Sonoma County District Attorney's Office

Sonoma County District Attorney's Office The Sonoma County District Attorney's Office welcomes your comments. Users of this site do not retain any rights over their postings.

The Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office is dedicated to providing the members of our community with a safe place to live by holding the guilty accountable, protecting the innocent, and preserving the dignity of victims and their families. The purpose of this discussion is to present information relevant to the stated purpose of this site, regarding matters of public interest in the County of

Sonoma. We encourage you to submit your comments, but please note this is a moderated online discussion site. Please note that the comments expressed on this site do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of the District Attorney's Office, its officers, agents, affiliates, or employees. If you have any questions concerning the operation of this online moderated discussion site, please contact us at 707-565-2311. By posting anything to this site, you agree to the following terms:

Users will treat others with respect. Users warrant that they own or have permission to post the information contained in their postings, including but not limited to video, photos, or digital reproductions and that no copyright or trademark infringement has taken place due to posting it on this site. Further, the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office does not guarantee or warrant that any information posted by users on this site is correct, and disclaims any liability whatsoever for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. Postings are intended for public view and any personal information posted constitutes a waiver of any rights to privacy or confidentiality. Once posted, the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office reserves the right to delete submissions that contain vulgar language, personal attacks of any kind, or comments that promote, foster or perpetuate discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, age, religion, gender, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or mental disability or s*xual orientation. Further, the [Local Agency] also reserves the right to delete comments that are: (i) spam or include links to other sites; (ii) clearly off topic; (iii) advocate illegal activity; (iv) promote particular services, products, or political organizations; (v) tend to compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems; or (vi) infringe on copyrights or trademarks.

Defendant Arnulfo Favian Montes-Medina, 38-years-old of Santa Rosa was sentenced today by the Honorable Lynnette Brown t...
07/20/2026

Defendant Arnulfo Favian Montes-Medina, 38-years-old of Santa Rosa was sentenced today by the Honorable Lynnette Brown to 1 year in county jail followed by 4 years of formal probation, following his conviction by a Sonoma County jury for felony domestic violence. The jury also found true that Montes-Medina personally used a deadly weapon during the assault, and personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim.
The conviction stems from a violent assault that occurred on October 5, 2025, inside the home Montes-Medina shared with his wife and at least three of their five children. During multiple frantic 911 calls, Montes-Medina’s wife pleaded for police and medical assistance while reporting that Montes-Medina had "literally beat me with a guitar." Officers arrived to find the victim crying, unable to walk, suffering from a laceration to her foot, and surrounded by blood. Jurors heard how the victim told officers Montes-Medina struck her repeatedly with a child-sized electric guitar. During the immediate aftermath of the assault, Montes-Medina barricaded himself inside the home’s detached garage, where he remained for approximately 90 minutes before surrendering to law enforcement. The victim required hospital treatment, which included five stitches for the laceration to her foot. After reporting the assault, the victim never cooperated with the prosecution of the case. However, the jury learned that in domestic violence situations, factors such as fear, financial dependency, a belief their abuser will change, or custodial issues, can be some of the complex circumstances that a domestic violence victim may consider.
The jury also heard evidence this was not an isolated incident. The victim's mother testified she had personally witnessed Montes-Medina assault the victim on prior occasions and described a household in which "the police were always at the house," illustrating an ongoing pattern of domestic violence that culminated in the charged offense.

District Attorney Rodriguez stated, “Domestic violence is uniquely dangerous because it often escalates behind closed doors and frequently involves victims who later recant or ask that charges be dropped. That reality does not end our responsibility to protect victims or the community. A victim's willingness to participate in court is one piece of evidence. It is not the measure of whether a crime occurred. Mr. Montes-Medina earned a violent felony conviction because the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he brutally assaulted his wife.”
Montes-Medina, who had no prior criminal convictions, was spared a state prison sentence at today’s sentencing. However, he now stands convicted of a violent “strike” offense under California law that will subject him to enhanced penalties should he commit future felony offenses.
Judge Lynnette Brown sentenced Montes-Medina to one year in the Sonoma County Jail, the maximum county jail sentence available under the circumstances, followed by four years of formal probation. As conditions of probation, Montes-Medina must complete a 52-week certified batterer's intervention program, perform community service, maintain employment or education, and submit to random drug and alcohol testing. When handing down her sentence Judge Brown stated, “This is a very serious case, not only in the nature of the case and the injuries and certainly the conduct leading up to it are of serious concern to the Court. . .[the victim’s] attempts to shield you shows a level of love amongst your family, however you have done significant damage in the actions you have taken. . . You have children that are watching what is happening and they will mimic this cycle in their future relationships unless this cycle ends.”
The case was prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Matt Hobson, assisted by District Attorney Investigator Hector DeLeon. Santa Rosa Police Department headed the investigation.

