By Donna Beth Weilenman
Staff Reporter
What is it like in Solano County Superior Court?
One morning in Judge Tim Kam’s courtroom, 321 Tuolumne St., Vallejo, where criminal cases were being heard, had an agenda that ranged from setting appointments to deciding convicts’ fates.
Nothing that morning led to dramatic revelations such as “Perry Mason” last-minute witness confessions.
Few attorneys expressed the consternation often seen on “Law and Order,” although one futilely tried to convince Kam not to apply the “three strikes” provision to his client.
And while demeanor in the courtroom was a far cry from the television comedy “Night Court,” at one point some people chuckled when the clerk announced another sentencing.
Kam presided over a series of criminal cases, such as a defendant seeking modification to his probation because of illness. The judge concurred with the man’s attorney, but took time to spell out each point of the modifications, as well as to remind the attorney the mandates of the probation that would remain unchanged.
Some of Kam’s duties that day were routine – setting and rescheduling court dates, authorizing the substitution of attorneys, and allowing a delay in the entering of a plea bargain agreement when the parties hadn’t finished working out the details of the pact.
Occasionally, as he waited for defendants or attorneys to be ready, Kam called for a recess, and bailiffs emptied the courtroom, which remained locked until the workday resumed.
He allowed one man who had been accused of robberies to be released while awaiting trial on what Tam referred to as “an unusual robbery.”
That interim freedom also came with restrictions, particularly about those with whom the man could associate.
But Kam wasn’t lenient with a man sentenced in a 2011 Jack in the Box robbery.
During the robbery, several restaurant patrons had gun barrels placed against their bodies. The diners and the restaurant employees, nine all told, were robbed and taken hostage by two armed men.
The convicted man’s attorney argued against applying the state’s “three strikes” law that mandates harsher sentences on habitual offenders who are convicted of three or more serious crimes.
“I ask the court to exercise discretion,” the attorney said, hoping that rather than impose a cumulative 160-year sentence, Tam would instead have the man serve his various sentences concurrently.
But Tam said that the man had a criminal history that dated to the time he was a youth, when he finally became a ward of the court because of his run-ins with the law.
As the judge read a list of the man’s past convictions, he noted the man had had two years without criminal activity. But the man inevitably returned to robberies, particularly of fast-food restaurants.
“Innocent people are put at risk,” Kam said.
One woman had been at the restaurant and had been talking on the phone when suddenly she felt a gun placed to her head, he described. “It’s still affecting her.”
Also affected were the restaurant’s employees. “It’s their livelihood,” Kam said.
Having the sentences run concurrently “would not be appropriate,” the judge said.
Instead, he sentenced the man to 25 years to life for each of three of the cases, and added 15 years each for enhanced charges connected with the case, for a total minimum of 120 years.
Because the man’s partner dealt with some of the other victims, Kam sentenced the man to a similar 40 years to life in each of four more cases, but decided those sentences should be served concurrently with the initial sentence, as would be a three-year sentence for the man’s crime against an eighth victim who primarily was dealt with by the man’s partner.
Although the man would receive some credit for time served, it would apply only to one of his sentences. The man also would be fined $300. Kam said he would announce later his decision on any restitution requirements.
Perhaps mindful of this defendant’s troubles that date back to his youth, Kam provided solemn counsel to another defendant who was being sentenced and was put on probation.
The young man received a list of reminders from the judge. Among them, the young man would be subject to search at any time during probation. So would his car.
The man would need to pay a fine and hefty restitution.
He had appointments to keep, the judge said. Failure to do so would be a violation of the provisions that would give him freedom instead of jail time.
Kam looked up from his list and spoke directly to the defendant, who stood dressed in Solano County Jail attire of bright orange and white stripes.
“You’re a young man,” the judge said. “You’re definitely on the wrong track.”
He spoke gently to the man, but his words were clear. “There’s no reason you should throw your life away.”
Kris I mean Chris says
dude the Judge is named Kam not Tam.
Editor says
Corrected. Thanks!