By Hannah Adams
STANISLAUS, CA —Andres Jimenez came to Stanislaus County Superior Court last week with several lawyers, and a considerable amount of charges.
But when a simple arraignment on one of the charges transitioned to a bail motion hearing, Preciliano Martinez, Jimenez’s main attorney, admitted the defense wasn’t prepared for the discussion that the prosecutor suggested.
During the initial arraignment, Jimenez was formally charged with four counts for the most recent case that occurred on Sept. 30 2021: possessing a controlled substance while in immediate possession of a firearm, possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, possessing ammunition while being a convicted felon and resisting arrest.
Outside of this case, Jimenez is on bail for two separate cases and has a preexisting serious felony.
Once Jimenez’s charges were formally read to him, Martinez asked to set the preceding cases for jury trial settings while setting the new case for a preliminary hearing setting.
Reed Wagner, the assistant public defender of one of Jimenez’s past cases, also requested that his matter be trailed.
The deputy district attorney of the case, Sara DeLurdes Sousa, interjected after the defense proposition, requesting to be heard about Jimenez’s status of new matters.
Sousa motioned for Jimenez to be jailed and for bail to be raised from $285,000 to $370,000; this proposal was established with the full context of Jimenez’s anterior criminal record.
Starting in 2012 with a residential burglary, Jimenez added three more counts of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, on March 22, 2018, April 13, 2021 and Sept. 30 ,2021, respectively.
The DDA argued Jimenez is considered dangerous because of the list of allegations against him, and thus deserves a befitting consequence.
“He is not supposed to have firearms in his possession, and yet he continues to disobey the law and disregard his terms of being a convicted felon. And with that, the People would request that bail be set and the defendant be remanded, as he does pose a threat to public safety,” said DDA Sousa.
Heeding the DDA’s account, Martinez admitted that he was “at a loss,” because he was not prepared for the sudden trajectory change of the arraignment.
“I don’t know what the facts are; I didn’t come to argue a bail motion today,” Martinez said.
Judge Dawna Reeves then raised Jimenez’s financial status in relation to how he handled his cases.
“Mr. Jimenez has four cases before the court, three with private counsel including the newest one, and one with the public defender. He’s posted a significant amount of bail in each case. If he can afford to hire private counsel in three felony cases, and post bail, why does he have the public defender at county expense in one case?” asked the judge.
Martinez again admitted that he lacked information regarding the circumstances of the preceding cases. He then proposed that the matter be put over one week in order for him to investigate and prepare for the bail motion.
As a temporary solution, Martinez suggested that the court order Jimenez to not be in possession of firearms or in control of any firearms as part of his release until they have a motion on the bail.
Judge Reeves, however, decided not to wait on finalizing the bail matter in light of the considerable number of cases and hefty amount of bail that has already been proffered.
After a period of consideration, Reeves overruled the bail motion, asserting the belief that raising the amount would not be an effective countermeasure to Jimenez’s actions.
“Increasing bail from $285,000 to $370,000 does not increase public safety. I’m going to leave his bail at $285,000, but I’m going to condition his release on bail on some additional considerations. This is what I need you to understand, Mr. Jimenez: more money is not going to make the community safe.”
Omitting the option of raising the bail, Judge Reeves presented her alternative outcomes that she deduced.
“The only thing that I can do to keep the people of the community safe in this situation is to place you in custody or put restrictions on your release. So I’m going to put restrictions on your release, and I’m going to promise you that if you violate any of these restrictions, you’re going to be in custody on no bail until all four of the cases are resolved,” the judge said.
As a condition of release on the bail bonds currently posted for each case, Jimenez must surrender to search for firearms and controlled substances his person, his vehicle and any property under his control, and his residence.
He must also not own or control any firearms, ammunition or ammunition feeding devices, which Reeves broadly defined as any magazine or clip.
Additionally, Jimenez cannot miss court nor be late to it, and he cannot pick up any additional law violations.
Judge Reeves then reinforced her aforementioned assertion, stating that if he violates any of those terms, “[he’ll] have no bail (and be jailed) in all four cases.”
Martinez requested that the newest case be rescheduled to a discovery trial setting on Jan. 27 in order to gain more insight on Jimenez’s record.
Jimenez’s preceding cases are also set to be finalized on the same date in trial settings — two jury trials and a probation violation hearing, respectively.
