.
Feedback

Vineyard Sprinkler Thief Convicted

Apprehended in the act on July 3, Thomas Barnick of Rio Nido faces a negotiated 5-year penalty, to be served locally under “realignment” sentencing rules.

 

Remember that story earlier this summer about the guy arrested for stealing sprinklers from area vineyards? He'll be in jail for over a year.

He had been gaming up at River Rock Casino until the wee hours, then drove his white GMC pickup to an Alexander Valley vineyard,  parked at the back of the property and began removing those brass Rainbird sprinkler heads, one by one, up and down the rows of grape vines.

Three hours later, when he started to drive away with bags full of the sprinkler heads, Sonoma County Sheriff's officers nabbed him. When he was stopped, he had hundreds of sprinkler heads in his truck.

This week Sonoma County District Attorney Jill R. Ravitch announced that Thomas Barnick, 48, of Rio Nido, was convicted of grand theft stemming from a series of thefts of sprinkler heads from vineyards in the Sonoma, Russian River, and Geyserville areas of Sonoma County.

Barnick entered into a negotiated disposition that calls for a three year prison sentence under the new “realignment” sentencing scheme in which non-violent offenders serve their prison sentence in the county jail.

There were originally five counts filed against Barnick; he pled not guilty to all charges on Sept. 4, but after a negotiation pled no contest on Wednesday, Sept. 19 to two felony Grand Theft charges, penal code 487-A.

Barnick became a suspect in the series of sprinkler head thefts that began around October 1, 2011, after being seen in the area of one of the incidents. The series of thefts occurred at night, often discovered in the early morning as workers arrived in the vineyards.

The sprinkler heads, which generally sit atop PVC riser pipes over the vineyard rows are used for frost protection and irrigation. The sprinklers are made of brass, and are threaded onto the pipe, and are valued at $8 to $20 each.

In each of the cases, the thief worked his way down vineyard rows methodically, unscrewing each sprinkler. Most thefts involved several hundred sprinkler heads. Had a frost occurred before sprinklers could be replaced, damage to crops could have been extensive and costly, according to a statement from the District Attorney's office.

In several cases, vineyard workers found buckets or canvas bags full of the sprinkler heads at the ends of vineyard roads in early morning hours, apparently ready for the thief to return with a vehicle to pick them up.

Barnick was identified when he pulled up in a pickup truck to a vineyard where buckets of sprinklers had been left after being stripped at night. A quick thinking vineyard employee was able to get Barnick’s license plate number, and later identified him in a photo lineup. At that point he came under Sheriff surveillance, and was apprehended wet-handed shortly thereafter.

Barnick may be ordered to pay restitution for the thefts when he is formally sentenced on October 18 by the Honorable Gary Medvigy. The maximum sentence Barnick faced if convicted of all charges was five years, to be served locally under “realignment” sentencing rules.

