Judge Denies Dinsmore's Bid for Release 

Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John Feeney has decided he doesn't have the authority to release Steven Dinsmore from custody pending a resentencing hearing in January, leaving the 48 year old to remain in jail until then.

Dinsmore, who was ordered released from custody in 2022 after serving more than 17 years in prison only to be returned to the jail 15 months later after an appellate court overturned Feeney's decision to release him, let out an audible sigh while being led from the courtroom after the judge's Oct. 30 decision, as a family member called out, "I love you."

About a half-dozen supporters attended the hearing, hoping to see Dinsmore released under an electronic monitoring agreement that would have allowed him to return home to care for his fiancé, who his attorney said is recovering from cancer surgery, and resume working for Caltrans, which had hired him in January.

Initially sentenced by Feeney to serve more than 30 years in prison after he was convicted of assaulting a sheriff's deputy with a firearm, Dinsmore petitioned the court for relief in 2021. He argued that a new law made the types of mandatory 10-year firearm enhancements that were part of his original sentence discretionary and that he'd been rehabilitated while spending the majority of his adult life in a 6-by-10-foot cell, saying he'd earned his GED and completed dozens of courses, including a 14-month substance abuse program and a victim impact class.

The Humboldt County District Attorney's Office argued against Dinsmore's release, saying his judgment was final and without something challenging the legality of his sentence or conviction, the court didn't have the authority to re-sentence him. Additionally, Deputy District Attorney Luke Bernthal argued the new sentencing law was not retroactive, meaning it didn't apply to Dinsmore or anyone else sentenced prior to it going into effect.

When the matter came to a hearing in May of 2022, with Dinsmore appearing via Zoom from Coalinga State Prison, Feeney indicated he was moved by Dinsmore's "sincere remorse" for his past crimes and "impressive record of rehabilitative work." He said 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 filed an appeal, arguing Feeney had overstepped the law.

As the appeal worked its way through the system, Dinsmore set about seizing his new life as a free man. He got work — first as a handyman, then for Caltrans — and reconnected with his daughters, both little when he went to prison and now adults with six children between them. He reconnected with an old high school acquaintance and they got engaged, moving into a home together in Redding.

At the Oct. 30 hearing, Feeney heard from the California State Parole agent assigned to Dinsmore's case.

"His parole was stellar," the agent said, adding that Dinsmore passed every random drug/alcohol screening he was given and cleared every hurdle the state put in front of him with "zero violations, zero issues."

Dinsmore did so well on parole that he was officially discharged in January after less than eight months. But in March the California First District Court of Appeals issued its ruling the case, finding that Feeney had indeed acted without legal authority and Dinsmore's 10-year firearm enhancement had to be reinstated and he would have to complete his original sentence. But the ruling carried a glimmer of hope for Dinsmore in the form of a footnote: "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."

Arriving at the Humboldt County Superior Court on Aug. 29 for a hearing on the appellate ruling, Dinsmore was optimistic he wouldn't be sent back to prison, so much so that he wore his Caltrans uniform, expecting to return to work later that day. Instead, prosecutors declined to offer any alternative to imprisonment when asked and Dinsmore was handcuffed and taken into custody to serve another 10 years.

The California Legislature has since passed Assembly Bill 600 — authored by Assemblymember Philip 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.

At an Oct. 16 hearing in the case, Feeney said he believes Dinsmore "has clearly demonstrated his rehabilitation" and, by his own motion, set a Jan. 8 re-sentencing hearing in the case. The question then turned to what should happen to Dinsmore until then.

His attorney, Ben McLaughlin, asked the court to release him pending re-sentencing, with the oversight of county probation or state parole. At a subsequent hearing, it was agreed that a superior court judge wouldn't have the authority to release someone on parole — that's the province of parole boards and prisons — leaving the probation department as the only potential avenue for Dinsmore's release.

McLaughlin argued that it was in Feeney's power to do so. While typically a judge loses authority over a defendant when a judgement is executed after conviction, McLaughlin said a defendant does not technically begin serving their prison sentence until "an abstract ordering commitment is prepared by the clerk of the court," which has not been done since Dinsmore's sentence was reinstated.

Bernthal countered that while it was "a little bit unclear" from his office's perspective whether the court retained jurisdiction over Dinsmore's custodial status, what was clear is that the court of appeal had told Feeney to reimpose Dinsmore's initial prison sentence.

"If the court does have jurisdiction, I think it should follow that directive," Bernthal said.

Feeney ultimately agreed. While the judge expressed sympathy for Dinsmore's situation — saying he wished good health to his fiancé and was mindful of the importance of "every day" — he said he did not believe he had jurisdiction to order Dinsmore's release given the "clear directive" from the appellate court.

At an earlier hearing, Feeney described his comments about finding Dinsmore rehabilitated as akin to a tentative ruling, noting that Dinsmore's attorney and Bernthal would have the opportunity to brief and argue whether Dinsmore was deserving of resentencing. Victims in the case — presumably the Humboldt County sheriff's deputy that Dinsmore, addicted and desperate, attempted to shoot during a 2005 traffic stop and the then deputy Michael Fridley, grabbed Dinsmore's handgun and prevented it from firing, his finger blocking the hammer from reaching the firing pin — will also have a chance to address the court, Feeney said.

On Oct. 30, Feeney said that when it comes time to consider resentencing, he would also take into account the comments he'd heard earlier that day from Dinsmore's parole agent and Humboldt County correctional officer Jonathan Kaufman . Briefly addressing the court during Zoom at McLaughlin's request, Kaufman said Dinsmore has repeatedly volunteered to take on extra chores since coming into the jail Aug. 29, from day-to-day cleaning duties to recently spending a week stripping and waxing the floors in his dorm unit. McLaughlin asked how Kaufman would describe Dinsmore's conduct since entering the facility.

"Exemplary," Kaufman said. "I wish we had more inmates like him."

Thadeus Greenson (he/him) is the Journal's news editor. Reach him at (707) 442-1400, extension 321, or [email protected].