In the five months between September of last year and this January, 39-year-old Willie Johnson allegedly stole from a Walgreens in Noe Valley on five occasions. When he was arrested, he was carrying four packs of toilet paper.
Johnson was previously convicted of three earlier misdemeanors in 2018 and 2019. These included petty theft (stealing something worth less than $950) in Alameda and San Mateo counties, and commercial shoplifting (also stealing something less than $950, but from a business) in San Mateo County. He was also convicted of one felony: First-degree robbery.
This history meant that, under Proposition 36, which was approved by 68.4 percent of the Californians who voted last November, Johnson could be charged with a felony for allegedly stealing the toilet paper earlier this year. Even though shoplifting is almost always a misdemeanor under the California penal code, Proposition 36 allows for felony charges in cases of theft under $950 if the defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions.
On Jan. 28, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins did just that, and charged Johnson with a felony. If convicted, he could have spent up to three years in state prison.
Instead, a San Francisco Superior Court judge stepped in. Over the deputy district attorney’s objection, Judge Geraldo Sandoval reduced the felony charge to a petty theft misdemeanor. Now, Johnson is looking at a maximum of one year in county jail.
Jenkins, in response, took to social media, excoriating Judge Sandoval by name.
“Since the passage of Prop. 36, my office has been working to implement the will of the people, and filed dozens of cases using the new tools available to us to make our city safer and hold those who habitually break our laws accountable,” Jenkins wrote.
Sandoval’s decision, Jenkins continued, went “against the clear will of the voters.”
“He didn’t even allow a hearing on the evidence in the case. This behavior epitomizes the broken laissez-faire culture at the Hall of Justice that erodes the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system and emboldens criminals.”
‘I have never witnessed more attacks’
It’s not the first time Jenkins has lambasted judges as she pursues a get-tough agenda on crime.
In March 2024, she joined demonstrators outside the Hall of Justice in protesting Judge Kay Tsenin’s decision to sentence Daniel Cauich, who had pleaded guilty to stabbing an elderly woman, to five years probation under close supervision.
In a September 2023 interview with KRON4, Jenkins criticized judges for threatening public safety by releasing alleged drug dealers before trial. A couple of months later, Judges Michael Begert and Patrick Thompson were called out on social media for their “catch-and-release philosophy” by tough-on-crime nonprofits Stop Crime Action and Stop Crime SF. Both judges were up for re-election at the time, and both still won.
Jenkins also pounced on an unnamed judge around the same time for releasing a “prolific tagger” to home detention with electronic monitoring, despite the DA’s decision to charge him with felony vandalism.
Open criticism of judges is rare, agreed half a dozen legal professionals Mission Local contacted to provide context. Several said they could not recall a district attorney who has criticized judges more than Jenkins.
“Jenkins’ job is to advocate for her position, but she should keep it in court,” said one attorney.
“In my time with the courts as a lawyer and judge, I have never witnessed more attacks against the independence of the judiciary by the DA’s office,” said Ellen Chaitin, a San Francisco Superior Court judge for two decades.
“Judges are sitting ducks when it comes to criticism,” added Chaitin. If a district attorney criticizes an individual judge, the judge is forbidden by the judicial canon of ethics to respond.
Now retired, Chaitin is under no such obligation. In May of 2023, Chaitin published an op-ed in the Chronicle attributing the 41 percent increase in fatal overdoses in San Francisco that year to Jenkins’ and then-mayor London Breed’s “talking tough” about drugs and property crime, while “gutting the programs proven to actually save lives and treat addiction.”
Neither the district attorney’s office nor the court responded to requests for comment.
‘I don’t care how much toilet paper they stole’
The Johnson case epitomizes the kinds of crimes for which Jenkins has promised tougher punishment: Property crimes involving repeat offenders. And, like other cases, the specifics complicate the picture Jenkins painted of an “emboldened criminal.”
Before his arrest, Johnson had already been participating in mental-health diversion services, and was receptive to working with his case managers, his attorney Ivan Rodriguez said.
“I know that [the DAs] are aware that Willie suffers from mental illness as well as homelessness,” said Rodriguez. “From the perspective of the police report that is given, it’s so evident that it’s a person dealing with a mental health breakdown.”
