Santa Barbara County prosecutors have filed multiple felony charges against Mitchell Grant Grote, 30, in connection with a May 8 incident near La Cumbre Mall in which a Santa Barbara police officer was struck in the head by a pellet projectile, the District Attorney’s Office announced.
Grote is charged with aggravated mayhem, assault upon a peace officer, battery on a peace officer causing injury, resisting an executive officer through force, and resisting, obstructing, or delaying peace officers. Prosecutors also filed special allegations for personal use of a dangerous or deadly weapon and personal infliction of great bodily injury.
The District Attorney’s Office said Grote was on felony probation at the time of the incident for assault with a deadly weapon and personal infliction of great bodily injury stemming from a Jan. 29, 2023 stabbing near Santa Barbara City Hall.
Grote pleaded not guilty to all charges and denied the special allegations. He is scheduled to appear in Department 11 of Santa Barbara Superior Court on May 26, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. for a preliminary hearing setting and probation violation setting. His bail is set at $1,000,000 in the new case, with a no-bail hold on his felony probation.
According to Santa Barbara Police, an officer attempted to contact a suspect at about 9:50 a.m. on May 8 in the area of 100 S. La Cumbre Road. The suspect allegedly turned, displayed what appeared to be a handgun, and fired several times.
The officer responded with one round. The officer was struck in the head by what was later determined to be a pellet or BB projectile and was transported to Cottage Hospital, where the officer was treated and released.
Police said the suspect fled, briefly attempted to barricade himself, and was taken into custody. He was not struck by gunfire, and a pellet gun was recovered at the scene.
In line with countywide policy, an officer-involved shooting investigation was conducted in coordination with the District Attorney’s Office. Police described the event as an isolated incident with no ongoing threat to public safety.
While initial reports placed the encounter inside La Cumbre Mall, authorities later said it occurred off La Cumbre Road near the O’Reilly Auto Parts and AT&T stores. Some witness accounts circulating on social media remain unconfirmed.
Police initially arrested Grote on suspicion of attempted murder of a peace officer. The District Attorney’s Office has since filed the charges listed above. Grote on probation for the above mentioned 2023 felony assault with a deadly weapon case in which he pleaded guilty and admitted personally inflicting great bodily injury.
That conviction is a prior strike under California’s Three Strikes law, which can increase potential sentencing exposure if he is convicted in the new case.
Also Read
- District Attorney Finds Fatal Goleta Grocery Store Shooting by Deputies Was Justified
- Santa Barbara Man Arrested for Vehicle Theft, Attempted Carjacking, and Residential Burglary
- Lompoc Man Sentenced to Life Without Parole for Burning Father to Death
- Santa Maria Police Arrest Juvenile in June 4 Shooting Investigation
- Charges Filed Against Three Suspects in Connection with Bohnett Park Homicide
Good luck Mitchell. In most places 3 strikes means you’re out.
If that was a real bullet instead of a pellet that Santa Barbara police officer would be dead right now.
Why is Santa Barbara district Attorney is not charging? This guy with attempt murder is baffling.
JAMES – because getting an attempted murder verdict in a case like this is unlikely given the facts. The DA is charging him with a pile of felonies that would put him away for a while.
You should be thanking the DA for not wasting our tax $$ on charges that won’t stick.
Because it wasn’t a real bullet. It would be tough to prove that the person actually believed it was a real gun. If the assailant had conjured a bolt of lightning and attacked the cop with that then the DA could bring different charges. If the assailant had tackled the officer and stabbed them in the neck then the DA would bring different charges. “IF” a lot of things were different then they would bring different charges.
Absurd. That gun in the photo suddenly gets pulled out and in a split second you’d expect the officer to recognize it as a pellet gun?? And not defend herself??
You live in a fantasy world.
BASIC – As usual, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever it is that you’re talking about. The officer’s perception of the gun is completely irrelevant here unless this a self defense situation, which it is not because the cop did not shoot back.
