7. The term “self-terminated” is not a common one, and apparently it can refer to different actions by the defendant. I can’t tell from the order what’s going on and the term raises more questions than answers. How exactly did Mr. Mendez self-terminate?
8. When a defendant self-terminates, and the judge signs off on the termination "without prejudice," does that mean Judge Begert remains open to diverting the suspect again if the suspect changes his mind in the future?
9. If the suspect had completed the diversion program, what would have happened to Mr. Mendez’s burglary charges and the felony charges for attacking the police officers?
10. How many times can a defendant fail or self-terminate diversion before he is permanently removed?
11. Why isn't committing a new crime after he is referred to diversion grounds for disqualification from future diversion?
I think this story has great significance to my readers and the citizens of San Francisco. The answers to these questions will shed much needed light on both how the judiciary functions and how diversion programs work. I look forward to your response and hopefully, it will provide the material that I need to write a meaningful update or supplement.
Thank you
Lou Barberini
[3] "Comment on a case pending before the judge or on appeal could affect the outcome in the case and display bias. The judge's need to comment is not as important as the need to maintain the appearance of fairness and impartiality during the pendency of proceedings."
Great article…keep it up.
Hi Lou,
Great article and a perfect response to Ms. Dolan's request for a correction!