Since our last update on June 9, 2026, both criminal cases connected to Golden Dawn Tabernacle have been back before Pima County Superior Court several times. The most significant development came on September 28, when Jose Mora pleaded guilty to a felony charge in the first of his two cases. This update covers what the court record shows from late June through September, along with a May 1 hearing that helps explain how the plea came about. All dates, charges, and hearing results below come from the court’s public docket and from minute entries we obtained from the Clerk of the Superior Court. Isaac Noriega has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent. Judgment has not yet been entered on Mora’s plea. Under his plea agreement, his remaining charges in the first case are dismissed, and his second case is set to be dismissed once he is sentenced.
Where the Two Cases Stand
- Jose Mora is a member of Golden Dawn Tabernacle, also known as Tabernáculo Emanuel, a Message church in Tucson. Isaac Noriega is the church’s pastor and is charged separately with failing to report neglect of a minor.
- On September 28, 2026, Jose Mora pleaded guilty in case CR20251749 to Amended Count One (the first charge, as changed by the plea deal), attempted sexual conduct with a minor under 15, a Class 3 felony. Felonies are ranked from Class 1 (most serious) to Class 6, so Class 3 is serious but ranks below the Class 2 felonies he was first charged with.
- The plea agreement sets a prison range of 8 to 15 years, with a presumptive term of 10 years. The presumptive term is the standard sentence a judge starts from, unless there are reasons to go higher or lower. The parties agreed that the minimum sentence is 8 years, so the judge cannot go lower, and probation (a sentence served in the community instead of prison) is not available.
- The other counts in that case are dismissed. His second case, CR20260731, is to be dismissed once he is sentenced, but those charges can be refiled (filed again) if the plea agreement is vacated (thrown out or undone by a court).
- The two cases involve three alleged victims, all boys under 15 at the time, with alleged conduct between 1999 and 2012.
- Judgment and sentencing are set for October 27, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. Judgment is the judge’s official entry of the guilty finding, and sentencing is when the punishment is decided. Mora is held without bond until then, which means the judge has ordered him kept in custody with no option to pay money to be released.
- The plea agreement requires Mora to register as a sex offender.
- Isaac Noriega was still “pending intake” in the out-of-custody restoration program as of the July 27, 2026 hearing. Pending intake means he had not yet been admitted to the program. His next Rule 11 review hearing (a court check on whether he is mentally fit to stand trial and how his treatment is going) is October 19, 2026. He has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent.
September 28, 2026: Jose Mora Pleads Guilty
On September 28, before Judge Kellie Johnson, Jose Mora changed his plea in case CR20251749. According to the minute entry, he pleaded guilty to Amended Count One, Attempted Sexual Conduct With a Minor, a Class 3 felony, committed on or about May 1, 2012, through August 31, 2012. The written plea agreement describes the offense as attempted sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen, a preparatory dangerous crime against children (an attempt to commit a serious crime against a child, which carries harsher sentencing rules). The agreement was typed as a Class 2 felony; that was struck out by hand and changed to Class 3, with initials in the margin.
Mora appeared in custody, with court interpreter Pedro Davis interpreting. The judge questioned him about the terms of the plea agreement, its possible consequences, and the constitutional rights he gave up by pleading guilty. His attorney, Carter J. Santini, then gave the court the factual basis for the plea, a short statement of the facts that support it, and Mora agreed with it. The court found that Mora entered the plea “knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently” and that there was a factual basis for it, and accepted the plea. Nathan D. Leonardo appeared for the State on behalf of prosecutor Bradley K. Roach.
The court set entry of judgment and sentencing for October 27, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in Division 26 (the courtroom assigned to Judge Johnson), and ordered the Adult Probation Department to prepare a presentence report, a written summary of his background and the case that the judge reads before choosing a sentence. The judge also revoked Mora’s conditions of release and ordered him held in custody without bond until sentencing. Revoking conditions of release means the court cancelled the terms under which he could have been freed before sentencing. The plea agreement, a sentence notification form, and a conditions of release order were filed in court the same day.
