Three Years for Two Lives: The Deadly Cost of Bad Policy
There’s been a lot of controversy over the past few weeks about a court case from three years ago—and now, the possible early release of the man convicted of killing two teenagers back in 2021. This even led to a new bill in the State Senate, which was quickly struck down in Committee, and the involvement of the federal government. To no one’s surprise, one of the key topics at the center of the conversation is illegal immigration. So, what is the world is going on?
Who is Oscar Eduardo Ortega?
Let’s start from the beginning – who is Oscar Eduardo Ortega?
Back in 2021, a devastating car crash in Seal Beach, California, claimed the lives of two teenagers—19-year-old Anya Varfolomeev and her boyfriend, Nicholay Osokin. The crash was horrific: Ortega, a 43-year-old illegal immigrant, was driving drunk at an estimated 100 miles per hour when his car slammed into theirs, sparking a fiery wreck that left no chance of survival.[1]
He was convicted the following year of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and sentenced to ten years in state prison. At the time, many felt justice had been served, even though some questioned whether the punishment was strong enough given the sheer recklessness of the crash. But now, just a few years later, Ortega is back in the news. He’s set to be released early—after serving only three and a half years of his ten-year sentence. Thanks to California’s credit-earning system, which gives inmates credits for things like good behavior and time served before sentencing, his release date has been pushed up to July 2025.[2]
This is what has created controversy, as the reaction from most parties involved has been outrage. The victims' families, community members, and several state officials have all spoken out, pointing not just to the tragedy itself but also to Ortega’s criminal history. This wasn’t his first offense – he had prior convictions for burglary, vehicle theft, and even battery with kidnapping. And, crucially, he had been deported from the U.S. multiple times before due to illegal entry.[3]
My question is, why was he sentenced to only 10 years in the first place? His actions led to the deaths of two teenagers, so even before we get to the decision for his early release, how was he only given 10 years as a fair punishment? Well, according to the California sentencing guidelines, for the first offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, the maximum penalty is typically up to 10 years in state prison. Even though Ortega’s case was egregious, if there were no prior DUI convictions causing injury or death, the law caps the sentence around this length.[4]
The Judge on the case sentenced Ortega under the vehicular manslaughter charge rather than a second-degree murder charge. In California, prosecutors can pursue what’s called a Watson murder charge if a DUI offender has prior DUI convictions or clear evidence that they understood the lethal risks of their behavior. That can carry a 15-years-to-life sentence.[5] The Orange County District Attorney put out a statement that the prosecutors were arguing for the maximum sentence, but the decision was ultimately made by the judge. I want to read his full statement, because I think it really sets the tone of what we need to understand about this case and what it means for California’s criminal justice system as a whole.
On April 23rd, District Attorney Todd Spitzer released the following statement:
“A convicted felon who was twice previously deported is being released after serving just a fraction of his sentence for killing two 19-year-olds because California Governor Gavin Newsom and the state Legislature refuse to hold criminals accountable.
This was not a plea deal. This was a defendant who pled to the Court and was sentenced by a judge under California law, over the objection of Orange County prosecutors, who unsuccessfully argued for the maximum sentence.
Years of California’s crusade to put the rights of criminals over the rights of victims has resulted in the unimaginable pain inflicted on the grief-stricken parents of 19-year-old Anya and 19-year-old Nicholay who had to be told that the man who killed their children while driving drunk and high at more than 100 miles per hour is considered a “non-violent” offender under California law, is eligible for early release, and will serve less than 50 percent of his sentence. Killing two human beings while drunk is anything but non-violent.
But in California, someone convicted of driving drunk and injuring someone would actually spend more time behind bars than a driver who kills while under the influence. A disgusting fact that the Orange County District Attorney’s Office has repeatedly tried to correct, lobbying for stronger laws to prevent DUI drivers from being eligible for additional credits to enable early release, and to increase punishment for DUI drivers who kill someone.
Instead of standing up for victims and preventing future victims, the state Legislature killed those bills. And on our roads people keep dying while their killers get nothing but a slap on the wrist. California’s creative concoction of good time, education, and other credits has resulted in criminals being released quicker than ever before, fulfilling Governor Newsom’s plot to empty California’s prisons and put dangerous and violent felons back on the street.
