A convicted drunk driver responsible for the deaths of two teenagers faces new federal charges following the California Department of Corrections' decision to grant early release.

According to The Populist Times, Oscar Eduardo Ortega-Anguiano, who killed two 19-year-olds while driving under the influence at 100mph, was set to be released in July after serving only 3.5 years of his two concurrent 10-year sentences.

The case has sparked nationwide outrage after the families of victims Anya Varfolomeev and Nikolay Osokin learned about the early release decision. California's criminal justice system classified Ortega-Anguiano as a "non-violent" offender despite the fatal crash, making him eligible for early release under state laws.

Trump administration intervenes with federal charges

Bill Essayli, United States Attorney for the Central District of California, announced felony immigration charges against Ortega-Anguiano.

The charges could result in up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted under 8 USC 1326. Federal authorities stepped in following public outcry over California's decision to release the convicted killer after serving only a third of his sentence.

Border Czar Tom Homan has pledged to work alongside Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to ensure Ortega-Anguiano's deportation following his conviction. The Trump administration's swift response demonstrates a stark contrast to California's lenient approach toward criminal justice reform.

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer criticized California Democrats for prioritizing criminal rights over victim protection. The state's sanctuary laws typically restrict cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration authorities.

California's conflicting stance on immigration enforcement

Governor Gavin Newsom announced plans to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for Ortega-Anguiano's transfer before release. This decision appears to contradict California's sanctuary state status and the California Values Act, which normally prohibits sharing prisoner release dates with ICE.

The state's sanctuary laws generally prevent local law enforcement from participating in immigration enforcement activities. These restrictions include prohibitions on honoring ICE detainer requests and investigating individuals for immigration violations.

California's policies allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses without verification of their driving history from their home countries have also drawn criticism. Critics argue this practice enables potentially dangerous drivers to obtain new licenses despite possible prior infractions.

Victim families seek justice amid policy debate

Orange County DA Todd Spitzer expressed his perspective on California's approach to criminal justice:

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 who had to be told that the man who killed their children is considered a "non-violent" offender under California law. Killing two human beings while drunk is anything but non-violent.

The victims' families have voiced their anger and disappointment regarding the scheduled early release. Their public appeals gained national attention and ultimately contributed to the federal intervention in the case.

Multiple attempts to reform California's criminal justice laws have failed in the state legislature. Spitzer noted that drunk drivers who cause injuries often face longer sentences than those responsible for DUI fatalities.

Federal intervention leads to uncertain outcome

Oscar Eduardo Ortega-Anguiano faces additional federal charges for immigration violations following California's decision to grant early release after serving 3.5 years of his sentence. The case has highlighted ongoing tensions between federal and state approaches to criminal justice and immigration enforcement.

California Governor Newsom's commitment to facilitate ICE transfer marks a departure from typical sanctuary state policies while federal authorities prepare for potential deportation proceedings. The outcome of this case could influence future handling of similar situations involving state criminal justice reforms and federal immigration enforcement.