Mora’s second case, CR20260731, was not resolved at the hearing. The court set a status conference (a short hearing to check on where a case stands) in that case for the same date and time as the sentencing, October 27 at 11:00 a.m.
KOLD 13 News reported the plea the same day. According to KOLD, Mora is 57, and the victims met him through Golden Dawn Tabernacle. The report also says the charges against Noriega, 82, involve multiple reports he received from congregation members about Mora’s conduct, which he is accused of not passing on to law enforcement. Noriega was processed on a paper booking only; he was not jailed and has remained out of custody throughout the case.
Telemundo Arizona covered the plea in a Spanish-language video segment:
Telemundo Arizona, via Facebook. Watch on Facebook if the video does not load.
What Mora Was Originally Charged With
The first case, filed in April 2025, charged Mora with three counts of sexual conduct with a minor and five counts of molestation of a child. The second, filed in February 2026, charged continuous sexual abuse of a child and sexual conduct with a minor under 15. All ten counts were Class 2 felonies, and Mora pleaded not guilty to each of them. He has been in custody throughout; the court denied his request to modify bond on April 14, 2026.
The two cases involve three alleged victims, all boys. Court filings identify each only by initials, and all were under 15 at the time. In the first case, counts one through six involve one boy between May and December 2012, and counts seven and eight involve a second boy between August 2009 and August 2011. The second case involves a third boy: it alleges continuous sexual abuse from June 1999 to January 2002, when he was under 14, and one further count between March and September 2002. The alleged conduct spans about 13 years, from 1999 to 2012. The count Mora pleaded guilty to involves the 2012 allegations.
The plea agreement, filed in court on September 28, covers the remaining charges. It amends the first case to the single count Mora pleaded to and states that “all other charges and allegations in this case are dismissed.” The State also agreed that all charges in the second case, CR20260731, “will be dismissed once the defendant is sentenced” in the first. If the plea agreement is ever vacated, the charges in the second case can be refiled “as if this dismissal had never occurred.”
Plea Negotiations, May to September
The minute entries trace the negotiations over five months. Both cases have moved on the same hearing schedule since this spring, and in CR20251749 alone the docket lists 15 pretrial hearings marked “continued” since June 2025.
- May 1: Mora’s attorney told the court the defense was waiting on the results of its own independent investigation, and the pretrial conference was reset to June 26.
- June 26: A defense attorney appearing for Santini told the court that a new plea offer was forthcoming. The court continued the conference (moved it to a later date) to July 27 and set that hearing as a Donald hearing, a proceeding named for a 2000 Arizona Court of Appeals decision at which the court makes a record that the defendant understands a plea offer and what rejecting it could mean.
- July 27: Santini told the court that an amended plea offer had been received and recently translated into Spanish for Mora, and asked for 30 days to review it. Roach stated that the offer would expire at the time of the next hearing.
- August 24: Santini confirmed receiving the amended offer and asked the court to order a settlement conference, a meeting led by a different judge to try to reach an agreement without a trial. The court ordered the parties to take part in one before the next hearing.
- September 2: A notice from Judge J. Alan Goodwin’s division set the settlement conference for September 25 at 3:00 p.m. in Division 2, required Mora to attend, and directed each side to submit a memorandum covering the facts, the charges, the state of negotiations and what plea Mora would accept. The notice was filed September 2.
- September 28: Mora pleaded guilty.
The minute entries and court notice behind this timeline are below. Click any page to open the full document as a PDF.
The records we obtained do not include a minute entry from the September 25 settlement conference.
Terms of the Plea Agreement
We are not attorneys. This is our own reading of the record, including the plea agreement.
The plea is to a single count, and to a lesser charge than any Mora originally faced: an attempt, classed as a Class 3 felony, covering a four-month period in 2012. Pleading to an attempt reduces the class of the offense. Mora agreed with the factual basis offered by his own attorney, and the court found that basis sufficient.
The minute entry sets “entry of judgment of guilt and sentencing” for October 27. The plea stands, but judgment will not be entered until that day. The plea agreement lists a prison range of 8 to 15 years, with a presumptive term of 10 years, and a special term in which the parties agree that “the minimum prison sentence the defendant will receive in this case is 8 years.” Probation is not available. The agreement also says the court may require a fine of $150,000 plus a 78 percent surcharge. Judge Johnson will set the sentence within that range after reviewing the presentence report.