This is not a failure by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. It is another stab to the heart of victims across California by Governor Newsom and a state Legislature who are hell-bent on releasing as many criminals as possible without any accountability and without any punishment. And Californians are paying the price.”[6]
This is exactly the crux of the issue. It isn’t just that Ortega is up for early release – that in and of itself is disgusting, you kill two teenagers, and you only serve three years in prison, how completely unacceptable is that? But it only reveals a greater problem, which is that our state and the policies of those in power in our state do not prioritize justice and the sanctity of human life.
Federal Involvement
The Orange County DA wasn’t the only one who spoke out against this, federal authorities have since stepped in. U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, Bilal Essayli, filed a federal felony immigration charge against Ortega for illegal reentry after deportation—a serious offense that, if convicted, could land him up to 20 years in federal prison.[7] ICE has also placed a detainer on him to make sure he doesn’t just walk free once he’s out of state prison. Essayli was appointed by President Trump to his current role just a few weeks ago, and he vowed to work hand in hand with the Trump Administration to dismantle California’s sanctuary protections for illegal immigrants.[8] So, it makes sense then that this case would resonate with him.
Essayli is not alone in this response, it seems he has the full backing of the Trump Administration. Attorney General Pam Bondi made the following remarks about this case, “This is absolutely unconscionable. What about Justice for these teens? What about the rights of their parents?”[9] Tom Homan, affectionately known as Trump’s Border Czar, has himself vowed to send federal ICE agents to California to enforce a detainer against Ortega, under which local officials hold individuals facing deportation.[10] He said, “I will work with [Homeland Security] Secretary Noem on this case, and I guarantee you, if they don’t honor the detainer, we’ll have ICE agents outside that facility to take custody of this individual and deport him.”[11]
These aren’t even the most heartbreaking responses though, because the families of the victims are also speaking out about Ortega’s potential release. Anya’s father commented, “It’s disgusting. You have two young, unbelievable future, productive American citizens killed for nothing and that illegal immigrant who already has been deported twice is going to be released again? For what? If even he is deported, he will come back.”[12] Can you even imagine if that was your own daughter? Just 19 years old, out enjoying her freedom and her youth, completely abiding by the law and just driving down the freeway, when her life is taken from her by a criminal who has been convicted of numerous crimes in the past and yet was allowed to be here freely under our government policies. But beyond that, now you don’t even see justice done for your daughter, because while her life was ripped from her, the man who took her life gets to walk freely after only three years spent in a California prison! Disgusting does not even begin to adequately explain the total injustice and insanity of the situation.
In the face of this overwhelming response from federal authorities as well as by the families of the victims, Governor Gavin Newsom has had no choice but to promise his full support of and cooperation with ICE on this case.[13] But unfortunately, even Newsom’s cooperation on this one case doesn’t make a difference in the grand scheme of how California operates in situations like these. And that’s really because this case is the clear outcome of the policies that our state has put in place and defended.
This is what happens when you allow illegal immigration to run rampant, unchecked in your state. It’s also what happens when you don’t take criminal justice seriously, and when deadly crime goes unpunished. It’s important to remember that policy – and by policy, I mean the laws, rules, principles, and guidelines that rule our government – has real, tangible, downstream effects on the people who are governed by them. So, if your government leaders believe that murder is a serious offense against the sanctity of life itself, and that it is their responsibility to execute swift justice, then murderers face the death penalty or life in prison. But, if your government leaders mock capital punishment, if they constantly seek to “see both sides” of the argument and view their role as giving people second, third, and fourth chances, if they downplay the suffering of the victim and highlight the supposed suffering of the murderer, then you get cases like this in states like California where you can murder two people and walk free after just three years of prison time.
