Chapter 10
Doing Time
James Daveggio and John Huffstetler were detained by a Tracy policeman while Janet Stokes was taken in for questioning and medical attention. In the course of a three-hour interview with the police, she revealed all the sordid details of what had happened earlier the previous evening. Soon thereafter, Detective Sergeant Chuck Crawford swore out a complaint against Daveggio and Huffstetler.
Count 1 alleged that Huffstetler violated Section 207 (a) of the California Penal Code: kidnapping, a felony, by “willfully, unlawfully, and forcibly stealing, taking, and arresting” Janet Stokes.
Count 2 dealt with Huffstetler in the count of oral copulation while acting in concert and abetting another individual. Count 3 was against Daveggio: 288(d) of the Penal Code, oral copulation, acting in concert with force. Counts 4 and 5 dealt with both defendants and the use of a firearm, in this case a Smith & Wesson .38-caliber Model #15.
James Daveggio was in deep trouble this time. A preliminary examination was held on August 26, 1985, in Tracy, California, before the Honorable James E. Cadel. William Harrell, deputy district attorney, appeared as council for the state; David Harris, attorney-at-law, appeared as council for Daveggio; Janine Sheaffer represented Huffstetler.
In a somewhat plodding but thorough manner, ADA Harrell laid out a litany of damning facts before Judge Cadel. His main witness was Janet Stokes and he took her back through the ordeal of that terrible night. She was naturally embarrassed in recounting her plight, but Harrell was taking no chances with ambiguities. After all, Daveggio had already skated on the forced oral copulation charges in Pleasanton only the year before.
He asked Janet, “While your head was being pulled down, what were you doing at this point?”
A. “Pushing back, trying not to let my head go down.”
Q. “Were you successful in resisting the push?”
A. “No.”
Q. “Okay. So after it was pushed down, what happened next?”
A. “I just went ahead and did it. I couldn’t fight it off no more.”
Q. “Now when you say you did it, what did you do?”
A. “I did what he told me to do.”
Q. “And what was that?”
A. “Suck his thing.”
Q. “And when you say ‘thing,’ what are you referring to?”
A. “His penis.”
In response to ADA Harrell’s thorough questioning of Ms. Stokes, Daveggio’s attorney, Harris, attempted to show that all throughout the evening at Joey’s Bar and then Bill’s Club, there had been no trouble among the threesome.
He asked Stokes, “Everything was nice and easy and happy between you and the two defendants at that point, is that right?”
“Just the one defendant [Daveggio],” she answered. “The other guy was very quiet and unfriendly.”
Harris went on to point out that Daveggio had not “forced” her into the car at the parking lot behind Bill’s Club. He also related that even by her own admission she was “foggy” about this period of time. Further defending his client, he noted that Daveggio had not removed one article of her clothing while parked out in the orchard, nor had he ever held the pistol in his hand.
Huffstetler’s attorney, Sheaffer, zeroed in on Janet Stokes’s long day of work and drinking, which led to questioning about her memory. She was quizzed on many different points, especially the period in the parking lot. Quite a few times her response was the same: “I don’t remember.” In fact, Sheaffer kept pounding away at all the things that Janet didn’t remember.
Q. “You indicated that his [Daveggio’s] pants were down enough so that you could orally copulate him, correct?”
A. “That’s right; well, it had to be, right?”
Q. “Do you remember whether he had no clothes from the hip to the knee?”
A. “No.”
Q. “You don’t know which hands he used to unfasten his pants?”
A. “No.”
Q. “And you’re not really sure whether his penis was erect or not, are you?”
A. “Not then, I don’t, but once something is stuck in your mouth like that, you would remember.”
Q. “So it was erect. I’m not asking you whether you remember it was stuck in your mouth or not, I’m asking whether it was hard or not.” A. “Once it was in my mouth, yes, but before that I don’t remember.”
Q. “You are sure it was erect once it was in your mouth, but before that you don’t remember?”
A. “I’m not sure.”
Q. “You are not sure whether he ejaculated or not?”
A. “That’s right.”
Q. “Your eyes were closed, so you don’t know whether there were any distinctive marks around his penis?”
A. “That’s right.”
Q. “Now, you say he grabbed your hands and put them down in his crotch, down by his penis. He grabbed both your hands and did that?”
A. “Just one of my hands.”
Q. “Just one of your hands?”
A. “I’m not real clear about that either.”
Q. “So that’s sort of a fuzzy recollection?”
A. “The whole thing is.”
Only one other witness was called to the stand, David Bradshaw, the bartender who had served the threesome liquor that night at Bill’s Club. He explained that everyone seemed to be having a good time while in his presence. There had been no trouble, and, in fact, Daveggio had been quite pleasant relating stories about the bartending business.
But in the end, despite a good effort by both defense attorneys, there was no getting around the fact that there was a mountain of evidence against both Daveggio and Huffstetler.
