Probation Denied for Convicted Sex Offender

by Yevgeniy Sverdlik

Calif. April 30, 2009 — A convicted Benicia sex offender was denied reinstatement of his probation in a Solano County courtroom Thursday.
Mitchell Nutt, 23, had been sentened to 16 years in prsion, however the sentence was suspended last year. Subsequently his probation was later revoked for possession of pornography, according to officials. Nutt was in court with the hoes of haveing probation reinstated.
Testimony from a sex-offender treatment provider, a defense witness, did not convince Solano County Superior Court Judge Allan
Carter that allowing Nutt to continue treatment would be beneficial to the community.

“There’s no direct link between viewing pornography and reoffending,” Michael Jereb told the court.
 Jereb works in concert with the county probation department, whose officers also reported
that the defendant had been diligent in complying with terms of his probation.

Carter speculated that even if the defender and the district attorney both brought in an equal amount of mental health experts, the court would hear
different opinions from them.

“Frankly, I don’t care,” the judge said. “He’s being sentenced for violation of his probation.” The probation was imposed for “a lot of inappropriate
sexual contact with a young girl who couldn’t give consent.”

The district attorney originally charged Nutt with ten counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of sexual acts with a child,
according to a complaint filed in July 2007. He was accused of sexually abusing his step-daughter who was six years old at the time he allegedly
committed the crime. The defendant was 18 years old.

In March of 2008 he entered into a plea agreement, pleading “no contest” to one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child and the original charges
were dropped. A 16-year prison sentence was suspended and Carter sentenced him to about one year in jail and a five-year probation.

On Thursday, Carter sentenced Nutt to 12 years in prison but later decided to postpone sentencing until Friday morning because of confusion about
proper procedure for reinstating a suspended sentence for a defendant whose probation had been revoked.


Skip to content