LA DA Challenges Judge’s Sentencing Decisions

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman has intensified a unique legal dispute with a superior court judge. His office claims that Judge Yvette Verastegui has frequently undermined prosecutors by lowering charges and imposing lighter sentences.

Hochman’s office has filed a motion to disqualify Verastegui from handling certain criminal cases. This stemmed from several instances where she allegedly reduced sentences or charges significantly below what the district attorney’s office sought, despite prosecutors arguing there wasn’t sufficient justification for such reductions.

“We firmly oppose any decision made by a judge that alters charges or sentences without a sound basis in law and fact,” Hochman stated.

Among the cases mentioned, one regarding animal cruelty gained notable media attention in 2025. Joebrey Coleman and Sheila Alcala faced charges after a disturbing video showed a puppy being mistreated in a high-rise building.

After the district attorney signaled readiness for trial, Verastegui proceeded to accept a public statement against prosecutors’ wishes. Coleman ended up receiving a two-year state prison sentence, though 397 days were suspended.

Alcala saw her two felonies downgraded to misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year of probation with mandated counseling and educational programs.

Prosecutors contend that the puppy incident wasn’t an isolated case. Other cited examples include the infamous Oceanwide Plaza Towers, a downtown LA skyscraper that became infamous for graffiti vandalism. In February 2024, Dong Kun was arrested for allegedly rappelling down this structure while spray-painting tags.

Prosecutors argued the vandalism incurred over $70,000 in damages and proposed a plea deal requiring the defendant to plead guilty to felony charges, perform graffiti removal, and pay restitution before any chance of misdemeanor reduction. However, the defendant rejected this plea.

Verastegui later decided to minimize the charges to a misdemeanor and imposed probation, community service, and restitution, again over the objections of the prosecution.

Another relevant case involved Giovanni Garcia, who was charged with a felony and had a criminal record that included three prior felony convictions. Prosecutors maintained that his history justified a longer prison term than what the judge ultimately deemed appropriate.

In this situation, it was noted that Verastegui dismissed his criminal record before it was assigned to a judge.

Hochman emphasized that this predicament extends beyond the individual cases at hand. “If we present an offer that the defendant declines, that’s their choice,” he remarked. “But when a judge decides on lighter charges or sentences without a complete consideration of the facts, it can be seen as inappropriate.”

In at least one instance, prosecutors successfully requested intervention from the California Court of Appeals.

Hochman accentuated, “Our aim is to ensure victims receive the justice they deserve based on the facts and law.” He mentioned that Verastegui’s department has typically functioned mainly in an administrative capacity, assigning cases to courtrooms rather than actively engaging in resolving criminal matters.

“Their role rarely extends beyond simply assigning cases,” he noted. “We don’t want her proposing solutions that significantly diminish the seriousness of the cases, which could harm the victims further.”

Hochman pointed out that reducing serious criminal charges could negatively affect deterrence and diminish public confidence in the justice system. “One key aspect of prosecution is sending a message that those contemplating similar crimes will be held accountable with serious consequences,” he added.

“When judges overrule orders without adequate factual and legal backing, it adversely affects the criminal justice system as a whole.”

The district attorney’s office clarifies that it does not question a judge’s right to disagree with prosecutors after fully considering the evidence and legal context.

Hochman insists that Verastegui’s role was not meant to serve as a platform for addressing pending criminal cases prior to trial assignment. “I respect the diligence she has shown in reviewing the records,” he remarked. “However, we draw the line at processes being overlooked, resulting in defendants receiving significantly reduced sentences against the wishes of prosecutors and victims.”

Neither Judge Verastegui nor the Los Angeles Superior Court has commented on the matter.