Today, Judge Scott R.L. Young refused to resentence two brothers convicted in a brutal 1995 stabbing attack in Yountville, leaving their lengthy prison terms exactly where they have been for nearly three decades. The decision effectively ends their latest push to revisit the case under California's revised homicide laws, which they hoped might lighten the punishment for a crime that stunned the quiet Wine Country town.
In a press release shared via the Napa County District Attorney's Office, prosecutors said Deputy District Attorney Agnes Dziadur argued that the brothers deliberately set out to kill, and that the court agreed, knocking down their bid for relief. The release revisits the Dec. 30, 1995 attack in downtown Yountville, where three tourists were left with serious stab wounds, and notes that juries in 1996 convicted the pair of attempted first‑degree murder and robbery. The DA also restated the original terms: Johnny Barra Jr. received 14 years to life plus a determinate 23 years, and Josiah Cheston Barra was sentenced to 14 years to life plus a determinate 14 years, locking in decades behind bars before either man can even talk about release.
PRESS RELEASE: Resentencing Denied for Brothers Convicted of Brutal Attempted Murder and Robbery of Yountville Tourists pic.twitter.com/YrKFuaTfGW
— Napa County District Attorney's Office (@NapaCountyDA) May 5, 2026
The convictions and trial history are detailed in a 1998 appellate opinion that chronicles the jury's findings, including personal knife use and great‑bodily‑injury enhancements. As outlined by FindLaw, the published decision upheld the verdicts and explained the sentencing structure in effect at the time. Those old transcripts and legal findings were front and center in the resentencing hearing prosecutors described.
How SB 1437 Changed Resentencing
Senate Bill 1437, passed in 2018 and effective Jan. 1, 2019, reshaped California's felony‑murder rule and set up a path for some defendants to ask courts to toss out murder convictions and consider new sentences. Later cases and legislative tweaks refined how that framework applies to attempted‑murder convictions. According to California appellate decisions, a petition only gets traction when the record leaves room for the argument that the defendant lacked intent to kill or was not the actual attacker.
Why The Court Refused Relief
At the resentencing hearing, prosecutors argued, and the court ultimately found, that the record showed direct responsibility and stark violence, including personal knife use and great bodily injury, which blocked the brothers from qualifying under the law. As the trial record and appellate opinion reflect, the prosecution proved attempted first‑degree murder, robbery, and aggravating factors such as personal knife use and a prior serious‑felony strike, details laid out by FindLaw. With those findings firmly in place, the judge declined to issue an order to show cause under the resentencing statute.
No immediate notice of an appeal appeared in public filings, and the DA’s release offered a public information contact for anyone seeking more details. For now, the ruling keeps intact the lengthy terms for crimes prosecutors continue to describe as planned and violent, aligning with other recent decisions where judges have denied relief once the record clearly shows direct intent or significant aggravating factors. The three visiting men attacked in Yountville suffered serious injuries, and the brothers' convictions and sentences remain unchanged.