As part of his sentence, he will serve 16 actual months in jail, followed by a 9-month residential treatment program. The remainder of his term may be served on Post Release Community Supervision, a form of local parole supervised by county probation officers.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Sonoma Valley Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Ralph Hutchinson May 18, 2013 at 08:51 pm
I still say the People will be wise to these bush league tactics and the residents of Sonoma willRead More vote against the destruction of the Plaza and our small town feel. We won''t sell out like Napa or Healdsburg and certainly we're not like the 101 corridor.
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 09:38 am
Another Cuban party perhaps in the works at the Kenwood Ranch, chompin on contraband cigars, etc?Read More Grand prize trips to Cuba with Californians Building Bridges and rub elbows with fatcat Politicians? Or maybe Kings tickets?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:37 am
What kind of conflicts of interest are present with Nancy Simpson? She is on the County Landmarks,Read More formerly affiliated with Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau and Wendy Peterson? Are all these agencies and bureaus interlocked some receiving TOT tax revenues, and all standing to benefit from anything Darius Anderson can build?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:32 am
Is Darius really after a casino in Sonoma either at General Vallejo State Park next to his RamekinsRead More location or up valley at Sonoma Development Center?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:31 am
Ms. G doesn't even live in Sonoma does she? Isn't it Cloverdale? Wasn't she a big proponent of theRead More bypass in her town?
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 08:11 pm
The Sonoma Sun's website (but not SunFMTV) has been down for hours. What's happening ?
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:25 pm
Did Darius Anderso agree to buyout The Patch and have the archives and comments removed as part ofRead More this new software update? Afterall "Cows Not Casinos", Measure A Rosewood Hillside hotel, and Measure C Hospital Eminent Domain would be better if the People of Sonoma forgot all about it and let his hotel venture fly easier.
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 03:20 pm
When Bolling "lost" his comments on Sonoma Valley Bank and then the whole archive heRead More blamed a glitch yet they have never been restored. That has benefitted the Hotel Index-Tribune and allowed a cover up of key historical dates and facts. Please hurry and restore the Patch's missing blogs and comments ASAP so that the confidence the Sonoma Patch has attained is not damaged. Thanks
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:09 pm
The comments to various articles and blogs are also completely missing. Please restore asap.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 09:37 am
I write about the issue of the BRACA test, because I am someone who developed breast cancer, and whoRead More needed the test. Even though I already had breast cancer, the decision of whether to have a bilateral mastectomy (rather than just a removal of the cancer with a "lumpectomy" or the removal of only one, effected, breast) was dependent upon the results of that test. If I had a genetic marker that indicated I was likely to develop more breast cancers, there would be no reason to avoid having both breasts removed at once. Even though my doctors recognized the importance of getting this test done before surgical decisions were made, the insurance company was resistant to providing coverage for the test. There were many heated phone conversations with the insurance company, and many letters of documentation before I was finally allowed to have the test. The basic test for BRAC I and BRAC II (the 2 main genes identified) cost $3,000. However, there are even more specialized tests for the smaller BRAC genes (rare genes that are less common) that cost thousands of dollars extra, and would have been helpful because of my family history. I was not able to fight with the insurance company for permission to obtain those extra tests, since I was already weak and ill from the chemotherapy, at that time. It is not reasonable or acceptable for women to have to fight to get necessary tests performed, because of excessive charging for those tests, and resistance of the medical insurance companies to provide coverage to obtain them. This situation needs to be changed. I hope that Angelina Jolie's story will bring attention to this issue, and will help our Supreme Court to recognize the unfairness in allowing a company to lay claim on a "patent" of our genes. The main research to provide the exact mapping of our genes was provided by the "Human Genome Project", which was primarily paid for by the US taxpayers, via that extensive NIH study. The Myriad company did some further research to refine knowledge on the BRACA genes; but they should not be allowed a total patent which blocks all other US labs from performing tests on that same part of our DNA. That is unreasonable in terms of the amount of profit they are claiming, and unfair to US humans who should be able to claim ownership of their own DNA.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 08:50 am
I am not used to Hollywood-types having the type of integrity and honesty, that Ms. Jolie displayedRead More with her NY Times revelation. I commend her for having the courage to act proactively with surgical removal of her breasts, in addition to the planned removal of her ovaries. She lost her beloved mother to the disease, and she clearly understands the devastation that would befall her own children (if she were to develop the types of cancers that her genetic makeup render her vulnerable to). I agree with her decision, and hope that I would have the same strength, if confronted with the genetic evidence that she was able to have documented with the BRACA testing. Unfortunately, many women who would benefit in the same way, from advance knowledge about their genetic vulnerability to those cancers, are denied the ability to get the tests. The company that "owns" the test, by virtue of their assertion that they "own the patent" on that identified portion of our DNA, charge $3,000.00 for the test. That cost is too high for most women in the US to easily afford, and our health insurance typically refuses to cover the test for most women. There is currently a case before the US Supreme Court challenging the idea of a medical company owning our genes. Many of us are hopeful that the court will halt this company from claiming this patent, so that laboratories all over the country can provide the test to us inexpensively, and therefore it will be available to all who should have it. The costs for the type of very sophisticated plastic surgery/ breast reconstruction that Ms. Jolie underwent, are also extremely high. It is doubtful that insurance or Obamacare will provide coverage for that type of costly prophylactic surgery. Those are battles that women will need to fight in the future, when more women become informed about their personal risks and choices.