During an Oct. 16 hearing with a lot of open questions and uncertainty, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John Feeney made one thing clear.
“I think Mr. Dinsmore has clearly demonstrated his rehabilitation,” the judge said of Steven Dinsmore, the man he gave a more than 30-year prison sentence back in 2007 after he was convicted of assaulting a peace officer with a firearm but whose future and custodial status have recently become complicated (‘In the Interest of Justice,’ Oct. 12).
After serving 17 years in prison, and unsuccessfully appealing both his conviction and his sentence, rendering his judgment final in the eyes of the law, in 2021 Dinsmore petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus — essentially a chance to be brought before a local judge to argue his continued incarceration was unjust. Pointing to a new law that makes firearm enhancements — like the 10-year one automatically tacked onto his sentence — open to judicial discretion, Dinsmore argued he’d been rehabilitated and warranted early release, pointing to his “exemplary record” over recent years in custody, the more than 20 rehabilitative classes he’d taken, the laudatory letters in his file from prison guards and instructors, his completion of a drug and alcohol counseling course and his earning his GED.
The Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office argued that Dinsmore’s judgment was final and, absent something undercutting the legality of his conviction or sentence, it couldn’t be revisited. Additionally, Deputy District Attorney Luke Bernthal pointed out the new sentencing law was not retroactive, meaning it didn’t apply to Dinsmore or anyone else sentenced prior to it going into effect.
At the May 20, 2022 hearing, Feeney said he was moved by Dinsmore’s “sincere remorse” for his past crimes and “impressive record of rehabilitative work,” finding that “continued incarceration of Mr. Dinsmore is no longer in the interest of justice” and ordered him released from prison. But by the time Dinsmore was released from prison a week later, prosecutors had already appealed Feeney’s ruling, arguing he’d overstepped the law.
As the appeal worked its way through the system, Dinsmore set about seizing his second chance after spending the majority of his adult life in a 6-foot-by-10-foot cell. He got work — first as a handyman, then for Caltrans — and reconnected with his daughters, both little when he was sent to prison and now adults with six children between them. He reestablished a relationship with an old high school acquaintance, which blossomed into a romance and engagement, and they moved into a house together in Redding, which he set to fixing up while planting a vegetable garden. And through it all, he kept going to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, stayed sober and — in January — was released from what had been an indeterminate period of post-release monitoring by the Division of Adult Parole Operations. Life, he told the Journal in a recent interview, was good.
But the appeal caught up with him, with the California First District Court of Appeals ruling in March that Feeney had indeed acted without legal authority, finding that Dinsmore’s 10-year firearm enhancement had to be reinstated and he had to complete his original sentence. But the decision noted: “In light of defendant’s post-conviction efforts and community support, the prosecution may wish to exercise its discretion in favor of considering appropriate alternatives to returning defendant to state prison for the remainder of his term.”
Dinsmore arrived at Humboldt County Superior Court on Aug. 29 optimistic that would be the case, wearing his Caltrans uniform, anticipating he’d return to work after the hearing. Instead, prosecutors declined to offer any alternative to imprisonment when asked, and Dinsmore was handcuffed and taken into custody to serve another 10 years.
Since then, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 600 — authored by Assemblymember Philp Ting with the help of Richard Braucher, a staff attorney with the First District Appellate Project who worked on Dinsmore’s appeal — and it was signed into law Oct. 8. The bill explicitly makes judges’ discretion over those firearm enhancements retroactive, opening the door for Dinsmore and others in his shoes to receive sentencing relief. The new law, however, doesn’t go into effect until Jan. 1.
Dinsmore has remained in the local jail since his return to custody seven weeks ago at his attorney Ben McLaughlin’s request, hoping to find a viable avenue to keep him from returning to prison.
McLaughlin opened the Oct. 16 hearing by indicating he was hopeful the court would look to re-sentence Dinsmore after the new law goes into effect Jan. 1, allowing it to again strike that 10-year firearm enhancement, and that Dinsmore could be released to the supervision of state parole or the Humboldt County Probation Department until then. He noted that Humboldt County District Attorney Stacey Eads had indicated some interest in reviewing his master file from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to determine whether to oppose his release, but indicated he felt the choice was clear.
“He was a remarkable citizen for the 16 months he was out of custody,” McLaughlin said, noting that Dinsmore’s family — including a daughter and an infant grandson — were in court to support him, while his fiancé was unable to attend because she is undergoing cancer treatment.
“There’s a lot that requires his attention — he needs to be released so he can continue his good work,” McLaughlin continued before noting Dinsmore’s prior good conduct in prison carried over in the county jail, where he’s volunteered for janitorial duties, while also counseling other inmates on “getting their stuff together” and getting off drugs. “Mr. Dinsmore presents zero risk to the community. I think he’s shown that.”
Bernthal didn’t directly dispute that but said his office’s request is that the court apply “the rule of law to Mr. Dinsmore the same as it would to anyone else.” Dinsmore was convicted of a violent crime and sentenced appropriately, Bernthal said, and if re-sentencing is in order, he should go through the same process under the same timelines as everyone else, noting the law that would allow it isn’t even in effect yet.
And to McLaughlin’s “asking a superior court judge to essentially parole an inmate,” Bernthal said he doesn’t “know where the court would have the authority to do something like that.”
“He should not be treated differently than these other inmates,” Bernthal said. “I object to his release on these grounds.”
McLaughlin then essentially agreed that releasing Dinsmore to parole isn’t feasible, noting he’d already been successfully discharged from parole and no longer has a CDC identification number. McLaughlin said he understands Bernthal’s position, but also pushed back against it.
“Mr. Dinsmore’s situation is unique — he’s the reason this law was passed to address the obvious oversight of the previous law,” McLaughlin said. “What are we in this business for if not to see people not only punished but rehabilitated?”
The matter then went back to Feeney.
“I want to make clear it is this court’s intent to resentence Mr. Dinsmore once the law takes effect,” he said, adding that he was “impressed” by not only Dinsmore’s “exemplary conduct” in prison but also with how he’d conducted himself those 15 months out of custody. “Mr. Dinsmore has clearly demonstrated to this court he’s entitled to that relief.”
The question immediately at hand, Feeney indicated, was what to do with Dinsmore until resentencing, and he said he wanted input from the probation department as to whether it could accept Dinsmore for electronic monitoring, which could facilitate his release from physical custody until then. He asked that the matter be put back on calendar for Oct. 19, hoping he would have clarity then.
Bernthal then asked for another chance to address the court, expressing dismay that Feeney had indicated he’d “already decided a re-sentencing motion” without hearing from victims in Dinsmore’s underlying case, seeing Dinsmore’s full CDC record or giving prosecutors a chance to argue the case.
“I find that a little astonishing,” Bernthal said. “I’ll leave it at that.”
Seemingly a bit taken aback by Bernthal’s comment, Feeney noted his judgment had been called worse than “a little astonishing” in the past but made clear his intent to resentence Dinsmore should be seen as a tentative decision. Feeney noted his familiarity with Dinsmore’s case and changes in the law, noting he’d been tracking the progress of A.B. 600, but said he’d follow the process going forward.
Dinsmore was due back in court Oct. 19, the day this edition of the Journal was slated to hit newsstands.
Thadeus Greenson (he/him) is the Journal’s news editor. Reach him at (707) 442-1400, extension 321, or thad@northcoastjournal.com.
This article appears in Ghosts on the Tracks.
