The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office declined to pursue a case against a man arrested on suspicion of felony vandalism on McBean Parkway, after victims identified him as the suspect, but witnesses failed to show up in court, according to prosecutors.
Nicholas Escarcega, identified in the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station booking logs as a 41-year-old transient, was arrested around 9 a.m. Aug. 11 in response to reports of break-ins near Orchard Village Road.
The report involved “a witness observing the suspect breaking the driver’s side window of a victim’s vehicle with his hand to make physical entry,” Deputy Robert Jensen, spokesman for the SCV Sheriff’s Station, said in a phone interview.
Jensen said deputies responded to the call and found Escarcega using the witness’ description of the suspect’s clothing and appearance.
Deputies later learned he also was subject to a restraining order that prevented him from being where he was arrested, after several run-ins with deputies.
Deputies investigated and found that several vehicles had been damaged by rocks, leaving more than $1,000 in damage.
SCV Sheriff’s Station officials said he was booked and held in lieu of more than $1 million bail due to a number of factors.
In addition to the alleged violation of a restraining order and burglary charges, Escarcega also was charged with trying to bring drugs into jail.
Deputies booking him into the SCV Sheriff’s Station jail found a small white bindle of suspected methamphetamine on his person as he was being taken into custody, according to station officials.
A criminal complaint filed by prosecutors Aug. 13 alleges two counts, felony vandalism and second-degree vehicle burglary, as well as citing two prior felony robbery convictions, as well as six additional felony convictions dating back to 2002.
There were also a pair of Rules of Court violations listed in the complaint.
However, on Aug. 27, the case was dismissed and Escarcega released, with the official reason given as a 1387 motion by the defense, which refers to a defendant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial.
One of the prosecutors on the case declined to comment on the reason why the case was not pursued, referring the request to the office’s media relations department.
“This case was set for preliminary hearing on Aug. 23,” according to an email Wednesday from Zara Lockshin, public information specialist for the DA’s Office. “A necessary witness failed to appear, and the case was trailed for the preliminary hearing to occur on its last day, which was (Aug. 27). On (Aug. 27), the necessary witness again did not appear. Under the law, it was the last day on which we could conduct the preliminary hearing. Due to the necessary witness’ failure to appear, we were unable to proceed, and the judge dismissed the case.”