The plea agreement requires Mora to register as a sex offender under A.R.S. § 13-3821. It requires him to pay restitution (money to repay victims for their losses) to the victims named in the original indictment (the formal written charges), including any not named in the count he pleaded to, and bars contact with those victims without the prior knowledge and consent of the court or the probation department. He also waived appeals, which means he gave up the right to ask a higher court to review the judgment, a sentence consistent with the agreement, and restitution orders. Once judgment is entered, A.R.S. § 13-807 bars a defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in a later civil case brought by the victim. With the first case resolved by plea and the second set for dismissal, neither case is expected to go to trial.
Arizona’s Constitution (art. 2, § 2.1) and A.R.S. §§ 13-4426 and 13-4428 give crime victims the right to be heard at sentencing, in person, in writing, or by recording. The plea agreement confirms that all victims listed in the original indictment keep their rights as victims. Victims in Mora’s cases who want to be heard on October 27 can contact the Pima County Attorney’s Office Victim Services Division at (520) 724-5525.
July 27, 2026: Noriega’s Rule 11 Review Hearing
On April 27, Judge Mark Hotchkiss found Isaac Noriega incompetent to stand trial but restorable (not able to understand the case right now, but likely able to with treatment), and ordered him into an out-of-custody Restoration to Competency program, which is treatment meant to help him understand the charges and work with his lawyer. The July 27 hearing was the court’s first check on that order.
According to the minute entry, filed July 29, the hearing began at 9:44 a.m. and ended at 9:45 a.m. Noriega was not present; he remains out of custody and his presence was waived. Defense attorney Douglas W. Taylor appeared for Noriega, and Tai A. Summers appeared for the State on behalf of prosecutor Bradley K. Roach.
The minute entry contains one line about his progress: Noriega is “pending intake in the out of custody Restoration to Competency program.” Three months after the court ordered restoration, he had not yet been admitted to the program.
The court set the next Rule 11 review hearing for October 19, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Division LF. When we last checked the docket on September 26, it showed no filings in Noriega’s case since the July 29 minute entry, so the public record does not say whether he has been admitted since.
How Long Noriega’s Restoration Order Can Last
Could Noriega’s case time out while he waits, and the charges then go away? Arizona’s competency statutes answer part of that directly.
How the 21 Months Are Counted
Under A.R.S. § 13-4515(A), a restoration order cannot remain in effect for more than 21 months or the maximum sentence the defendant could have received, whichever is less. Section 13-4515(B) then directs the court to “only consider the time a defendant actually spends in a restoration to competency program.” Time spent on a waiting list, pending intake, does not count. As of the July 27 hearing, Noriega had not started the program, so by the statute’s own terms none of that 21 months had been used.
Within that overall limit, each treatment order is valid for 180 days (A.R.S. § 13-4512(I)). The court may renew it for up to another 180 days if it finds “a substantial probability that the defendant will regain competency within the foreseeable future” (A.R.S. § 13-4514(E)). For defendants in outpatient treatment, progress reports are due to the court every 60 days (A.R.S. § 13-4514(A)).
The 21-Month Window From the Original Finding
One provision is measured by the calendar rather than by time in treatment. If the court finds “there is not a substantial probability that the defendant will regain competency within twenty-one months after the date of the original finding of incompetency,” it must move the case to the procedures in A.R.S. § 13-4517 (A.R.S. § 13-4514(F)). For Noriega, the original finding was April 27, 2026. By our count, that 21-month window runs to late January 2028. In our reading, every month he spends waiting for intake leaves less calendar time to show progress before that point, which could make a “not restorable” finding easier to reach. No Arizona appellate decision we found addresses how these two provisions fit together.
What happens if he is found not restorable
A “not restorable” finding would not end the case automatically. Under A.R.S. § 13-4517(A), the court may remand the defendant for civil commitment proceedings (a separate court process to decide whether someone must be placed in mental health care), appoint a guardian ad litem (a person the court appoints to look out for his interests) to investigate whether he needs a guardian, or release him and “dismiss the charges against the defendant without prejudice.” A fourth option, a trial to determine dangerousness, applies only to defendants charged with a serious offense. The statute also requires a hearing before any charges are dismissed (A.R.S. § 13-4515(C)).
