When Davis Police arrested 19-year-old Davis resident Clayton Garzon last Thursday, he was arrested and booked in the Yolo County Jail, charged with assault causing great bodily injury; committing a hate crime; assault with a deadly weapon; stalking; committing a felony while on release from custody; and inflicting great bodily injury during the commission of a felony.
Despite the charges, and the looming assault with a deadly weapons charges stemming from the September 11 stabbings in Dixon, in Solano County, Mr. Garzon received a $75,000 bail and his family reportedly immediately posted bail, in cash.
Mr. Partida had attended a party at his cousin’s apartment and apparently left his keys there and returned to retrieve them, “when a man began kicking and beating him while yelling homophobic slurs.”
He suffered a fractured skull, bleeding on his brain, multiple fractured bones in his face and a laceration to his head that left a pool of blood on the lawn where he was beaten.
According to his family, the bruising and swelling around his eyes is so bad he still has not been able to open them, along with having a cut under one eye that went all the way though the lid. The trauma to his ear was so severe it caused his ear to swell three times its normal size and it had to be lanced to release the pressure.
The relatively low bail for the violent offense drew outrage from many in the community, and now the Yolo County District Attorney’s office has filed a motion to raise the amount of bail from the initial $75,000 to $500,000.
When Supervising Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton filed charges in the first complaint against Mr. Garzon on Wednesday, the accused, as stated, faced charges that included battery causing serious bodily injury, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, and threatening to cause great bodily injury.
Each of these counts contain hate crime enhancements. Under PC section 422.75, “a person who commits a felony that is a hate crime or attempts to commit a felony that is a hate crime, shall receive an additional term of one, two, or three years in the state prison, at the court’s discretion.”
On Thursday Mr. Hamilton filed a motion to raise bail arguing “changed circumstances.” He argued, “The initial setting of bail failed to include the fact that the defendant’s acts constitute a ‘hate crime.’ “
One defense attorney had told the Vanguard, following the incident, that the $75,000 was roughly in line with the bail schedule – however, a hate crime could add $20,000.
However, bail is largely set at the discretion of the judge. While the $75,000 seems low, given the affluence of Mr. Garzon’s family, it seems likely that even at $500,000, the family would be able to get Mr. Garzon released from custody.
Last September, Mr. Garzon and a 16-year-old from Carmichael were arrested in Davis after the Dixon police, at 1:14 am on a Sunday morning, responded to a fight. There were five victims in the incident – four them were stabbed and one received blunt force trauma to the head.
Mr. Garzon and the 16-year-old were arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon and booked into Solano County Jail and Juvenile Hall, respectively.
Mr. Hamilton’s motion argued that Mr. Garzon “poses a risk to the public, given that the offense committed in Yolo County occurred while the defendant was on release from Solano County.”
“He is clearly a danger to our county, and therefore his bail should reflect that circumstance,” Mr. Hamilton’s motion argued.
Prosecutors are now seeking a March 25, 2013 hearing on the issue of bail, moved up from the previously scheduled April 12, 2013 date.
In the meantime, Mr. Garzon was out on his own recognizance in Solano County following his September arrest. He faced a single count of assault with a deadly weapon in that case. Following his arrest in Yolo County, there was a hearing in Solano where bail was set and Mr. Garzon was placed in custody at the Solano County Jail.
The brutal attack has generated outrage in Davis and a number have expressed anger that Mr. Garzon, from an affluent family, was given such a low bail while others accused of far lesser crimes sit in custody at the Yolo County jail, either with no bail or bail high enough that they can’t pay it.
Last weekend, several hundred people turned out for a vigil in honor of Mr. Partida at Davis’ Central Park.
In the meantime, Mr. Garzon has hired defense attorney Linda Parisi to represent him. Ms. Parisi, a prominent Sacramento-based defense attorney, is notable for representing Robert Hirschfield in the recent death penalty case, among many other high profile cases over the years.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Garzon was out on OR for his involvement in a stabbing where multiple people were stabbed. For the folks who don’t know “OR” or own recognizance is where an individual is released from jail without having to pay bail. Since realignment we are not seeing the OR release of violent felony offenders that have yet to have an arraignment. Thank you AB 109.
I assume you meant to write, we are “now” seeing. Tomorrow I will have a piece on bail that I think will put this into its proper light. In this case, it really does not matter because Garzon was going to get bailed out by his family regardless. One of the points that tomorrow’s piece will raise is how much of a disadvantage that is to people who are not able to bail themselves out and therefore sit in custody pretrial. It’s a burden on the defendants and it’s a huge burden on our system. We are talking 65 to 70 percent of the inmates in county custody are pretrial – many will end up not having to serve meaningful time in custody post-conviction.
