By Linda Sutter – May 12, 2022
Former Sheriff Waltz pled no contest to three charges regarding falsifying his place of residence while running for Sheriff
Judge Goldberg read his rights to waive trial for the felony criminal charges. Waltz pled no contest to make it sound as though it was a minor infraction, however, Judge Goldberg informed him no contest means guilty in criminal charges.
Count 1 – 4 years in prison and a $1,000 dollar fine.
Count 2 – 3 years in prison and a $1,000 dollar fine.
Count 3 – 3 years in prison and a $1,000 dollar fine.
The Associate District Attorney Zocchi asked the court to amend Count 3 to a misdemeanor and the court entered a guilty “no contest”.
Count 3 was when Waltz entered a declaration to run for Sheriff and declared he had secured housing but had not moved into that housing.
Waltz received no probation and will not serve prison time but will pay $1,000 in fines.
3 thoughts on ““No Contest” Means Randy Waltz Guilty”
And this is the former ELECTED Sherrif ? Better candidates can’t be found…and this guy was a prince compared to the Wilson/Barber regime….
Spiro Agnew plead “nolo contendre” and then resigned the vice presidency.
Factual and honest report Linda; and a solid piece of news writing. No Contest “Nolo Contendere” means the accused person agrees to be punished for the crime; but does not admit to guilt. This might be done for many reasons. If “Intent” is missing from the offense, and the crime were committed through either ignorance, mistake, or entrapment; then the offender may be compelled to maintain their innocence, but also accept responsibility for the crime. The courts normally treat such a plea as guilty, but handle the judgment and sentence similar to a plea bargain. It seems, in this case that the offender had the means and intent to meet the requirements of Public Office; but did not physically do so by the time of filing. This is a rule for local public office that has been either applied or ignored, depending on the offender’s political connections. If this technicality were not a such valuable tool for maintaining the local power structure, it would be wise for the elections officer to “Vet” the applicant PRIOR to acceptance of the application. However, this such a simple task would not benefit the Good-ole-Boy establishment. In Del Norte, it is better to ruin a life with a felony record than to take a few moments to review and confirm the contents of a form. This is a shame, and I wonder how often this charge is applied and prosecuted in other California Counties.