A 46-year-old woman convicted of dropping her 7-month-old son to his death from a Children’s Hospital of Orange County parking structure in 2011 was sentenced again to 25 years to life prison Friday despite an appellate court ruling indicating a grant of probation may be more suitable.
Sonia Hermosillo was sentenced in May 2022 to 25 years to life in prison for killing her son, Noe. But while the Fourth District Court of Appeal justices found that the jury rightly convicted Hermosillo, who had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, they faulted Orange County Superior Court Judge Kimberly Menninger for not taking mental illness into account when considering probation as an alternative sentence.
Menninger again sentenced Hermosillo to 25 years to life in prison on Friday. According to court records, Menninger ruled the defendant would fail to “respond favorably to mental health care and treatment,” which is a requirement for a grant of probation in the case. Menninger also rejected a request from the defendant’s attorney, Nicole Parness, to reduce the first-degree murder charge.
Two years ago, the appellate court justices ruled Menninger should have taken into account Hermosillo’s mental health when deciding whether probation should be granted.
“The grim and paradoxical reality of our system of justice is that it is sometimes unable to deliver a result which feels truly just to all involved,” Associate Justice William Bedsworth wrote in the Feb. 26, 2024, ruling. “This case provides an especially heartbreaking illustration.”
The defendant “was by all accounts a doting mother to her two young daughters and a wonderful wife and homemaker for her husband, Noe,” Bedsworth wrote. “When she became pregnant with a baby boy, the couple was excited, as they had been wanting a boy for some time. The baby, Noe Jr., was born late term in January 2011 and due to his over-gestation, had several physical challenges which required medical care and therapy.”
His mother “diligently” took her son to his appointments but her “behavior completely changed” when he was a few months old, Bedsworth wrote.
“She began acting very strange,” he wrote.
Hermosillo was taken to mental health professionals, but the family could not afford the treatment and her mental health deteriorated.
Hermosillo dropped her son from a parking structure at the hospital Aug. 22, 2011. Experts for the defense testified during her trial that she suffered from post-partum psychosis. Her trial was delayed so long because she was found not mentally healthy enough to assist in her defense and was hospitalized for mental illness.
The justices found nothing wrong with the conviction or the jury’s finding that the defendant did not meet the legal definition of insane at the time of the killing,
But, the justices said, Menninger should have taken into account the defendant’s mental illness when considering probation as an alternative to the life sentence.
The law allows a judge to consider probation when the defendant has no prior criminal conduct, a willingness to comply with probation, the impact imprisonment will have on the defendant and her family and whether the defendant poses a danger to others.
“All of these factors would likely have weighed in appellant’s favor had they been considered,” Bedsworth wrote.
“Appellant’s own daughter gave a victim impact statement, imploring the court to have mercy on her mother, saying she did not want to be separated from her, and implying that her mother had `changed’ around the time of Noe Jr.’s, birth,” Bedsworth wrote. “It is particularly notable that no member of baby Noe’s family asked the court to impose a prison term.
“Appellant expressed her sadness and remorse about her act of infanticide, and begged to be reunited with her daughters. And there was no evidence before the court to indicate appellant could be a danger to anyone if not imprisoned. In sum, there is simply too little in the record to indicate the trial court properly weighed probation as a punishment for appellant’s crime.”
Bedsworth added it was “especially important in light of” a new law that the disposition of any criminal case “use the least restrictive means available.”
The justice added that criminal courts “are to consider alternatives to incarceration, including probation, but they retain discretion to determine appropriate sentencing based on applicable rules.”
Deputy District Attorney Anna McIntire argued in a re-sentencing brief that the defendant’s mental health issues were disputed in the trial.
“What the mental condition was that the defendant was suffering from was a major point of the contention during the trial,” she wrote. “The defense experts concluded the defendant was suffering from a schizoaffective disorder and that she was suffering a psychotic break with a postpartum onset at the time of the murder.”
Experts for the prosecution “opined the defendant was suffering from major depression. The fact that the jury found the defendant sane at the time of the murder necessarily implies that they did not believe she was suffering from the mental disorder proposed by the defendant; because if they had they would have found the defendant insane.”
McIntire said Menninger heard the same evidence, which she argued, “indicated the defendant did not suffer a psychotic break from reality.”
The prosecutor argued Hermosillo “had a child who was sick and she did not want him. While undoubtedly her major depression had some contribution to why she committed the crime, the overwhelming evidence, which included her own admissions, was that she perceived her son as an unacceptable burden, and she murdered this infant in a goal-directed, purposeful way, with a criminal presence of mind.”
Hermosillo “admitted she did not love him, evidenced prior homicidal impulses, plans, and attempts towards him, and admitted close in time to the alleged offenses that it was her goal to bring about his death,” McIntire argued. “She admitted she wanted him to die because he was sick, that she hated him, didn’t love him, and that she had thought about it for `many a day’ prior.
“She waited for her husband to go into the shower, took the car keys and the victim, removed his helmet so he would die and drove to the location where she threw him from the parking structure… Immediately afterwards, after getting her parking validated, she exited the parking structure, drove by and looked at what had happened, then fled, s cared about being arrested by the police.”
The prosecutor also rejected the defendant’s argument that she would not be a danger to anyone if released because she is too old to have another child. She accused the defendant of “malingering amnesia” during the 10 years she spent in a mental health facility as doctors worked to restore her sanity for trial.
McIntire said there were issues with Hermosillo attending classes in custody, which “calls into question her ability to comply with terms of probation.”
She accused Hermosillo of failing to show any remorse “during the 11 years this case was pending.”
The prosecutor added that when Hermosillo was being sentenced she “gave a short allocution where she briefly stated she knew what she did was wrong and she regretted it and asked for the opportunity to be with her daughters. This two-sentence expression of regret does not remorse show.”
Through a translator, Hermosillo said at her sentencing, “I truly regret what I did… I am asking for an opportunity… I want to be with my daughters. I plead with you, your honor. I know what I did was wrong and regret doing it from the bottom of my heart. If you could just give me an opportunity please.”
Hermosillo is eligible for parole in November 2030, according to the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.