Judge Upholds 2 Sentences to Private Center : Furlough: Superior Court rules that a 1991 law supersedes state attorney general’s opinion that such placements are illegal.

A Superior Court judge Wednesday upheld the right of judges to sentence convicts to private work-furlough programs, despite a 1990 state attorney general’s opinion that rendered such placements illegal.

In a case eagerly awaited by the district attorney’s office, which has routinely opposed sentencing to the programs, Superior Court Judge Robert E. May ruled that two Municipal Court judges were within their rights to send two convicted drunk drivers to private centers instead of County Jail.

May said the placements were proper under a 1991 law that allows private work furlough to be substituted for jail. Those sent to the private centers must maintain a job and pay for their stay. The centers were established to ease crowding at county jails.

The deputy district attorney who challenged the placements said the 1991 law is designed to allow a convict credit toward mandatory jail time by spending time in a private work-furlough center before sentencing but that serving time at such a center cannot be substituted for jail outright.

The state attorney general’s opinion, which says placements to facilities not under contract to the county are illegal, is superseded by the new law, May ruled.

Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller called May’s ruling “a bad opinion” and said his office is appealing a second case in which an El Cajon man convicted of marijuana possession for sale was sent to a private work-furlough center for 200 days. The 4th District Court of Appeal is still considering the matter.

“I guess he’s saying a judge can do whatever he or she wants,” Miller said. “I’m somewhat amazed that the judge takes the position that a judge can literally send anyone any place and have it count as a sentencing term. I think he was way, way, way off the beam on this opinion.”

May did not return a call for comment on his five-page ruling.

The district attorney’s challenge came against the placement of Brian Mark Worley of Escondido and Duane Eugene Snipes of El Cajon in private work furlough following their convictions for driving under the influence and in excess of the posted speed limit.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Dana C. Greisen said both men should have been given mandatory 60-day sentences in County Jail.

But attorneys for the convicts said the law clearly permitted their serving time in private work furlough. Jeff Thoma, a public defender for Snipes, said the law was enacted by the Legislature because of jail crowding and is set to expire in 1995.

“I had some question about what the district attorney’s opinion is based on,” Thoma said. “The Legislature makes the mandatory jail time and says where mandatory jail is to be served. I don’t think the district attorney understands the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.”

May’s opinion, he said, was “thoughtful and well-reasoned.” Snipes and Worley, whose sentence was stayed until a decision was rendered, will be placed in private work-furlough centers immediately, Thoma said.

Miller said jail crowding in San Diego County is greatly exaggerated because the County Jail is housing federal inmates. The district attorney also said he was surprised that any judge would send anyone to private work furlough considering recent criticism of the program.

The centers have come under increasing scrutiny for their lack of official monitoring and record-keeping. The County Board of Supervisors voted to place greater controls on the program by signing a contract with one center that keeps it tightly supervised. Once a contract is signed, the board said, it would be up to judges to send convicts to a regulated facility only.