Deonte Murray's criminal history

Deonte Lee Murray, born June 2, 1984, was arrested in September 2020 and charged with shooting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies. 

Here is Murray's criminal case history based on records from Los Angeles Superior Court. Note that in cases where a defendant is sentenced to jail, court records do not indicate how long the person spent incarcerated.

Aug. 19, 2002 (age 18): Murray pleads no contest to car theft and is sentenced to five days in Los Angeles County jail, 10 days of community service and 26 months of "summary probation" (this is also known as "informal" probation and does not require supervision by a probation officer). 

April 25, 2003 (age 18): Murray is charged with possession of methamphetamines with the intent to sell. He pleads no contest. The next month he is sentenced to 120 days in L.A. County Jail and formal probation for three years.

Jan. 12, 2004 (age 19): He is charged with petty theft. He pleads not guilty. The charges are later dismissed without a trial.

Feb. 10, 2006 (age 21): Murray is charged with transporting or selling marijuana, possession of marijuana, and possession of a gun while committing a "street gang crime." The possession charge is dismissed while he pleads no contest to the other two. He is sentenced to two years in state prison for each of the two convictions.

Dec. 27, 2007 (age 23): He is charged with being a felon in possession of a gun and pleads no contest. A charge of "obliteration of identification marks" on a firearm is dismissed. He is sentenced to two years in prison.

Jan. 26, 2010 (age 25): Murray is charged with receiving stolen property, later pleads no contest, and is sentenced to two years in prison. He pleads not guilty to a charge of "petty theft with a prior." That charge is dismissed.

June 28, 2011 (age 27): He is charged with possession of methamphetamine, pleads no contest and is sentenced to one year of formal probation. 

Sept. 11, 2011 (age 27): Murray is charged with receiving stolen property, later pleads no contest and is sentenced to two years in prison. Two other charges of burglary and possession of burglary tools with criminal intent are dismissed.

March 5, 2013 (age 28): Online court records show that a criminal case was filed in Los Angeles' Central Arraignment Courthouse on this date against Murray for a "violation" on Oct. 30, 2012. But the record indicates only two court proceedings in the case and no charges or sentencing details are shown.

July 11, 2013 (age 29): Murray is charged with possession of methamphetamine. He pleads no contest and is sentenced to 16 months in county jail. 

July 26, 2013 (age 29): Online court records show that a criminal case was filed in Central Arraignment Courthouse on this date against Murray for a "violation" on July 17, 2013. But the record indicates only two court proceedings in the case and says "There are no charges for this case."

Aug. 16, 2013 (age 29): He is charged with four crimes on this date. Two counts of robbery and one of burglary are ultimately dismissed, but he pleads guilty to a different burglary charge. He is sentenced to 40 months in county jail.

Aug. 23, 2013 (age 29): Online court records show that a criminal case was filed in Central Arraignment Courthouse on this date against Murray for a "violation" on June 23, 2013. But the record says "There are no charges for this case" and offers no further details. 

June 10, 2015 (age 31): Murray is charged with domestic violence. He pleads no contest and is sentenced to 60 days in county jail.

July 20, 2015 (age 31): Murray is charged with three crimes from a "violation" eight days earlier. He pleads not guilty to one count of domestic violence that is ultimately dismissed. He pleads no contest to charges of making criminal threats and disobeying a court order and is sentenced to 180 days in jail for each charge, plus five years of formal probation.

Oct. 26, 2016 (age 32): He is charged with being a felon in possession of a gun and assault with a firearm stemming from an arrest on Oct. 7. He pleads guilty to the possession charge; the other count is dismissed. On Jan. 6, 2017, he is sentenced to 32 months in prison.

Dec. 12, 2016 (age 32): He is charged with possession of methamphetamine and the next month pleads no contest. On Jan. 11, 2017, he is sentenced to 60 days in jail.

Oct. 3, 2018 (age 34): Online court records show that a criminal case was filed in Central Arraignment Courthouse on this date against Murray for a "violation" the day before. But the record says "There are no charges for this case" and offers no further details. 

Jan. 30, 2019 (age 34): He is charged with possession of methamphetamine and later pleads no contest. The next month he is sentenced to 364 days in jail.

Feb. 1, 2019 (age 34): Online court records show that a criminal case was filed in Central Arraignment Courthouse on this date against Murray for a "violation" four days earlier. But the record says "There are no charges for this case" and offers no further details. 