LABOR TRAFFICKING AND WAGE THEFT BILL PROPOSED AND SPONSORED BY SONOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE SIGNED INTO LAW...
07/14/2026

LABOR TRAFFICKING AND WAGE THEFT BILL PROPOSED AND SPONSORED BY SONOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE SIGNED INTO LAW
Sonoma County District Attorney Carla Rodriguez announced today that Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB 1583 into law, an anti-labor trafficking and wage theft bill drafted by her office and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles County District Attorneys’ Office. The new law was authored by Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa) and passed the state legislature unanimously. It will take effect January 1, 2027.
AB 1583 adds Section 786.6 to the California Penal Code, giving California prosecutors clarity as to which county has jurisdiction over wage theft and labor trafficking crimes. While traditional theft crimes involving stolen property are governed by a specific jurisdictional penal code section, wage theft and labor trafficking crimes do not involve the theft of tangible property, and some cases therefore did not fit neatly into existing jurisdictional law. The Sonoma County District Attorney's Office, with the help and co-sponsorship of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, brought this important legislation to Assemblymember Rogers, who enthusiastically supported it.
Sonoma County District Attorney Rodriguez noted, "This was a necessary fix to protect workers across the state. Deputy District Attorney Katy Yount, through her work in our Consumer Protection Unit, identified this gap in the law and worked with Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Tamar Tokat to push this legislation forward. I thank Assemblymember Chris Rogers for authoring the bill and carrying it through the Legislature, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office for its collaboration and co-sponsorship, and Governor Newsom for recognizing the importance of AB 1583."
Penal Code Section 786.6 provides that jurisdiction over wage theft and labor trafficking includes the victim’s county of residence, the county in which the victim entered into the employment agreement, the county in which any portion of the work was performed, or the county in which the defendant’s business was located. Section 786.6 further allows a District Attorney’s office to aggregate wage theft or labor trafficking crimes that occur in multiple jurisdictions.
Employers who exploit their workers should expect aggressive enforcement of California's wage theft laws. If you believe you are the victim of wage theft, or for more information on the rules and examples of wage theft, please call our wage theft hotline at 1-833-889-2437 (1-833-88-WAGES). For more information, visit the Department of Industrial Relations at https://www.dir.ca.gov/ or the Sonoma County District Attorney's Environmental and Consumer Law Division https://da.sonomacounty.ca.gov/divisions/environmental-and-consumer-law-division.

Man Sentenced to Life Without Parole in 1982 Cloverdale Murder CaseDefendant James Oliver Unick, 64-years-old of Willows...
07/10/2026

Man Sentenced to Life Without Parole in 1982 Cloverdale Murder Case
Defendant James Oliver Unick, 64-years-old of Willows, CA, was sentenced this afternoon by the Honorable Laura Passaglia to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole after a Sonoma County jury found him guilty as charged in February of first degree murder and a special circumstance related to the s*xual assault that occurred during the commission of the murder.
District Attorney Carla Rodriguez stated, “No sentence can undo what was taken from this child or erase the pain her family has carried for the past 44 years. Today, with the imposition of a life sentence, this prosecution has reached its conclusion, and the defendant will be held accountable for the horrific crimes the jury found him guilty of committing. We remember a 13-year-old girl whose life was cut short, and we hope this sentence brings some measure of peace to those who have waited for so long.”
The charges resulted from an incident that occurred on Sunday May 23,1982 in Cloverdale, CA. The victim, 13-year-old Sarah Geer, left a friend’s residence to walk downtown when she was accosted by James Unick near an alley off a residential street. Sarah was forcibly dragged down the alley to a secluded area adjacent to an apartment building and behind a fence. The defendant brutally r***d Sarah and strangled her to death using her own shorts as a ligature. The homicide was investigated by the Cloverdale Police Department, but the investigation was limited by the forensic science of the day and went cold for several decades.
The first breakthrough in the investigation occurred in 2003, when a criminalist with the California Department of Justice was able to develop a DNA profile based upon s***m collected from Sarah’s underwear. That profile did not match anyone whose DNA was available for comparison in law enforcement databases, and the investigation remained cold. In 2021, the Cloverdale Police Department retained the services of private investigator Kevin Cline to assist with the investigation. The investigative team enlisted the FBI to help identify a matching source of the DNA profile constructed in 2003. The FBI, with its access to familial genealogical databases, concluded that the source of the DNA evidence collected from Sarah belonged to one of four brothers, including James Unick.
With the investigation considerably focused, FBI agents conducted surveillance of the defendant and collected a discarded cigarette that he had been smoking. A DNA analysis of the cigarette butt confirmed that Unick’s DNA matched the 2003 profile, and his DNA additionally matched DNA collected on numerous articles of clothing that Sarah had been wearing at the time of her death.
The Cloverdale Police Department arrested Unick at his residence in Willows, CA, in July 2024. At the time of his arrest, Unick denied ever knowing Sarah Geer or having any contact with her.
During the month-long trial, the jury heard testimony from Sarah’s friends who had spent time with her during her final weekend alive. The jury also heard from Unick, who detailed for the jury the events of May 23, 1982. During his testimony, Unick explained that the 13-year-old Sarah Geer propositioned him for s*x while he had been playing a video game at the Cloverdale arcade. He claimed that they had consensual s*x on a hillside near the Russian River, and he dropped her off back at the arcade afterwards.
The jury convicted Unick of first-degree murder and found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during the commission of a s*xual assault.
At sentencing, several members of Sarah’s family submitted letters and spoke about the tremendous devastation this crime had on their lives for the last 44 years. The sentencing and trial were also attended by members of the broader Cloverdale community, who shared in the loss and harm caused by Unick. In addressing Unick, Judge Passaglia noted that he had “robbed a child of her potential, of her life, and caused her to suffer in a most brutal way.” She noted Unick’s failure to take any responsibility and that he “had the audacity to blame the child for the things that occurred to her.” Judge Passaglia sentenced Unick to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole, the penalty mandated under the law.
The case was prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Christina Stevens and Deputy District Attorney Alex Fisher, assisted by District Attorney Investigator Dave Kahl. Investigator Kevin Cline and Detective Katie Vanoni of the Cloverdale Police Department headed the most recent portion of the investigation, with assistance from California Department of Justice and the FBI.