ALEX is talking about the perp’s belief as that is what is critical for an attempted murder charge. Did the perp actually intend to kill someone or did they, like here, just shoot what they knew to be a non-lethal BB gun.
Before you go sounding even more like a clueless hack, really think about it.
Fantasy land indeed, Dr. Reef Balls.
Glad someone around here can read.
YABLE
(Yet Another Basic Logic Error)
lol at your predictable spazzing out and lack of reading comprehension. “The person” refers to the assailant not the cop. Read it again.
That is not the “bb” gun you’re likely used to. It’s actual a .50 projectile @ 300fps (on a full co2). They can be markers (paint) or pepper or rubber or aluminum. There is no question that depending on the projectile chambered that death or maming could happen. Direct shot at close range to an eye socket would likely be the worst case.This guy is likely mentally ill and gonna get free room and board for a very long time. We really do need to bring back the mental hospitals – involuntary commitment type – we had before Reagan. Prisons are too full of people that need actual help and potentially could be helped. This guy might have ended up there before the first incident. Who knows.
At least it looks alot like the gun I described. Maybe this is just the little bb’s. Not that it matters in the end of this story anyway.
preliminari – I think that statement is incorrect; as I spent once again way too much time verifying the make and model of the BB gun in question: https://www.edhat.com/news/santa-barbara-police-respond-to-report-of-gunfire-at-la-cumbre-mall/#comment-218591
It’s obvious to one that it is a UX BRODAX .177 CALIBER BB REVOLVER – mfr.: Umarex Airguns… It doesn’t match any of “their pellet guns” : https://www.umarexusa.com/
As you can almost “clearly see” that info on the barrel in the pic above. It’s as if someone was listening to my rant to my neighbor, attempting to comprehend WHY the PD even mentioned the “pellet gun” part when in fact it is a BB gun!
🚲
This is the one I got it confused with. They do look quite similar. But I’ll concede they are not the same. https://www.umarexusa.com/t4e-tr50-50-cal-paintball-revolver-pistol-2280199
Also, if it were firing anything more than bb or pellet, I don’t think the officer would have been “treated and released” so quickly.
Really, what matters for a “attempted murder” charge to stick is that the perp INTENDED to kill her. I think that’s why they’re not pursuing that charge. Shooting a bb gun is dangerous and can cause harm but without the intent to kill, an attempted murder charge is tricky.
There’s a reason that you are frequently baffled.
This criminal is lucky to be alive still. Doesn’t matter what type of gun. Shoot at a law enforcement officer and they will shoot back. It’s always revealing to see who comes down on the criminal’s vs. the law enforcement officer’s side here on this site.
Still having trouble with those plurals.
BASIC just how stupid are you?
This cop didn’t shoot back.
No one here is on the criminal’s side nor said anything that would even suggest that.
The type of gun absolutely 100% does matter. It’s the exact reason for the charge not being attempted murder.
Look, you exposed your exhaustive ignorance again here and now you’re lashing out with even more lies and proof of your subpar knowledge.
Maybe just acknowledge your glaring mistake and sit quietly in the corner for once. Or not. It is fun watching you prove yourself wrong everyday here.
Well, if you read the various releases, you’ll see: “The officer responded with one round.”
That’s usually referred to as shooting back.
Indeed, as she should have. A few folks never read anything other than Edhat though.
It’s all over the Edhat coverage, including this article.
BASIC – you’re pretty much the last person to say a single word about not reading. Especially when you seem to actually believe anyone is taking the criminal’s side here.
I read the first article about this only and may have missed that entirely irrelevant fact here. Oh well, my bad, but it doesn’t change a single thing.
The point remains, you have no idea what you’re talking about here and are simply lying. Either that, or you really are too uneducated to comprehend the words people have typed here.
Glad she shot back, I was actually surprised when I thought she did not.
> A few folks never read anything other than Edhat though.
No such person exists.
I read that she did get off one shot?
Yes, I was mistaken there. Again though, completely irrelevant to my response to BASIC.
I do try not go get in the middle of your hatfield and mccoy fued. Everyone makes them now and again. No harm – no foul.