In a remarkable escalation of legal tensions, Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman has taken significant steps against a Superior Court judge, accusing her of consistently undermining the efforts of his prosecutors by reducing charges and issuing lighter sentences.
Hochman’s office has moved to disqualify Judge Yvette Verastegui from presiding over specific criminal cases. Judge Verastegui currently serves at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center located in downtown Los Angeles.
This legal confrontation arises from several cases where prosecutors claim that Judge Verastegui unjustifiably lowered charges or assigned sentences significantly more lenient than those recommended by the District Attorney’s Office, despite evidence they believe warranted stricter penalties.
“When a judge opts to either downgrade charges or impose a much more lenient sentence without grounding it in facts and the law, we will firmly challenge that,” Hochman stated in an interview with The Post.
Prosecutors have highlighted several cases, including a prominent animal cruelty incident that gained widespread media attention in 2025.
In this particular case, Joeboury Coleman and Shayla Alcala faced charges after videos circulated online allegedly depicting a seven-month-old puppy being violently kicked and hurled down a multi-story stairwell.
According to court records, Verastegui accepted open pleas over prosecutors’ objections after the District Attorney’s Office indicated it was prepared to proceed to trial.
Coleman was sentenced to two years in state prison and received 397 days of credit for time served.
Alcala had two felony counts reduced to misdemeanors and was sentenced to one year of summary probation, along with counseling and educational programs.
Prosecutors argue the puppy case was not an isolated incident.
Another example cited by the District Attorney’s Office involved the notorious Oceanwide Plaza towers, the graffiti-covered downtown Los Angeles skyscrapers that became a national symbol of urban blight after taggers scaled the unfinished high-rises and covered dozens of stories with graffiti.
In February 2024, authorities arrested Don Kung, who was accused of rappelling down one of the towers while spray-painting the tag “SAUT” across multiple floors.
According to court records, prosecutors alleged the vandalism caused more than $70,000 in damage and offered a plea deal requiring the defendant to plead guilty to a felony, complete graffiti-removal work and pay restitution before potentially earning a reduction to a misdemeanor.
The defendant rejected the offer, court records show.
Verastegui later indicated she would reduce the case to misdemeanors and impose probation, community service and restitution over prosecutors’ objections, according to court filings.
A third case involved Giovanni Garcia, who was facing felony charges and had three prior serious felony convictions, commonly known as strikes.
Court records show prosecutors argued Garcia’s criminal history warranted a substantially longer prison sentence than the one ultimately contemplated by the court.
Verastegui dismissed the prior convictions and effectively resolved the case before it had been assigned to a trial judge, court records show.
For Hochman, the dispute extends far beyond any individual defendant.
“If we give an offer and a defendant doesn’t want to accept the offer, that’s certainly their right,” Hochman said.
“But when a judge, without the full review of all the facts and the law, decides a much more lenient sentence or set of charges is appropriate without conducting a full hearing, and as importantly, without hearing from the victims of the crime, then we believe that judge is acting inappropriately.”
In at least one case, prosecutors asked the California Court of Appeal to intervene and prevailed.
“Our goal is to ensure that victims receive the full measure of justice based on the facts and law of every case,” Hochman said.
According to Hochman, the department where Verastegui serves has traditionally played a largely administrative role, assigning trial-ready cases to available courtrooms rather than resolving disputed criminal matters.
“Almost never do they go beyond the ministerial role of just assigning the cases out,” Hochman said.
“We are not going to let her unilaterally come up with resolutions that we believe completely undersell a case and do additional damage to victims.”
Hochman argued that reducing charges in serious criminal cases can undermine deterrence and erode public confidence in the justice system.
“Another important aspect of any prosecution is the message it sends to others thinking of engaging in similar crimes, that they will be held accountable and the consequences will be significant,” he said.
“When a judge countermands that message without basing her order on a full grounding of the facts and the law, it does a disservice to the entire criminal justice system.”
The District Attorney’s Office maintains it is not challenging a judge’s authority to disagree with prosecutors after conducting a full review of the facts and legal record.
Rather, Hochman argues the department where Verastegui sits was never intended to function as a venue for resolving contested criminal cases before they are assigned to trial courts.
“We’ll respect a judge’s decision when they’ve put in the work and reviewed the record,” Hochman said.
“What we’re objecting to is when that process isn’t happening and defendants are receiving substantially reduced outcomes over the objections of prosecutors and victims.”
Judge Verastegui and the Los Angeles Superior Court did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