The Safety Before Criminal Sanctuary Act
Now, not everyone in our state legislature is okay with these outcomes, and so this case sparked the introduction of Senate Bill 554, or the Safety Before Criminal Sanctuary Act, by Senator Brian Jones, the minority leader of the California State Senate.[14] The bill aimed to amend California's existing sanctuary state law, SB 54 or The California Values Act, by mandating cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities in cases involving individuals convicted of serious or violent felonies.[15] Senator Jones emphasized the bill's focus on public safety, stating that it was a, "commonsense measure to tighten up California’s Sanctuary State policies in favor of public safety." He argued that the bill would ensure that violent criminals are not shielded from federal immigration authorities, using every tool available to keep communities safe.[16]
What were the key provisions of SB 554?
First, the bill mandates that California law enforcement officials cooperate with federal immigration authorities in cases involving individuals convicted of serious or violent felonies, as defined in the California Penal Code. This cooperation includes providing release dates and other relevant information to facilitate immigration enforcement actions.[17]
Second, SB 554 outlines a comprehensive list of offenses that would trigger mandatory cooperation with federal immigration authorities. These offenses encompass a wide range of crimes, including but not limited to:
Assault and battery,
Sexual offenses and exploitation,
Child abuse and endangerment,
Burglary, robbery, and theft,
Felony driving under the influence (DUI),
Drug trafficking,
Crimes resulting in death or great bodily injury,
Human trafficking and kidnapping,
And so much more.[18]
Third, the bill prohibits local agencies from enacting ordinances that impose further restrictions on cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities beyond those specified in state law. This provision aims to standardize immigration enforcement cooperation across all California jurisdictions.[19]
Fourth, SB 554 clarifies that providing information regarding an individual's release date to ICE is permitted and, in certain cases, required.[20] This marks a shift from previous provisions where such cooperation was discretionary.
And lastly, the bill includes a provision that it applyies uniformly to all cities and counties in California, including charter cities.[21]
Clearly, SB 554 represents a significant policy shift from the California Values Act, which generally limited local law enforcement's involvement in federal immigration enforcement. By mandating cooperation in specified cases and restricting local jurisdictions from enacting more stringent limitations, the bill seeks to create a more uniform approach to immigration enforcement across the state. It also clearly seeks to put public safety above the protection of those in our country and state illegally. It’s a clear priority shift to defending law-abiding California citizens and residents rather than illegal criminals.
Supporters argue that the bill enhances public safety by ensuring that individuals convicted of serious crimes are appropriately flagged for immigration enforcement. But of course, not everyone in California politics thinks this way, unfortunately. Democratic lawmakers and immigrant rights advocates expressed concerns that SB 554 could undermine trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. They argued that mandatory cooperation with federal immigration authorities could discourage undocumented individuals from reporting crimes or cooperating with police investigations based out of fear due to their immigration status, ultimately making communities less safe. How convicting and deporting illegal criminals makes us less safe I will never understand, but this pushback was foreseeable by our liberal government.
As a result of this pushback, the bill was killed in the Committee on Public Safety by a 5 to 1 vote on April 30th and never even made it to the Senate floor.[22] The failure of SB 554 can be seen as a reflection of entrenched progressive dominance in California politics, where legislative bodies – even key committees like Public Safety – are heavily influenced by liberal pro-immigrant advocacy groups and a deep-rooted commitment to the sanctuary policies currently in place.
California’s Legislature is ideologically rigid on immigration issues, prioritizing protections for illegal immigrants over public safety concerns. Even though this bill focused only on violent or serious felonies, opponents within the Legislature refused to allow any erosion of sanctuary laws, fearing a “slippery slope.” But it’s important to note that this only affects ILLEGAL immigrants – those who are here LEGALLY are in no danger at all. Our government prioritizes protecting those here illegally, but frames it as though they are pro-immigrant. You can be pro-immigrant, yet also favor law, order, and justice when it comes to acts committed illegally – and even a step further than that, you can agree that someone who is committing CRIMINAL acts while here illegally should be doubly held accountable as opposed to illegal immigrants who are not committing violent crimes against the public. But as always, with SB 554 there was incredible influence from activist groups, as progressive and immigrants’ rights organizations mobilized quickly against the bill, framing it as a betrayal of immigrant communities. These groups can pressure legislators to block even narrowly tailored enforcement bills under the guise of “protecting immigrant communities” – but it does not protect anyone to let criminals walk free and not be held accountable for their actions.
