Judge Recall Effort Is a Misguided One : Dickey’s CYA Sentencing of Two Teens in Paint-Roller Killing Was an Act of Courage

It would have been easy for Superior Court Judge Everett W. Dickey to throw the book at two teen-agers convicted in the slaying of a 17-year-old who was pierced through the head with a paint-roller rod.

Instead, the judge acted courageously, imposing a sentence he thought combined punishment and a chance for rehabilitation. For that, some people wrongly want to punish him.

Steve Woods died after a 1993 encounter between groups at a San Clemente beachfront park. Some trials are still pending, barring Dickey from commenting on the case beyond what he has said in court as the judge who presided over the non-jury trial and who sentenced the teen-agers.

The two were tried as adults because of the seriousness of the crime. Dickey chose to send them to the California Youth Authority, where they will be released in seven or eight years at most, rather than to prison, where they might serve longer terms. In doing so, he aroused the ire of the victim’s mother and others.

Family grief and anger are understandable. But organizers of last year’s Proposition 187, an ill-conceived ballot measure which cut off most benefits to illegal immigrants, have joined in the recall effort. Steve Woods was white, his attackers were Latino, and the death touched off racial tensions.

But Dickey should not resign, nor should he be recalled, as his foes want. He noted at the January sentencing that the two young men, 17 and 18 years old, had no record of violence.

He explained that the Youth Authority might be able to help treat their learning and language disabilities. Prosecutors have not said which of six men accused in the case actually threw the paint roller.

Dickey is not a “soft� judge.

He has sentenced people to death. Last year he sentenced a woman convicted of killing an ex-boyfriend to 19 years to life in prison.

He is a veteran of more than 20 years on the Municipal and Superior Court benches with a reputation among attorneys for careful study of his cases.

If someone wants to run against him when his six-year term is up, fine. That is the purpose of elections. But to go after a judge because of one case is wrong.

Recall is not a weapon to be used lightly, against any elected official. Absent serious illness, erratic behavior or egregious bad judgment, the appointed election is the time for the public to review the performance of a judge.