Wednesday, January 7, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Judge’s Critiques Do Not Undermine Judgment of Conviction
Woman Who Sued in Own Name, Was Then Granted Status as Participant in Address-Confidentiality Program, Was Not Entitled to Have All Information in the Record Relating to Her True Name and Whereabouts Redacted, Opinion Says
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
The Third District Court of Appeal yesterday rejected a criminal defendant’s assertion that a judge’s comments at sentencing, suggesting that something is “seriously wrong” with the accused and bemoaning that the Legislature has “made it very difficult for judges to sentence offenders the way we used to sentence” them, did not undermine the judgment of conviction even if they might have been “better left unsaid.”
Yesterday’s unpublished decision, authored by retired Justice Rebecca A. Wiseman, sitting by assignment, and joined in by Acting Presiding Justice Louis Mauro and Justice Elana Duarte, quoted the judge’s remarks at length, spending nearly six pages of the 11-page opinion on the commentary. Wiseman declared:
“We conclude defendant forfeited these claims by failing to object at the time of sentencing. Further, even if defendant had objected to the trial court’s comments, we would conclude the trial court’s comments are not grounds for reversal.”
Eight Charges
Appealing the judgment of conviction was Maksim Shkodnik, who pled no contest to eight counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a 14-year-old girl in violation of Penal Code §288(c)(1). Shkodnik was the victim’s taekwondo instructor and friend of the family when he abused her in May 2020 after she fell asleep watching a movie at his house.
In June 2024, the defendant entered an “open plea” to the court, agreeing to receive a sentence of up to seven years and eight months in state prison. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard ordered a psychological report pursuant to Penal Code §288.1 and set a future date for sentencing.
On Jan. 17 of last year, a sentencing hearing was held at which Gilliard apologized to the victim for delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, saying “four years is inexcusable.” She referenced the §288.1 report indicating that the defendant had been seen by a psychologist, who found him to be “a suitable candidate for probation.”
Extremely Illuminating
The judge called the document “extremely illuminating” and remarked:
“[Defendant], you claim a 14-year-old girl was looking for a father figure in a flirtatious way. That’s sick….[I]f that was your read with respect to this young girl, there’s something seriously wrong with you.”
She continued:
“This is what the doctor…who says you should get probation, this is her analysis: [Defendant] demonstrated some problems with insight and lack of appreciation of the factors…that place him at risk for…reoffending. When asked what he could have done differently to have avoided his present legal situation, [defendant] stated, quote, ‘Not to have the neighbor wife and daughter over all the time during COVID.’ Really? “How about not molesting a 14-year-old? How about not taking advantage of a position of trust and [abusing] this young girl? That would have been something you could have done differently….”
Changes in Laws
Saying that she is “bound” to follow recent changes to sentencing laws which place “[a] great emphasis…on the defendant” and “what has happened to him in his life,” Gilliard commented:
“But I will tell you who I never see in these courtrooms…when I do sentencing. I never see any member of the Legislature or the Governor[] who enacted these laws. They’re never here to hear what victims and their families endure….
“They pass these laws. I have to abide by them, whether I agree with them or not, because that is an oath that I’ve taken, and that’s why I take the time to explain this to you.”
After taking into account some mitigating factors, she sentenced him to an aggregate term of more than five years in prison. Shkodnik appealed the ensuing judgment of conviction, arguing that the judge erred in failing to impose a probationary term and that the comments at sentencing violated his rights.
Forfeited Contentions
Wiseman opined that the defendant forfeited both contentions by failing to object in the trial court, saying:
“We reject defendant’s argument…that it would have been futile to bring any of these matters to the trial court’s attention and do not exercise our discretion to reach these forfeited claims.”
In a footnote, she added:
“Even if defendant had not forfeited these claims, we would still conclude the court’s comments are not grounds for reversal of his sentence. Taken in context, the trial court was addressing the parents and family of [the victim] and attempting to explain the delays in bringing the case to a close. Although some of the court’s comments might have been better left unsaid, it is apparent the trial court…considered the case to be very serious….The court stated it considered many factors in reaching its decision to deny probation but clearly was negatively impressed by statements made by defendant to the preparer of the report, which the court was entitled to consider. All in all, defendant’s sentence was well within the parameters of the negotiated plea.”
The case is People v. Shkodnik, C103100.
Gilliard is a director of the Alliance of California Judges and is plaintiff in an action to establish that judicial salary increases are being calculated incorrectly.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company