By Emma Kantor
WOODLAND, CA – As divulged here in Yolo County Superior Court Tuesday, a previous minute order transcript that lacked specificity regarding the terms and timeframes of a protective order caused confusion when probation expired.
The accused (the Vanguard does not normally use the name of misdemeanor accused) faced misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct back in May 2020. He was found to be guilty of this charge in December 2020 where he sentenced to one day in jail, a $450 fine, and one year of probation.
On Tuesday, he appeared in court in front of Judge Tom Dyer to show proof of completion of an anger management course.
Deputy Public Defender Valerie Nuding provided proof to Deputy District Attorney Jose Figueroa that the accused completed his 10-week treatment program.
The agreement was that if he complete that program as well as the community service that he completed last week then probation would terminate as successful.
PD Nuding also raised one more issue on this matter regarding a protective order that was in place that she hoped the court would make a ruling on—the CPO had no date put as to the termination of the order so it automatically reverts to three years.
Nuding said that she ran the transcript from when this order was granted in 2020 and it seemed that Judge David Rosenberg said multiple times that the order was “a term of probation.”
She argued that as probation is now expiring, the court dissolve the protective order.
DDA Figueroa pointed out that the protective order itself did not say that it was a term of probation, and requested to briefly pass the case to allow him time to read the transcript provided to him by Nuding
When this case returned on the record, and after he reviewed the transcript, Figueroa pointed out that the CPO was not an addition to the terms of probation but rather its own order.
He also explained that since there is no other expiration date noted, then the protective order is good for three years.
PD Nuding opposed that, insisting that although there is nothing stated in the transcript regarding the expiration date of the order, the court did say that the term of probation is that “you have no contact with… And stay away from these addresses….”
She argued that while it was not stated specifically on the order, Judge Rosenberg implied the no-contact order to be a term of probation since he did specify having no contact with a specific individual was one of the terms.
Judge Dyer ultimately decided that if the expiration date is not specified on the order itself, it is presumed to last three years. Based on what he read on the entire transcript, he found that the CPO will last for three years.
With that being said, Judge Dyer did tell PD Nuding that this issue can be brought forward to Judge Rosenberg for a change in the order if so desired.