” it really does not matter because Garzon was going to get bailed out by his family regardless.”
Maybe, but perhaps there will be additional restrictions on his freedom imposed giving the rest of us better security in our community.
Interesting that you treat this as a report without commentary. It seems that the DA is treating this with an appropriate level of response, seeking higher bail, now that the facts are coming to light. Yet not a single kind word about the DA or the actions of his office.
“Maybe, but perhaps there will be additional restrictions on his freedom imposed giving the rest of us better security in our community.”
I don’t believe that to be the case.
“Interesting that you treat this as a report without commentary. It seems that the DA is treating this with an appropriate level of response, seeking higher bail, now that the facts are coming to light. Yet not a single kind word about the DA or the actions of his office.”
We’ve largely separated commentary from reporting. I’ll have more commentary on this tomorrow however.
[i]We’ve largely separated commentary from reporting. I’ll have more commentary on this tomorrow however.[/i]
That is a good goal. It will be interesting to see how well you do striving to achieve it. It is the way journalism should be done… reporting of the facts separate from commentary. Unfortunately journalists have drifted so far afield of this, I don’t hold out much hope that we will ever see a return to journalistic integrity for dealing with the corruption of reporting from bias. Maybe the Vanguard can help set the example.
Bail is a guarantee that the person will show up in court. I suppose some equate higher bail with an indication about how seriously the DA / the Court is treating the case. If the man’s parents can exert control over their son, I don’t have a problem with him not sitting in jail while he waits for his Court hearings. If he wants to leave town and skip bail, that is their risk. He eventually will be caught. Maybe they can get some real help for him that would be better for him, the community, than having him stew in jail. I can’t see him not spending time in prison over this. I’m afraid that he will be in worse shape when he eventually gets out – more angry, more full of hate, more likely to do more harm. No winners here.
The only thing I would recommend is that all chance of him running into the victim or his family be removed – a restraining order of some miles.
Ryan:
I saw a presentation on this topic on Tuesday. According to George Gascon, the SF DA, bail is a function of three factors:
1. risk of violence
2. risk of re-offending
3. flight risk
So while Garzon has a low flight risk, he has a high risk of violence and re-offending.
First of all I agree with #1 and 2 above at 11:29am.
Secondly I do believe some protections of some kind are due Mikey and his family in particular and the rest of us in general.
Third, fine let them come up with the 1/2 million (I think it’s only 10% they have to pay) even if it means he’s still out.
And from the report: “Following his arrest in Yolo County, there was a hearing in Solano where bail was set and Mr. Garzon was placed in custody at the Solano County Jail.”
So did he post that too and is out or what?
I understand the rationale for the dependency of bail being based on the three factors of:
1.risk of violence
2.risk of re offending
3. risk of flight
However, a fourth factor should be of importance in my mind to effect the optimal outcome. That factor would be treatment and rehabilitation. I would put forward the idea that the best location for Mr. Garzon would be one which eliminates the possibility of him harming any member of our community and in which he himself gets optimal treatment in terms of anger management, violence reduction, and development of a sense of community responsibility. I am not sure that such an environment exists within our community,
or within our society for that matter. But that is what we should be working towards as a goal, especially for youthful offenders who still have a remarkable capacity for change as their brains mature.
Found out that yes, he is out on bail again from Solano.
And Ryan Kelly: “Maybe they can get some real help for him that would be better for him, the community, than having him stew in jail. I can’t see him not spending time in prison over this. I’m afraid that he will be in worse shape when he eventually gets out – more angry, more full of hate, more likely to do more harm. No winners here.
The only thing I would recommend is that all chance of him running into the victim or his family be removed – a restraining order of some miles.”
Very wise words, it would be good if the dude could be helped. But I have seen this type of attitude before in young men. I don’t know what might penetrate, but I am no expert.
How did they miss the fact he was dangerous and had inflicted great bodily harm the first time they let him out? I would think the guy who had the crap beaten out of him would have been a clue.
This story contains the following: “According to his family, the bruising and swelling around his eyes is so bad he still has not been able to open them, along with having a cut under one eye that went all the way through the lid. “
I am glad to report that this is now in the past. My husband and I visited Mikey this evening, as we do know him personally. Mikey himself gave me permission to write an update here, that he is doing fairly well, his eyes are much better though he did need a recent surgery and he is making progress in his extensive rehab that extends to both body and brain. Though it is all going to take some time, he hopes of course to recover fully.
Thank you for that update, glad he’s doing fairly well and improving.
FYI, updated 2013 –
BAIL AND OWN-RECOGNIZANCE RELEASE
CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES – State of California
[url]http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/protem/pubs/bg55.pdf/[/url]