According to the Castro Street Walgreens, the most expensive toilet paper in the store retails at $24.99 for a 16-pack, putting the maximum value of the alleged theft Johnson was arrested for at just under $100.
Rodriguez described his client as a “large Black man” who may, unfairly, be viewed as a “scary person” at first glance. But when you sit down with him, the attorney continued, he is “sweet,” “pleasant,” and “not combative whatsoever.” He answers questions with “yes, sir” and “no, sir.”
“This is not anywhere near what an emboldened criminal looks like or acts like,” Rodriguez continued. “Not at all. Not one bit.”
On Jan. 29, Johnson appeared at his arraignment hearing before Judge Gerardo Sandoval wearing an orange sweatshirt and sweatpants. At 6-foot-4-inches, he was one of the tallest men in the courtroom. He pleaded not guilty.
“Based on the very minor nature of the crime,” said Rose Mishaan, the defense attorney who stood in for Johnson at the time, “Judge Sandoval decided that it would be appropriate to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor.”
Under Prop. 36, Mishaan added, judges are given “either-or charging discretion” to reduce felonies that could also be charged as misdemeanors, “in the interest of justice, when it’s appropriate.” That, she said, is “what he did here.”
In the end, Johnson was referred to Jail Behavioral Health Services. His bail was reduced from $50,000 to $500, after a consideration of his ability to pay, Mishaan said.
Even if someone has a criminal record, several legal professionals said, a petty theft of this nature and a referral to mental health diversion is an indication that the defendant was desperate, not dangerous.
“I don’t care how much toilet paper they stole, unless it was a semi-truck,” said one defense attorney after being told the details of the case.
In some instances, it is not unreasonable to charge someone with a felony based on their criminal record alone, the attorney added. Still, he said, he would not have done so in Johnson’s case.
With courts overburdened and jails overcrowded, judges often elect to focus on more serious cases, others added, and felonies are frequently reduced to misdemeanors. Sending someone to prison and adding another felony conviction to their record is a “very big deal,” stressed one public defender.
Putting someone in prison is an expensive way to handle petty theft. In California, it reached a record-breaking $132,860 per inmate in 2023. It also, according to former San Joaquin County District Attorney Tori Verber Salazar, doesn’t resolve the underlying factors that contribute to petty theft, like poverty, addiction or mental illness.
In Salazar’s experience, the place for a district attorney to argue with a judge is directly to that judge, in court. Raising concerns via social media shows “more concern for image” than for the rule of law, she said.
It also fractures local governance at a time when the judiciary at all levels is under attack nationally by figures like President Donald Trump, several legal professionals noted.
For her part, Salazar said she could empathize with frustration about a bad day in court. But the mark of an elected official is respect for the process: “If I badger the system and I bring it down, then I bring everyone down with me.”
This story was updated on Feb. 12, 2025 to reflect new information shared by Willie Johnson’s defense attorney, Ivan Rodriguez.
Wasn’t Jenkins accused of leaking criminal case evidence from an active case to a political collusion-mate who then released it as a hit piece? What came of that? She pretends to be a “volunteer” while stacking $150k of “volunteer money”, an ethics violation if ever there was one, and releasing sensitive case information for ANY lawyer would usually result in a strong rebuke from a judge if not sanctions, suspensions, disbarment potentially. It COULD BE a felony also! But when it’s OTHER PEOPLE’S CRIMES, as “heinous” and “dangerous” as stealing toilet paper? Oh, righteous indignation. You have to wonder whose pocket she slithered out of and whose pocket she’s headed for next. PR creatures of the Breed era seem entirely too comfortable in the Lurie era.
The DA has a habit of blaming everyone but herself. It’s not appropriate for the role and it’s also unsustainable. Eventually she will run out of people to blame.
Life is cheap… but toilet paper is expensive.
Jenkins’ relationship with the truth is not a friendly once. She’s been lying to the public since before she was appointed, hiding the fact CA’s top Republican donor had paid her $100,000 to work against justice system reform.
Word in fact.
This is all theater. The DA’s office pled out a violent unprovoked attack against an octogenarian who walked with a cane to a simple felony assault, totally dropping the elder abuse and causing great bodily harm enhancements last August.