A dismissal without prejudice means the charges can be brought again. In Carson v. Gentry, decided August 20, 2025, the Arizona Supreme Court held that prosecutors do not need a judge’s approval before refiling charges against a defendant who was previously found incompetent and not restorable, so long as they have a reasonable belief that the defendant’s competency may have been restored. Arizona’s statute of limitations (the deadline for filing charges) also leaves room to refile. The limit is seven years for a Class 6 felony and one year for a misdemeanor, counted from discovery of the offense, and if a timely case is dismissed “for any reason,” a new prosecution may be filed within six months after the dismissal becomes final (A.R.S. § 13-107(B), (G)).
The order cannot quietly expire while Noriega sits on a waiting list, and no provision drops the charges on its own. The risk is delay: a case can stay paused for years while a calendar window, by our count ending in January 2028, keeps running whether or not treatment has begun.
How long is the wait?
We could not find any public figure for the wait to enter Pima County’s out-of-custody restoration program. The closest available data covers the in-custody program run at the Pima County jail. Arizona Luminaria reported in November 2025 that, as of September 2025, people newly ordered into the jail-based program waited about three weeks to enter it, and that participants in 2024 spent an average of 94 days in the program. By comparison, Noriega had waited three months for intake as of July 27.
July 30, 2026: The Arizona Supreme Court Rules on the Clergy Exemption
Noriega is charged under A.R.S. § 13-3620(A), the statute that requires clergy and others to report suspected child abuse or neglect. The same subsection contains a narrow exemption for clergy. A member of the clergy who receives “a confidential communication or a confession” in that role, “in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church,” may withhold reporting it if the clergy member “determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.”
On July 30, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously interpreted that exemption in Doe v. The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (No. CV-25-0213-PR), the civil lawsuit brought over abuse in a Bisbee family that was confessed to local church bishops. The Court held that the First Amendment (the part of the U.S. Constitution that protects religious freedom, among other rights) “generally prohibits factfinders from inquiring into a clergy member’s application of his particular religious doctrine,” absent fraud or collusion for secular purposes, when deciding whether withholding a report was “reasonable and necessary.” Courts must also give “substantial deference” to a religious institution’s own understanding of what counts as a confession or confidential communication, and a church has the right to decide who qualifies as a member of the clergy. The church and its bishops won the case.
The decision did not change the statute, and it did not remove the duty to report. The exemption still covers only information received as a confession or confidential communication, in a clergy role, in the course of church discipline. Abuse or neglect that a pastor learns about in other ways, or sees for himself, falls outside it. The case was a civil suit for damages; the Court did not address a criminal prosecution.
Could the Ruling Affect Noriega’s Case?
The public docket does not tell us whether Noriega’s defense has raised the clergy exemption, and we are not aware of any court that has yet applied the Doe ruling to a criminal failure-to-report prosecution. The analysis below is ours.
Because Doe interprets the same statute Noriega is charged under, his lawyers could try to rely on it. Rules that bar applying a new law to past conduct would not stand in the way, since the Court interpreted existing language rather than changing it. The ruling does, however, set out what anyone claiming the exemption must show. According to the Court, the exemption has five elements: the person must be (1) a member of the clergy, who (2) receives a confidential communication or confession, (3) in that role, (4) in the course of discipline enjoined by the church, and (5) determines that withholding a report is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. The Court also said that “the party asserting the Clergy Exemption” must “produce the relevant doctrinal facts and standards to invoke it.”
For Noriega, that would mean showing that what he is accused of failing to report reached him through a confession or confidential communication, as Golden Dawn Tabernacle’s own doctrine defines those terms, in the course of church discipline. The deference the Court requires has so far been applied to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which relied on its written General Handbook and formal disciplinary councils. How a court would identify the “doctrinal facts and standards” of an independent Message church like Golden Dawn Tabernacle has not been tested.
