A Sonoma County appellate panel has upheld the dismissal of a video-peeping case against 48-year-old Ross attorney Charles Gideon Korrell, ruling 2-1 that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion when she tossed out the charge over prosecutors' objections. The case stemmed from a 2022 arrest after a 17-year-old graduate discovered a hidden camera inside a cat litter box during a graduation party in Petaluma.
The Sonoma County Superior Court Appellate Division released its decision on May 15, 2026, with Judges Dana Simonds and Jane Gaskell forming the majority, according to The Mercury News. The majority concluded that Judge Paige Hein did not overstep her authority, writing that while not all trial judges might have taken the same approach, appellate review requires only determining whether any reasonable judge could exercise that discretion, according to KSRO.
Presiding Judge Karlene Navarro dissented, arguing Hein recognized overwhelming evidence of guilt before dismissing the case and that Korrell's counseling and community service did not show reduced culpability. Navarro criticized the dismissal on equity grounds, pointing to Korrell's exceptional resources for lawyers, therapists and experts, and she serves alongside Simonds and Gaskell on the Sonoma County Superior Court bench in Santa Rosa, per the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma.
A GoPro Hidden in a Litter Box
According to the Mercury News report, a GoPro camera recorded for approximately 30 minutes before the graduate found it, and the recording showed Korrell placing the camera in the litter box pointed toward the toilet. The Sonoma County District Attorney's Office filed two misdemeanor charges against him: one alleging privacy invasion with a video camera, and a second alleging annoying or molesting a minor.
Under California Penal Code Section 647(j), criminal invasion of privacy by hidden video camera is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in county jail and a $1,000 fine for a first offense, and it does not trigger mandatory sex offender registration, according to Eisner Gorin LLP. Prosecutors agreed to drop the second charge, the one that could have meant sex-offender registration, as part of the case's resolution, the Mercury News reported.
A No-Contest Plea and a Dismissal
Korrell pleaded no contest to the video camera charge in June 2024, and sentencing was initially set for December 13, 2024, before Judge Hein. The judge delayed sentencing until the following month after declining his initial request to dismiss the case, then granted his renewed dismissal request over prosecution objections, crediting his court attendance, rehabilitation efforts and remorse, per the Mercury News account.
Deputy District Attorney Sarah Brooks wrote that the conviction was not vacated because of a procedural or evidentiary defect, and that the court found Korrell committed the crime to which he pled. Brooks also criticized Korrell's use of wealth to avoid consequences of the offense, according to the same report. Korrell's defense had indicated he would pursue rehabilitation before sentencing and seek dismissal, and he ultimately provided evidence of counseling and volunteer work.
The case was dismissed under Penal Code Section 1385 on January 17, 2025. That statute gives trial judges broad authority to dismiss charges or strike enhancements in furtherance of justice on their own motion, though defense attorneys cannot formally file such motions and may only invite the court to exercise that discretion, according to Shouse Law Group.
Korrell's Account of the Plea Hearing
In a statement released through defense counsel, Korrell said Judge Hein explicitly crossed out the guilty-finding language on the Tahl plea waiver form, accepted his no-contest plea without making a finding of guilt, and imposed no criminal sentence before dismissing the case under PC 1385. His statement maintained that the trial court accepted the plea without a finding of guilt, that the court imposed no sentence and entered no judgment of conviction, and that the final judicial outcome was dismissal without a finding of guilt or judgment of conviction.
The Sonoma County District Attorney's Office disputes that characterization, arguing Korrell was convicted by virtue of his no-contest plea and that he pled and suffered a conviction for purposes of the statute. Korrell's attorney, Seth Morris, said Korrell was unavailable for an interview about the appellate ruling. Assistant District Attorney Brian Staebell said the prosecution plans no further appeals.
Next Fight: Sealing the Records
Korrell has filed a motion to seal his arrest and appeal records, with a hearing set for November 18. Under California Penal Code Section 851.91, enacted under the CARE Act, individuals whose charges are dismissed are generally entitled as a matter of right to petition the court to seal their arrest and prosecution records, according to Shouse Law Group.
The Sonoma County District Attorney's Office is opposing that petition, arguing Korrell effectively suffered a conviction because Judge Hein found him culpable before delaying sentencing to allow him to complete rehabilitative terms prior to plea withdrawal, per the Press Democrat's reporting cited in the case record. That dispute — whether Korrell suffered a de facto conviction or walked away with no judgment at all — now shifts to the November hearing as the final legal battleground in the case.
Korrell remains an active, licensed California attorney with no public disciplinary actions recorded on his State Bar profile, according to the State Bar of California. He is a patent attorney registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, holds an electrical engineering degree from Virginia Tech, and publishes legal commentary on Federal Circuit decisions, according to The National Law Review. Regional outlets including KSRO and the Marin Independent Journal have covered the appellate ruling as the apparent conclusion of a high-profile local prosecution against a Ross attorney, though the record-sealing fight still looms.