This just proves the point further that many California lawmakers are more concerned with maintaining their “progressive credentials” than addressing real-world public safety issues. Even though the bill focused on violent criminals already convicted of serious crimes, opponents painted it as anti-immigrant, which was a total mischaracterization. Why? Because they paint the picture that it’s mean and unempathetic to point out anyone who has broken the law to be here. But just to reiterate, this bill wasn’t even about all illegal immigrants – just those committing violent crimes – so why do our state representatives want to prevent murderers from being deported back to their home country? Seriously, why is that the hill they want to die on?
The truth is that our sanctuary state policies, while originally intended to allow peaceful immigrants to live in our state even though they were here illegally, these policies have morphed into a blanket shield that even protects dangerous repeat offenders. The failure of SB 554 is perfectly emblematic of this overcorrection, where no exceptions are allowed, even for violent felons.
So, overall, the failure of SB 554 is a huge, missed opportunity to balance immigrant protections with public safety and is evidence that California’s legislative environment remains hostile to any enforcement-focused reforms, even commonsense ones.
This is Why Politics Matter
This is why we engage in politics. This crime, and the crime committed across our state by either illegal immigrants or reoffenders who were released from prison early, all of it is preventable. Our government can prevent and disincentivize crime by committing to executing true justice, protecting innocent victims, and promoting what is right. When they refuse to do that, we only see more crime, more violent crime, more victims, and more injustice in our state.
The deaths of Anya and Nicholay were preventable. They could have been prevented if Ortega was held accountable for his past crimes of burglary in 2005, vehicle theft in 2007, and spousal abuse in 2014.[23] This could have been prevented if he was held accountable for returning to the United States illegally even after two prior deportations in 2016 and 2018.[24] This could have been prevented if California policies did not shield him from being handed over to ICE. This could have been prevented if our state recognized him for the dangerous criminal that he is and refused to allow him to reenter our state, our communities, and ultimately put him back on our streets where he hit and killed two 19-year-olds with their entire lives ahead of them.
This could have been prevented, but it wasn’t. It is not a tragic mistake, or a random accident, or the cruel hand of fate that led to these deaths – it was a deliberate stance taken by the people who were put in charge of protecting law abiding citizens like Anya and Nicholay, yet who instead chose to protect criminals for political expediency and a twisted agenda that is not grounded in truth, justice, or responsibility.
But future death and suffering and crime CAN be prevented if we dare to make change. Our state SHOULD roll back its wicked policies and promote bills like SB 554, and we can play a small part in that change by being informed, informing others around us, and demanding our state representatives to choose to do their jobs to protect the communities they serve rather than play politics. If we do not hold them accountable, if we do not speak out, then they will just continue to kill good bills and pass bad ones, they will continue to rank the rule of law as second place behind feeling sorry for criminals, and nothing will change. Instead, let’s write to our representatives today to let them know we do not agree with our state’s current policies to protect illegal immigrants in California, nor do we agree with the current state of the criminal justice system which allows criminals like Ortega to walk free after only 3 years in prison, and that we, as the people they represent, will not settle for anything less than comprehensive change in our state.
Who will seek justice for the victims killed by criminals like Ortega? Who will have empathy for the families losing their children to these senseless crimes? The answer is that we will, and we will today.
Contact the following representatives using the below pre-addressed templates to voice your outrage over this case and the failure of commensense reforms like SB 554:
References:
[1] Taer, Jennie, and Jorge Fitz-Gibbon. “Family Outraged That Illegal Immigrant Who Killed Young Couple While Driving Drunk Could Be Set Free After Serving Just a Third of 10-year Sentence.” New York Post, April 23, 2025. https://nypost.com/2025/04/23/us-news/illegal-immigrant-who-killed-young-couple-while-driving-drunk-could-be-set-free-after-serving-just-a-third-of-10-year-sentence/.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Arcand, Cameron, and Bill Melugin. “Illegal Immigrant Convicted of Killing Teens in High-speed Crash to Be Released Early: ‘It’s Disgusting.’” Fox News, April 23, 2025. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illegal-immigrant-convicted-killing-teens-high-speed-crash-released-early.