The exemption also has limits that the ruling left in place. The statute says it “applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations” a clergy member “may otherwise make of the minor.” Anything Noriega saw for himself, or learned through ordinary conversation, from people outside a confidential church setting, or from public sources, would fall outside it. The Court also preserved an exception for “fraud or collusion for secular purposes,” so a claim of religious confidentiality used to shield abuse, rather than for a religious purpose, remains open to inquiry.
A criminal case cannot proceed while the defendant is found incompetent, so any fight over the exemption would most likely come only after Noriega is restored, if he is. By then, Doe will be settled law in Arizona, and his defense will have had the chance to build an argument around it.
Case Status Summary
Jose Mora, CR20251749-001 and CR20260731-001
| Original Charges (CR20251749) | 8 counts: 3 counts of Sexual Conduct With a Minor (A.R.S. § 13-1405) and 5 counts of Molestation of a Child (A.R.S. § 13-1410), all Class 2 felonies |
| Charges (CR20260731) | 2 counts: Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child (A.R.S. § 13-1417) and Sexual Conduct With a Minor under 15 (A.R.S. § 13-1405), both Class 2 felonies |
| Judge | Hon. Kellie Johnson (Division 26) |
| Prosecutor | Bradley K. Roach, Esq. |
| Defense Counsel | Carter J. Santini, Pima County Public Defender |
| Plea (CR20251749) | Guilty, September 28, 2026, to Amended Count One: Attempted Sexual Conduct With a Minor, Class 3 felony, committed on or about May 1 through August 31, 2012. Plea accepted; judgment not yet entered. Plea agreement: 8 to 15 years in prison (presumptive 10), no probation, sex offender registration. |
| Status (CR20260731) | To be dismissed once Mora is sentenced in CR20251749, under the plea agreement; status conference set for October 27, 2026 |
| Custody Status | In custody. Conditions of release revoked September 28, 2026; held without bond pending sentencing. A State filing asserted, on information and belief, that Mora has an immigration hold. |
| Next Hearing | Entry of judgment and sentencing (CR20251749) and status conference (CR20260731), October 27, 2026, 11:00 AM, Division 26 |
Isaac Noriega, CR20252710-001
| Charges | Failure to Report Neglect of a Minor, Class 6 Felony and Class 1 Misdemeanor (A.R.S. § 13-3620(A)) |
| Judge | Hon. Mark Hotchkiss (Division LF) |
| Prosecutor | Bradley K. Roach, Esq. |
| Defense Counsel | Douglas W. Taylor, Esq. |
| Plea | Not guilty |
| April 27, 2026 Ruling | Incompetent but restorable; ordered into out-of-custody Restoration to Competency program |
| July 27, 2026 Review | Pending intake in the restoration program |
| Next Hearing | Rule 11 Review Hearing, October 19, 2026, 8:30 AM, Division LF |
Upcoming Hearings
Isaac Noriega, Rule 11 Review Hearing
When: Monday, October 19, 2026, at 8:30 AM
Where: Courtroom 386 (Division LF), Pima County Superior Court, 110 W. Congress St., Tucson, AZ
Judge: Hon. Mark Hotchkiss
Case: CR20252710-001
Note: Noriega’s presence was waived at the July 27 review hearing.
Jose Mora, Entry of Judgment and Sentencing / Status Conference
When: Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 11:00 AM
Where: Courtroom 475 (Division 26), Pima County Superior Court, 110 W. Congress St., Tucson, AZ
Judge: Hon. Kellie Johnson
Case: CR20251749-001 (sentencing) / CR20260731-001 (status conference)
Both hearings are open to the public. We encourage anyone who is able to attend.
Do You Have Information to Share?
Do you have any information you’d like to share about this topic? Feel free to comment below, or you can contact us directly at our Contact Us page or via our social media accounts below.
Follow Golden Dawn Tabernacle Church Research on WordPress.com
🔒 Have information about Golden Dawn Tabernacle?
If you are a current or former member, a survivor, or anyone with documents, photos, recordings, or a first-hand account, you can share it confidentially — no name, account, or login required. Any contact info you leave is optional and used only to reply.