A felony perjury case against former supervisorial aide Gil Armijo has been transferred from Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Clifford Anderson to Judge Frank Ochoa, according to a press release from Armijo. An arraignment hearing is set for Sept. 9.
Armijo was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence in December 2007, and eventually reached a no-contest plea bargain with the Santa Barbara County Superior Court. County prosecutors later charged him with perjury for stating at a Department of Motor Vehicles hearing that he wasn’t behind the wheel during the incident.
In an interview with the Sun, Armijo called the decision “strange” and said he suspects prosecuting attorneys are trying to circumvent justice by transferring the case.
Prosecuting District Attorney Darryl Perlin confirmed the move, but attributed it to a change in responsibilities in the county court system. He said Anderson has been selected to take on the calendar duties of Commissioner Edward DeCaro, who is expected to retire later this month. As a result, some of Anderson’s cases had to be reassigned to other judges.
“It’s a somewhat unusual set of circumstances,” Perlin said. “But for Armijo to say that it’s some kind of nefarious plot against him proves that he just doesn’t understand what has transpired.”
Also in his press release, Armijo announced that he’s considering running for district attorney. The decision, he later told the Sun, isn’t based on his own litigation troubles, but on what he sees as the office’s blatant inefficiencies.
“For the past five years I’ve looked at all the county’s departments carefully, and the D.A. is the worst managed of them all—there’s no secret to that,” Armijo said. “I want to force an open public debate on the issue.”
However, Armijo’s campaign aspirations are probably going to be cut short—according to California Government Code, an individual must be a practicing attorney to run for District Attorney. Armijo doesn’t hold a law degree.
“That might be so, but the decision to disqualify me will have to be made down the road,” Armijo said. “The D.A. doesn’t do any litigating anyway.”
The main issue at hand, he said, is that the district attorney’s office doesn’t have any structure and functions without having to answer to any higher authority.
This article appears in Sep 3-10, 2009.
