Adrian Gonzalez is expected back in court ahead of his extension hearing. (Amaya Edwards — Santa Cruz Local/CatchLight Local)

SANTA CRUZ >> More than 11 years after he killed 8-year-old Madyson “Maddy” Middleton in Santa Cruz, Adrian Gonzalez is back in court as prosecutors seek to keep him in custody, less than three months before a new state law inspired by the case takes effect.

The new law aims to spare victims’ families further trauma by requiring fewer hearings, but it has not spared Maddy’s family, including her mother Laura Jordan. 

“Every time I have to go back to court, I’m retraumatized,” Jordan said in an interview last week. “This new law takes victims, their families and their suffering into consideration. It will give us just a tiny bit more time in between these incredibly painful trials.”

Gonzalez kidnapped, raped and killed Middleton at the Tannery Arts Center in 2015. He was denied release in February 2025 after a Santa Cruz jury found he still posed a danger to the public. His custody was extended by two years — the maximum extension allowed for juvenile offenders under current law. 

Now, that extension is nearing its end and Gonzalez is back in court ahead of another probable cause hearing, where a judge will review the evidence and decide whether there is reason to believe he remains physically dangerous to the public. If so, the case will again come before the court to determine whether his detention should be extended. This time, he could face a three-year extension. 

Gonzalez was first scheduled for release in October 2024, when he aged out of the juvenile justice system at 25. But prosecutors argued that he remained a threat to the community, and the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office sought an extension of his confinement. 

After the hearing, which subjected Jordan to many months in court and the retelling of her daughter’s murder, and drew public dollars in legal fees, the District Attorney’s Office sponsored Assembly Bill 1902.

Set to take effect Jan. 1, the law changes the maximum extension for youth offenders to three years from two, and requires an extension trial to begin no more than 60 days after the probable cause determination. It will also allow adults who were tried as juveniles to be transferred to certain adult facilities, such as a county jail or a state mental hospital.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, who authored the bill and represents parts of Santa Cruz County, originally proposed increasing the maximum extension to 10 years, but other state lawmakers whittled it down as the bill progressed in the California Legislature. 

“I think our community was forever changed,” Pellerin said. “We need to give the family more time to breathe in between having to talk again and hear again about all the specifics around the case, and we need to give the perpetrator more time to get rehabilitation and to get the services that they need.”

Not everyone agrees.

AB 1902 was opposed by the California Public Defenders Association, National Center for Youth Law and MILPA Collective. MILPA is a Salinas-based nonprofit led by formerly incarcerated people focused on youth advocacy. Bernard Gomez, MILPA’s programs and leadership coordinator, said they opposed the legislation because of its implications on youth rehabilitation by keeping them incarcerated longer. 

Santa Cruz County Public Defender Heather Rogers said she also opposed the new law because it means that the young people she serves will be confined longer. 

“The extended time that was added to the law, that’s three years where a young person is living behind bars without freedom, and our concern is that is too long for kids whose brains are evolving rapidly, and whose relationship with the world is evolving along with it,” Rogers said. 

A jury’s decision to extend a youth’s incarceration, she said, is based on the predictions of who they might become rather than who they are today.

The California Public Defenders Association opposed Assembly Bill 1902 because it means youth will spend more time behind bars. (Amaya Edwards — Santa Cruz Local/CatchLight Local file)

This new law only applies to individuals who have committed certain serious offenses, like murder and kidnapping, and who are held in secure youth treatment facilities. A secure youth treatment facility is the most restrictive type of placement that replaced state juvenile facilities after a 2021 law shuttered the state’s Division of Juvenile Justice, and shifted the responsibility for those youth onto counties.  

There has been an average daily population of 658 youth in secure youth treatment facilities in the state this year, according to the Board of State and Community Corrections, which provides statewide leadership and oversight for juvenile justice systems. 

A complex case that tested the state’s juvenile system

Gonzalez’s case has repeatedly tested the boundaries of the state’s juvenile justice system. At the time of his crimes, Gonzalez was 15 years and 8 months old. He was charged as an adult and was set for trial in 2017.

But in 2018, a new law required all 14- and 15-year-olds to be tried as juveniles. As a result, then-21-year-old Gonzalez was moved to juvenile court in 2021, after pleading guilty to the crimes. In May 2021, he entered the state’s Division of Juvenile Justice. The following month, the state began dismantling that division. 

Gonzalez was then transferred to a secure youth treatment facility in Sonoma County in 2023. At the time, Santa Cruz County did not yet have a secure youth treatment facility. Gonzalez’s current placement remains unknown, and when asked by Santa Cruz Local, Rogers declined to comment.

Gonzalez’s 2025 extension hearing laid bare the gaps in the system, like the lack of alternative placements for an adult offender in a secure youth treatment facility. When a jury denied his release, there were concerns regarding his stay in a youth treatment facility while technically being an adult.

It was the first extension hearing for someone tried as a juvenile since the state Division of Juvenile Justice had closed.

After the jury denied his release, his defense team appealed the decision. The appeal, which has not previously been reported, remains in court. It’s unclear how a potential appellate court reversal of the two-year extension could affect the case. 

Kathy Chavez, Gonzalez’s public defender, said there have been no final decisions made and could not comment further on the appeal. The prosecutor declined to comment.

For Jordan, the fight for her daughter continues. She shared that she wants Maddy to be remembered for who she was — a girl who loved riding her scooter, drawing ponies and playing with her friends — not for the circumstances of her death. 

“AB 1902 is my daughter’s legacy and even in death, she is still impacting people’s lives for the better,” she said. 

Jordan hopes the new law will spare other families some of the suffering and retraumatization hers has endured. The day the law passed, she recalls feeling an immense sense of relief, but she knew it was only the first step in a much longer journey ahead.

“My friend called to congratulate me, and she said, ‘You know what, Laura? You are still parenting your daughter. You are still fighting for her,’” Jordan said. “I will always be her mom and I will always fight for justice for her.”

Questions or comments? Email [email protected]. Santa Cruz Local is supported by members, major donors, sponsors and grants for the general support of our newsroom. Our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support. Learn more about Santa Cruz Local and how we are funded.