[4] FindLaw. “California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 191.5,” January 21, 2023. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-191-5/.
[5] Davies, Cerys. “Feds to Pursue Immigration Case Against Driver in O.C. Crash That Killed Couple - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, April 24, 2025. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-04-23/feds-pursue-immigration-case-against-oscar-eduardo-ortega-anguiano
[6] Washington, Gunnar. “Orange County District Attorney Issues Statement on DUI Driver Who Killed Two Teenagers to Be Released Early After Serving Just Fraction of Sentence.” Orange County District Attorney, April 23, 2025. https://orangecountyda.org/press/orange-county-district-attorney-issues-statement-on-dui-driver-who-killed-two-teenagers-to-be-released-early-after-serving-just-fraction-of-sentence/.
[7] Davies, “Feds to Pursue Immigration Case Against Driver in O.C. Crash That Killed Couple - Los Angeles Times.”
[8] Joseph, Jamie. “Newsom Foe Picked by Trump for Key Prosecutor Job Vows to ‘dismantle’ Sanctuary State Shields.” Fox News, April 3, 2025. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-foe-picked-trump-key-prosecutor-job-vows-dismantle-sanctuary-state-shields.
[9] Davies, “Feds to Pursue Immigration Case Against Driver in O.C. Crash That Killed Couple - Los Angeles Times.”
[10] Ibid.
[11] Colombo, Madison. “Tom Homan Vows Action as California Set to Release Illegal Immigrant Who Killed Two Teens.” Fox News, April 23, 2025. https://www.foxnews.com/media/tom-homan-vows-action-california-set-release-illegal-immigrant-who-killed-two-teens.
[12] Taer, Jennie and Jorge Fitz-Gibbon, “Family Outraged That Illegal Immigrant Who Killed Young Couple While Driving Drunk Could Be Set Free After Serving Just a Third of 10-year Sentence,” New York Post, April 23, 2025, https://nypost.com/2025/04/23/us-news/illegal-immigrant-who-killed-young-couple-while-driving-drunk-could-be-set-free-after-serving-just-a-third-of-10-year-sentence/.
[13] Crane, Emily. “Newsom Agrees to Help Feds After Outrage Exploded Over His Own Prison System Releasing Killer Illegal Immigrant After Only 3 Years.” New York Post, April 24, 2025. https://nypost.com/2025/04/24/us-news/gov-newsom-to-help-trump-pursue-federal-charges-against-illegal-migrant-who-killed-teens-while-driving-drunk/.
[14] CalMatters, “SB 554: Law Enforcement: Immigration Enforcement,” Digital Democracy, April 21, 2025, https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb554.
[15] Village News. “Jones Leads Effort to Overhaul California’s Sanctuary State Law,” March 7, 2025. https://www.villagenews.com/story/2025/03/06/opinion/jones-leads-effort-to-overhaul-californias-sanctuary-state-law/78259.html
[16] “Senate Minority Leader Jones Leads Effort to Overhaul California’s Sanctuary State Law | Senator Brian Jones,” April 30, 2001. https://sr40.senate.ca.gov/content/senate-minority-leader-jones-leads-effort-overhaul-californias-sanctuary-state-law
[17] LegiScan. “Bill Text: CA SB554,” April 21, 2025. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB554/2025.
[18] Ibid.
[19] CalMatters. “SB 554: Law Enforcement: Immigration Enforcement.” Digital Democracy, April 21, 2025. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb554.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Benson, Goldfaden. “Federal Immigration Charges Pursued in O.C. Crash Case - Goldfaden Benson.” Goldfaden Benson (blog), April 24, 2025. https://www.goldfadenbenson.com/federal-immigration-charges-pursued-in-o-c-crash-case/
[24] Gooding, Dan. “White House Intervenes Ahead of Reported Early Release for Illegal Immigrant in DUI Deaths.” Newsweek, April 24, 2025. https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-immigrant-california-dui-deaths-early-release-ice-detainer-2063276