Instead, six months in a treatment program and two years probation, record then expunged. The offender had already absconded from two treatment programs since their initial arrest on the charge. Yes, they ran after the plea deal was finalized within about a week and have been on the run since. (I’d post more specific details, but the victim doesn’t want attention to it publicly posted such it could put them in a spotlight)
But the guy who stole toilet paper after having no criminal charges for five years (none in sf) is clearly the bigger threat, and worthy of years of imprisonment and being ineligible for plenty of assistance programs due to a felony record
Trump missed a big one with Jenkins. He could have gotten not only a certified moron for DA, but also one who’s a black woman in San Francisco. Though her political loyalties might be questioned, no one doubts her vicious desire to attack the poor and most vulnerable among us. Lock em up Brooksie. Send
em on a bus out of town. Damnit, another pandemic is coming and the upstanding law abiding citizens of San Francisco don’t want to run out of toilet paper.
Yes, I am a Public Defender in this town, and I know nothing of this particular case and am just speaking generally based on well over a decade of experience here in the system. Some thoughts:
1) The amount of time, money and resources that go into prosecuting and incarcerating for some of the dumbest, most minor offenses is mind-blowing and yes, that money would be far better spent on crime prevention (universal basic income anyone? Research and evidence shows it to be very promising… social workers and drug programs? housing?)
2) The Crooke(d) DA is totally unethical with a long history of well documented misconduct that other cited and if only someone with actual integrity, a sense of what is reasonable and an ounce of humility and compassion plus a chance of winning (I know, that’s asking way too much) would run against her, SF would be much better off all around. Let me add to the long list of bad decisions of hers the way she killed the restorative justice program which is evidence based and actually WORKS.
3) The attacks on judges are disgusting. Judges rule against me (and my colleagues) literally every day and our office doesn’t call them out publicly in the press for being unreasonable and/or demonstrating racial bias even though yes, that happens a lot. Why? Because it’s dirty, it’s unethical, it’s low and it undermines judicial independence. Why does the unethical Crooke do it? Cause she thinks it is effective and sometimes it might be. Judges do not like appearing in the news for their decisions, with good reason, because they cannot respond.
4) Attacking judges for a ruling you don’t like is a bad idea as a rule.
Example: Judge Persky in Santa Clara gave the Stanford rapist guy probation. Now, you might think that’s appalling and he deserved much worse. I might even agree with you, though I think sex offender registration is the worst punishment anyone can have, so maybe not. But I digress.
As a result, the law changed, and now, no one can get probation for rape of an intoxicated person. You might think that’s great news.
But here is why it really isn’t. Most people prosecuted for this crime are not rich white boys who swim at Ivy League universities. Most defendants are Black or Brown and poor. It’s a fact. So who will suffer the most? Poor communities of color including the kids and the families of the defendants.
Also, being a survivor of this exact crime myself, I can honestly say that not every case deserves prison. A lot of these prosecutions involved two drunken 20-somethings coming home from a bar and having sex. Both are drunk. Regret is not rape. BUT yes, some of these instances do deserve more serious consequences, absolutely, every case is different. Some are sober people taking advantage of intoxicated people in cruel and terrible ways. Some of these offenses are egregious.
This is exactly why judges need discretion.
This is why armchair quarterbacking really doesn’t work in the courtroom. Judges are bound to follow the law and bound to apply some discretion. Some of these hit pieces by “journalists” who really need to have their tongue surgically removed from Crooke’s nether regions (I’m talking to you Dan Noyes) have no idea what they are talking about and just want to outrage for clicks, MAGA fear mongering style.
To conclude my thoughts:
Judges are human. They are not infallible and sometimes they are wrong. Attacking them publicly because you didn’t get what you wanted is gross. And finally, I rejoiced at reading the 90% of comments that seem to understand that our DA sucks. Thank you Mission Local readers and writers.
> universal basic income anyone? Research and evidence shows it to be very promising
The largest UBI pilot so far was a big waste of time and showed no long term promise in improving life outcomes. But we can keep fantasizing that cannoning more cash to people will solve all the problems they create.
Jake T,
I believe you’re incorrect.
Largest venue to test UBI was Stockton, California and it cut the crime rate by 50%
Please provide your stats on the attempt that failed please.
h.