Daveggio contacted his new attorney, Timothy Rien of Pleasanton, and on September 17, 1985, he stood before county judge Stephan Demetras with a new plea—guilty to Counts 1 and 2, not guilty on Counts 4 and 5 (the use of a firearm). Along with this went an understanding that he would be referred to Vacaville Medical Facility where they would assess his mental stability and capacity for rehabilitation. Vacaville’s report would determine if he was to serve anywhere from five years in state prison down to three years or less in county jail.
Even the judge cautioned about Vacaville’s decision: “It is often a term of art. Sometimes they disagree, but whatever the bottom line recommendation by the staff, even though it may be a split decision, that will be the factor that allows either a three- or five-year term.”
Judge Demetras then asked Daveggio if he understood that he was forfeiting a chance for a jury trial where he could present evidence, call witnesses, and even take the stand in his own defense.
“Yes,” Daveggio answered.
The judge went on, “Mr. Daveggio, if you plead guilty, since prison sentence is anticipated here, they can place you on parole once you leave prison. That could be up to four years. If you violate any parole terms, you can be returned to custody up to a year on each one of these. Do you understand that?”
Daveggio once again answered, “Yes.”
Judge Demetras continued, “This kind of situation requires you to register pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code [as a sex offender] with law enforcement offices once you are back out, wherever you move and wherever you live. Do you understand that?”
“Yes” was all Daveggio said.
The judge’s decision on sentencing was delayed by one day as Count 2 was amended (there being some late evidence that had been presented to Daveggio’s attorney from the prosecution). Suddenly with this amendment, the most Daveggio now faced was two years in state prison. Already, things were turning in his favor.
Things even got better once he was whisked away to the Department of Corrections Reception-Guidance Center in Vacaville, a city fifty miles north of Tracy. Through its doors had passed Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy. Now as James Daveggio underwent his court-ordered “diagnosis and treatment for a period not to exceed ninety days,” he spilled out his own story of the events that had taken place in Tracy, and about his life in general. According to him, he and Janet Stokes had been drinking and things just got out of hand. He thought she wanted to do it just as much as he did. Vacaville didn’t need ninety days to evaluate James. By December 22 he was back before Judge Demetras, who, report in hand, admonished Daveggio’s lawyer, “I have considered the Vacaville study which is back which recommends formal probation. They do find him marginally qualified. I did indicate to him one of the terms of his plea would be that I would go along with their recommendation; so I am prepared to do that. I am going to suspend the imposition of sentence for a period of five years, placing the defendant on formal probation under the following terms and conditions.
“1. He is to obey all laws that apply to his personal conduct.
“2. He is not to commit the same or similar offense.
“3. He is to serve 365 days in county jail. I have him having credit for three days before he went to Vacaville, and sixty-two days at Vacaville.
“4. He is to register pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code. [Sex offender]
“5. He is to obtain employment of a nature to be approved by the probation officer and remain continuously employed thereafter.”
One other key point was mentioned. James was to refrain from the consumption of any alcohol and stay away from taverns.
So by Christmas 1985 James Daveggio could thank his lucky stars that he was only serving one year in county jail instead of five years of hard time in state prison.
By April 1986 his “jail life” had become even less restrictive. He was placed behind the wire at the San Joaquin Honor Farm and was given work furloughs during the day to be out and about beyond the “walls.” His second wife, Donetta, later related, “He actually liked it there. He said he didn’t have to do anything except watch TV and go to church once in a while. He said he really had them fooled. I believe him. He could bullshit just about anybody for a while. Until they really got to know him.”
In an attempt to gain even more freedom, Daveggio put in an application for early release on April 17, and in his own words he wrote, “If I’m aloud [sic] modification, I still have my full time job. At present my family is on welfear [sic]. I feel I have learned that what I have done was very wrong and that I have a drinking problem. If modified I can get my family off welfear [sic]. I thank you for your consideration.”
Even his probation officer seemed to be convinced of his mended ways. She wrote on the back of the report, “It is my opinion that James can stay sober, and become a very productive member of society if involved with AA [Alcoholics Anonymous] upon release.”
But then James Daveggio could be very persuasive when he wanted to be. Even his rape victim, Janet Stokes, had referred to him as “this nice gentleman” before things had turned bad.
The judge reviewing his request, on the other hand, didn’t buy his “nice gentleman” routine. Early release was denied.
But all in all, Daveggio’s time behind bars was not that onerous for such a serious crime, and as spring turned to summer, he went about his daytime job and whiled away the hours “inside” with magazines and television. Not quite the “institutional man” that his old friend Michael Ihde had become, he nonetheless made the best of his jailhouse days. Because he couldn’t drink alcohol in his present circumstances, he became the soft-spoken James of old. He was one of those guys who could turn on the charm just enough to meet any situation.
In July 1986 he was once again a free man. Almost immediately he began to recede from the consciousness of the courts and the police. But it was only a matter of time before he would be in trouble again.