Countywide Organized Retail Theft OperationOn May 20, 2026, Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety (RPDPS), Sonoma Cou...
05/26/2026

Countywide Organized Retail Theft Operation

On May 20, 2026, Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety (RPDPS), Sonoma County Sherriff’s Office (SCSO), Windsor Police Department (WPD), Santa Rosa Police Department (SRPD), Petaluma Police Department (PPD) and the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Investigator’s Office participated in a countywide Organized Retail Theft (ORT) enforcement operation alongside allied loss prevention officers.

The following arrests were made by RPDPS:
Adrian Perez-Zamudio was arrested for:
◾Penal Code § 459.5(a) – Shoplifting – Misdemeanor
◾Perez-Zamudio was issued a citation to appear
Enedina Dominguez was arrested for:
◾Penal Code § 459.5(a) – Shoplifting - Misdemeanor
◾Penal Code § 666.1(a)(1) – Petty Theft with Prior Convictions - Felony
◾Health and Safety Code § 11364(a) – Possession of Drug Paraphernalia – Misdemeanor
◾Dominguez is being held without bail

The following arrest was made by SCSO and WPD:
Michael Broach was arrested for:
◾Penal Code § 459.5(a) – Shoplifting - Misdemeanor
◾Penal Code § 666.1(a)(1) – Petty Theft with Prior Convictions - Felony
◾Broach is being held without bail.

SRPD made two arrests, however, their investigation is ongoing and the names will not be released at this time.

Organized retail theft is a serious problem that affects both public safety and businesses. These crimes can lead to major financial losses, put employees at risk, and drive up prices for customers. Many of these thefts are carried out by organized groups that steal items to resell online, through third-party sellers, or through illegal resale operations.

The goal of this enforcement operation was to identify and stop people involved in retail theft, break up organized theft rings, recover stolen merchandise, and pursue criminal charges against those responsible. Investigators focused on crimes such as shoplifting, burglary, possession of stolen property, fraud, and conspiracy.

This operation was a team effort involving local retailers, loss prevention staff, and partner law enforcement agencies. By sharing information, conducting surveillance, and coordinating investigations, agencies worked together to reduce repeat thefts and help protect businesses and the community.

For questions regarding this operation, members of the public are encouraged to contact
◾Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Detective Sergeant Quinn at (707) 588-3514.
◾Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Public Information Specialist Emily Fuller at (707) 565-3941
◾Santa Rosa Police Department Public Information Officer Sergeant Patricia Seffens at (707) 543-3634

This  , be aware of red flags and know your rights!
05/19/2026

This , be aware of red flags and know your rights!

The Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office is aware of public statements by Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) claiming th...
05/01/2026

The Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office is aware of public statements by Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) claiming the April 30, 2026 appellate decision in People v. Hsiung recognizes a right to use the necessity defense to justify trespassing onto private agricultural property. That claim is incorrect.
The Hsiung decision arises from criminal convictions following a jury trial in Sonoma County Superior Court in 2023, where Mr. Hsiung was convicted of conspiracy and trespass-related offenses for his role in organized protest actions at Sonoma County agricultural farms in 2018 and 2019, by the vegan animal rights group, DxE. Those incidents involved DxE activists entering private property without permission, interfering with operations, and removing animals. The Court of Appeal reviewed those convictions and addressed limited legal issues about what evidence the jury should have been allowed to consider. It did not create any right to trespass.
In fact, the court rejected the necessity defense. It agreed with the trial court that the conduct was not an emergency. The actions were planned, coordinated, and deliberate, not a response to immediate harm.
The Court also emphasized California law already provides a lawful way to address suspected animal cruelty. Individuals can file a sworn complaint with a judge, who can issue a warrant for law enforcement to investigate. The court noted in Mr. Hsiung’s case there was no evidence this process was used before the trespasses occurred. That is critical because the necessity defense only applies when there are no reasonable legal alternatives. Here, there was one, and it was not used.
The limited reversal in Hsiung had nothing to do with authorizing trespass. The court ruled only that the jury should have been allowed to consider whether Mr. Hsiung believed his conduct was lawful, even if that belief was mistaken. That is a question about a defendant’s state of mind, not a determination the conduct itself was legal. It does not create legal justification for entering private property or interfering with lawful businesses.
District Attorney Carla Rodriguez stated:
“The Appellate Court unequivocally held that ‘necessity’ is not a legal defense to Mr. Hsiung’s actions. To be clear, all future trespassers are on notice that so-called “open rescues” are not justified under this legal theory, and any claim to be “mistaken” about the law is no longer credible.
At best, DxE’s public statement about the appellate decision is a misunderstanding of the law; at worst, it is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Hsiung opinion addressed a narrow issue about whether a jury should be able to consider a defendant’s honest but mistaken belief about the law. They felt that the jury should have heard this information, and I respect their decision. With one conviction remaining, we will decide the best path forward after reviewing the record.”
The District Attorney’s Office respects lawful protest and the right to advocate for changes in law or policy. Strong beliefs do not create a legal right to trespass, interfere with regulated industries, or take property.

SANTA ROSA MAN AND REPEAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDER SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR MAXIMUM TERM ALLOWED BY LAWDefendant Aaron ...
04/30/2026

SANTA ROSA MAN AND REPEAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDER SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR MAXIMUM TERM ALLOWED BY LAW
Defendant Aaron Perez-Gonzalez, 29 years old of Santa Rosa, was sentenced today by the Honorable Laura Passaglia to serve five years in state prison, the maximum prison term allowed by law, after pleading no contest to domestic violence with a prior conviction and committing a new act of domestic violence while awaiting sentencing.
District Attorney Carla Rodriguez stated, “Domestic violence is not a private matter. It is one of the most persistent and dangerous forms of violence in our community. It destroys lives in ways that extend far beyond any single incident. When offenders repeatedly ignore court orders and continue to harm the same victim, as happened here, it underscores exactly why accountability matters.”
On February 5, 2025, law enforcement responded to a report that Perez-Gonzalez had assaulted his girlfriend. The victim reported he slapped her multiple times and later punched her in the mouth, causing a laceration. Deputies observed visible injuries to her face and lip consistent with her account.
On June 11, 2025, just five days after pleading to the February 5th offense and while awaiting sentencing in that matter, Perez-Gonzalez again attacked the same victim. During an argument about the pending case, Perez-Gonzalez struck her in the mouth and later pushed her with such force that she fell face-first onto a curb. The impact caused facial trauma and a concussion.
At the time of this second assault, Perez-Gonzalez was subject to a no-contact criminal protective order. Evidence showed he not only violated that order but also attempted to pressure the victim to have it lifted.
This case did not occur in isolation. Perez-Gonzalez has a prior domestic violence conviction stemming from a 2019 incident in which he struck a different victim, caused facial injuries, and strangled her to the point of restricting her breathing. He pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor domestic violence charge in that matter and performed poorly on probation, which was terminated in July of 2023.
Judge Passaglia imposed the maximum term of prison allowed by law after considering Perez-Gonzalez’s history of domestic violence, his failure to comply with court orders, and the increasing severity of his conduct. Judge Passaglia specifically noted that at every single opportunity Perez-Gonzalez had been given at rehabilitation, treatment, or to change his ways he had “failed miserably.”
The case was prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Matt Hobson, assisted by District Attorney Investigator Hector DeLeon. The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office headed the investigation.

The Sonoma County AB 114 panel welcomes all community-based programs, government entities, and schools to apply for fund...
04/22/2026

The Sonoma County AB 114 panel welcomes all community-based programs, government entities, and schools to apply for funding pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11489.

Address

Santa Rosa, CA
95403

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+17075652311

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Sonoma County District Attorney's Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Organization

Send a message to Sonoma County District Attorney's Office:

Shortcuts

Share