You’re wrong. The Stockton pilot was 125 people and $500/mo. The Open Research UBI pilot was 1,000 people and $1000/mo (in places where cost of living is lower).
In addition, crime rates didn’t fall by 50% in the Stockton pilot. That’s just made up.
I can see how you are a DA, great summary of the different sides
DA charges, PD defends. Otherwise yes.
I do not understand Ms Jenkins’ thoughts on this. These arrestees will be released back to the streets. They will reoffend. If you give someone a program that addresses the underlying issues for the crime, it is less likely that they are going to reoffend. I would rather have less crimes from these arrestees than them sitting in jail/prison getting angrier and learning better ways to commit crimes.
I do not condone commiting crimes, but that toilet paper kept piles of stuff off the street. This is 100% better than Mayor Breed’s p
olicies for cleaning the streets.
Judge Tsenin got death threats because of social media posts.
Amazing article! Thank you for laying out the facts. This tough on crime shit didn’t work in the 80s and 90s and it won’t work now. It’s a waste of energy and resources. Spend that money on good paying jobs and schools. Imagine what $132,000 spent on a school-aged child could do!
It is a great article. ML’s rolodex is impressive.
And I agree with the rest of your post too.
A waste for all the admin staff downtown. Would never have made it into the classroom.
Policing crime worked wonderfully. American cities were at a relative peak of public safety to start the century, an achievement that’s been unwound over the last 20 years of crazy misapplication of criminal justice reform.
Trying to prosecute this petty theft case as a felony is outrageous, as is our DA’s public condemnation of the judge.
While serving on a jury when Gascon was DA, I learned that San Francisco DA’s office is only interested in winning their case at any cost and is not in any way interested in justice. It seems DA Jenkins has a similar approach to criminal cases.
I don’t think Jenkins gives one iota about Judge Sandoval. She’s an opportunist who seeks to burnish her brand.
“broken laissez-faire culture” … moronic.
I look forward to an oped by retired judge Ellen Chaitin acknowledging how the fentanyl overdose rate has been falling during a period of increasing crackdowns.
Jake T,
The fentanyl overdose rate is down because the chemists realized they were killing their customers and now addicts get a blend that’s 50%of what it was.
60 Minutes said that.
You keep throwing shade w/no receipts.
h.
Ugh. She is the worst.
There is a place for judicial intervention, and judges are ideally selected for their wisdom and experience, to draw upon a broader perspective.
That said in this case, I have these thoughts:
1. Should there be no consideration (and escalation) given to the accused’s history and past actions? If a petty thief were to be caught stealing $100 a week from a given neighborhood for the rest of their life, is that really minor impact on the community?
2. When a judge does decide to intervene – harsher or lenient – should they be required to explain for the public record their decision? I see justifications thrown around (by others than the judge) in this case like prison overcrowding, minor offense, etc. But what was the real justification in this instance? I’ll note that the defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge, so it certainly cannot be remorse from the accused.
If judges are releasing minor offenders due to prison staffing, then the public should know. If judges are releasing suspects because they believe they have changed their ways, they are welcome to declare that belief – and be held accountable at the ballot box should their belief be proven wrong later.
But most of the time the public is left asking “why?” to any judges intervention, which doesn’t seem right to me.
“1. Should there be no consideration (and escalation) given to the accused’s history and past actions? If a petty thief were to be caught stealing $100 a week from a given neighborhood for the rest of their life, is that really minor impact on the community?”
Since that didn’t happen here, I’m not sure why your creative writing exercise is relevant.
Judges aren’t selected for wisdom or experience. The judge in this case was deemed unqualified for the role by the bar. Studies show pretty conclusively that judges are overwhelmingly worse at gauging whether defendants are at risk of reoffending than very simple statistical models. I could teach a 6 year old to do a better job than 90% of all judges.
Campers,
You want a couple of proven solutions from a retired Reform School Teacher ?
First, I taught from South Carolina to San Francisco and I taught Severely Emotionally Disturbed (SED) and what every student had in common was that they came from parents or guardians who didn’t love them.
Solve this by offering anyone arrested for anything from boosting toilet paper to murder ten thousand dollars to get sterilized.
Two, combine the offer of ten grand with an offer of a grand UBI for a year.
First indicator of success would be when DPH numbers crunchers start asking …
“Where are all the crack babies ?”
go Niners !!
h.