Feb. 18, 2019 (age 34): Online court records show that a criminal case was filed in Central Arraignment Courthouse on this date against Murray for a "violation" eight days earlier. But the record says "There are no charges for this case" and offers no further details.

March 16, 2020 (age 35): Murray is charged with possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving without a license. All charges are dismissed on July 22.

Sept. 17, 2020 (age 36): Murray pleads not guilty to carjacking and robbery in connection with a Sept. 1 event. While in jail, police identify him as the suspect in the shooting of two sheriff's deputies on Sept. 12. He is charged with two more counts of attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and three counts of possession of a gun by a felon. He pleads not guilty to all the charges. 

Summary: In the 18 years he has been an adult, Deonte Murray has been convicted of at least 16 crimes and been sentenced to nearly 20 years in jail.

 

    

Why did proposition 20 fail?

Proposition 20 got little attention on a California November 2020 ballot that was dominated by the presidential race and cluttered with 11 other state measures and numerous local issues. Voters just didn't have the bandwidth to recognize the common sense reforms offered by Prop. 20 — and the ballot itself actually made things worse. The measure failed.

Proposition 20 was aimed at fixing flaws in two earlier measures (propositions 47 and 57) that aimed to reduce California's prison population by releasing "non-violent" criminals and changing some crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

These changes were well-intended, but the laws were imperfectly designed. First, 2014's Proposition 47 defined all crimes as "non-violent" unless the law specifically called them violent. This might seem fine, but in reality, there has been no consistent use of the term "violent" in California law.

This means that many clearly violent crimes are classified as "non-violent," including assault with a deadly weapon, exploding a bomb, rape of an unconscious person, assaulting a peace office, felony domestic violence, shooting into an inhabited building, and assault by a caregiver on a child under 8 that could result in death or coma. 

In one Ventura County case, a man convicted of 86 counts of poisoning, sexual battery and rape of an unconscious or intoxicated person was not considered a violent criminal under California law, making him eligible for early release from prison.

Prop. 20 would have fixed this by defining all of the above crimes as violent (also on the list is the crime of selling a child for sex), preventing those offenders from getting a get-out-of-jail-free card.

The second major provision of Prop. 20 would have addressed a problem created by Prop. 47, which increased the dollar threshold for felony theft from $450 to $950 in stolen goods. As a result, retail stores have seen a surge in brazen and repeated thefts, with some thieves carefully tallying their haul to stay under $950. The thieves understand that police will not hurry to the scene of misdemeanor and, even at worst, they might get a ticket. 

Prop. 20 would have created a new felony of "serial theft" that applies to anyone who steals over $250 three times, helping to send repeat thieves to prison.

As you can see, these changes are hardly controversial. So why did Prop. 20 lose?

The answer is all in the ballot summary.

In an election like this one, 98% of voters' attention was on the Trump-Biden presidential race. A little room was left over for high-profile contests like Prop. 22, involving the treatment of rideshare drivers (this measure drew the highest advocacy spending of any in state history), and a couple battles over property taxes.

Prop. 20 got little attention and when that happens, the description of the measure that appears on the ballot becomes all-important. In California, the ballot summary is written by the attorney general and currently that is Democrat Xavier Becerra, who uses the role to advance his own political ideology. 

The first sentence of Prop. 20 ballot summary reads "Restricts parole for certain offenses currently considered to be non-violent." To say this twists the truth is an understatement. Who considers assault with a deadly weapon, felony domestic violence or setting off a bomb to be non-violent? 

A much better, and impartial, sentence would be "Changes classification of certain crimes from 'non-violent' to violent.'"

The second sentence of the ballot summary reads: "Authorizes felony sentences for certain offenses currently treated only as misdemeanors." The vagueness of this is astonishing. Given no details and no context, voters could hardly be blamed for reading this and questioning why felony sentences would apply to any misdemeanor.

A much-better, and fairer, sentence would be: "Creates new felony crime of serial theft for three or more convictions of stealing items of at least $250 in value."

The third sentence of the ballot summary says: "Limits access to parole program established for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses."

Again, this is hugely misleading, suggesting the bill only relates to non-violent criminals and deliberately obscuring the fact that violent offenders are being released early from prison.

A better sentence would be, "Bars those convicted of offenses reclassified as violent from program for early prison release."