Campers,
Jenkins is following orders from someone with a big ole board showing all of the Superior Court Judges and who put em there.
Kinda like Mitch McConnell did with Federal Judges very successfully (see Court, Supreme.
Judge Sandoval has the honor and distinction of having been a Charter Member of San Francisco’s ‘Class of 2000’ that also gave us Matt Gonzalez who was Nader’s running mate in one cycle and Ammiano who gave us the Nation’s first Municipal total health care plan and Peskin who saved the Bay for starters and Newsom … OK, they weren’t all Progressive giants.
lol
She’s following orders that say Soften up Progressives whenever possible.
Sandoval Rocks !!
Headline’s absurd. There’s a reason ppl who follow the laws no longer have walgreens and safeways etc in their hoods. Stealing and enablers for them. They know to keep their stealing under $950. They’re not victims. And i don’t care if he was stealing it to resell for crack – most likely – or to keep in his tent for when he craps on the sidewalk.
2 thoughts:
1. Would a three year felony sentence for toilet paper stealing cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment? Law students discuss among yourselves.
2. Who is enforcing the oath by those who are officer of the California courts “As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity’? DA BJ ask yourself.
This is my Walgreens. Lots of Walgreens, and Safeways (Fillmore) and Whole Foods (soma) have closed due to shop lifting.
I would like my Walgreens to stay open. If this guy has a series of felony theft convictions (which he does) then obviously more severe not less severe sanctions are needed.
When crime gets out of control, people justifiable vote against progressive “criminal justice reform” this is part of why trump got elected, and also why Jenkins.
The judges in sf (some of which are great, some of which are overly ‘progrsssive” ) need to look at the bigger picture, and the place that deterrence has in all of this.
Why do you care so much about Walgreens? They’re responsible for way more mayhem in this city than some shoplifters. Did you know they were ordered to pay SF hundreds of millions of dollars for their role in the opioid crisis? Fuck. Walgreens. We don’t need them.
Give this guy some free toilet paper, Walgreens! Let he who is without diarrhea swipe the first roll.
Walgreens got our neighbors addicted to opiates, made a ton of money off of that, then cynically blamed crimes of desperation for closing stores that they were going to close all along.
Jenkins was elected because she was appointed by a corrupt politician, with the understanding that Jenkins would not investigate Mayor London Breed’s corruption: hers, or her appointees. Mission accomplished. Same with City Attorney David Chiu.
Crime is out of control, but it’s Walgreens and the developer-funded City Family who are robbing this city blind, spending our housing money on useless police overtime.
Free TP in tha SFC!
You own a Walgreens?
Walgreens said they were going to close stores anyway, Safeway said they were closing the Fillmore location to sell the property to make a profit, and after covid wiped out foot traffic in SOMA, it’s not hard to imagine Whole Foods struggling there.
I think the real reason Trump won re-election is because people live in echo chamber media environments full of emotionally-charged misinformation, often about racial minorities committing crimes. Something you might want to look into.
Allegedly
Fully support the DA.
Lawlessness is lawlessness.
If people were angels we would not need laws .
The free for all, until you get caught is not acceptable .
Obviously , criminals are ill and probably never learned discipline or right or wrong from their
parents .
The babysitting and enabling in this town needs to stop.
Clean this city up.
If the consequences are correct they would make an impact and the behavior would decrease .
SF’s criminal justice system seems to struggle with properly handling offenders who engage in criminal activities that are low level in isolation, but who commit them so many times that the impact becomes large.
Stealing TP from Walgreens once is not a big deal. But stealing every week for a year adds up.
“District Attorney Brooke Jenkins did just that and charged Johnson with a felony. If convicted, he could have spent up to three years in county jail.”
It was my understanding that custodial sentences in excess of 1 year are served in a state facility.
As for Judge Sandoval, sounds like he might be one of those “activist judges”, who think he knows better than the voters.
nope – it’s called 1170(h), realignment. The CDCR was over capacity so the legislature created “county jail prison” and those convicted of crimes that fall within 1170(h) serve a prison sentence in the county jail as long as they are 1170(h) eligible defendants (not registered sex offenders and no prior strikes)
We should build more prisons and jails. There’s plenty of demand. Mental institutions too.